McDermott/Beane press conference 8/27: Matt Araiza released

[Beck Water]

2 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

They should have watched Sean and Beane. They were really dumb. They came out and condemned sexual assault and then said they'd only take questions about football.

 

One of the first questions was, "the Buffalo Bills said somethings are more important than football, and this is one of those things. Do you agree with them?"

 

Well....that's positive PR for how the Bills handled this I guess.

 

Does anyone know if the player accused in the civil suit is still on the team?  One of them was said to be no longer on the team, but the other one was said to be a "redshirt freshman"

[Airseven]

Lots of hero coverage now.

[Motorin']

6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Well....that's positive PR for how the Bills handled this I guess.

 

Does anyone know if the player accused in the civil suit is still on the team?  One of them was said to be no longer on the team, but the other one was said to be a "redshirt freshman"

 

They did say the two other guys names in the suit are not currently on the team. 

[Beck Water]

23 minutes ago, Airseven said:

Lots of hero coverage now.

 

??

[Augie]

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Good insight and comments by Morse (continued in the Twitter comments too). Doesnt seem that it will have too bad of an impact on the team.

 

Thanks for that. That is our vet speaking out as the voice of the locker room. He could not have done much better there. We needed to hear from the locker room, we’ve done that, now let’s move on. I know, everybody will be asked, but I just wish they could respond “See what Mitch said”. 

 

In a strange kind of way, this may help bring them even closer as a team.  Go thru rough times and you just have to get tougher, I promise. 

[Sierra Foothills]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

The real bottom line is that the whole thing is just like a football play.  Ask everyone to perform as well as they can, run the play, and then move on.  Avoid turnovers, sacks, tackles for loss.   That's exactly what happened here.  Beane and McDermott and others did their jobs.  Some guys didn't execute perfectly, but on plenty of successful football plays guys don't execute perfectly, and the play still succeeds.  This was a situation where there wouldn't be a touchdown, but they avoided a turnover, a sack, and a tackle for a loss  Move on the next play.  

 

I've said from the beginning that the Bills did some things well and other things not so well. I also said you could probably give them a numerical grade if you wanted to. I have never said the Bills botched this but I have said they've made at least two missteps.

 

2 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

You could've just said "profit".

 

Do you think that posters should be giving advice to others about how to communicate their thoughts?

 

Was there a good reason you feel compelled to suggest edits to my posts?

 

Would you like me to proofread your material and make suggestions?

 

2 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

When should they have released Araiza in your mind? Immediately after he received a text from this turd?

 

 

You can fault McDermott for getting emotionally attached to his players (obvious from Friday's post-game press conference) if you want. But I wouldn't.

 

The Bills didn't really need to release Araiza. Hell, the Browns just signed a guy who's been accused of raping 20+ women to a giant contract. Bills could've held on to Araiza as long as it took for this situation to be resolved if they really wanted.

 

But they did release him. Precisely when they should have. And I've never, ever had issue with calling the Bills out when they deserve it.

 

Firstly the Watson situation isn't very similar to the Araiza situation and to your comment that the "Bills could've held on to Araiza as long as it took for this situation to be resolved if they really wanted"  I'd say that this belief of yours brings your judgement and competency into question. 

 

As far as what the Bills should have done, I think they should have placed Araiza on administrative leave/paid suspension on August 1st when they first heard from the plaintiff's lawyer. I think they should have done this and not issued a statement other than saying that it was a private matter.

 

YES, a paid leave/suspension for Araiza would have been the right move if they were really concerned about protecting their culture and their reputation for integrity. Following this move would be a firestorm of discovery by the media outlets as to why Araiza was placed on leave and then possibly hastened statements and actions by the lawyers involved. This move from the Bills on August 1st would have initiated a sequence of actions which would have resulted in a resolution of the situation by around mid-August. The pendulum would have swung to guilt and then maybe back towards innocence and either way the team would be positioned to proceed appropriately. In addition, by placing him on leave/suspension they could have said that they didn't rush to judgement and that they protected the spirit of due process as much as was possible. 

[Wayne Arnold]

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

Do you think that posters should be giving advice to others about how to communicate their thoughts?

 

Was there a good reason you feel compelled to suggest edits to my posts?

 

Would you like me to proofread your material and make suggestions?

 

It's important not to distract from the real reason for why American news media is failing us as a society - and it's MONEY/GREED. That's it. We should call it out directly as opposed to dancing around it.

[Wayne Arnold]

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

Firstly the Watson situation isn't very similar to the Araiza situation and to your comment that the "Bills could've held on to Araiza as long as it took for this situation to be resolved if they really wanted"  I'd say that this belief of yours brings your judgement and competency into question. 

 

As far as what the Bills should have done, I think they should have placed Araiza on administrative leave/paid suspension on August 1st when they first heard from the plaintiff's lawyer. I think they should have done this and not issued a statement other than saying that it was a private matter.

 

YES, a paid leave/suspension for Araiza would have been the right move if they were really concerned about protecting their culture and their reputation for integrity. Following this move would be a firestorm of discovery by the media outlets as to why Araiza was placed on leave and then possibly hastened statements and actions by the lawyers involved. This move from the Bills on August 1st would have initiated a sequence of actions which would have resulted in a resolution of the situation by around mid-August. The pendulum would have swung to guilt and then maybe back towards innocence and either way the team would be positioned to proceed appropriately. In addition, by placing him on leave/suspension they could have said that they didn't rush to judgement and that they protected the spirit of due process as much as was possible. 

 

Only the league can place players on administrative leave. And that only occurs when the player is formally charged with a felony or violent crime. 

 

So I ask again, since you're the ultimate source of integrity, morality and judgement - when should they have released him?

[4merper4mer]

6 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

I used to work in news. I was partly inspired by Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate work and I grew up watching Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News.

 

I'm the first to criticize the current state of the news media with their shyt disturbing and prioritizing of clicks, traffic, visitors, and ratings above actual journalism. I hate the lack of objectivity by news outlets that began with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

 

That said, in reading this topic many of you have a very limited view on the cost/benefit of the news media and also the job that the Bills beat writers are doing with Araiza-gate.

 

A few of you don't understand what the world would be like if the media didn't exist. Having free media (as opposed to state-run media) asking even stupid questions is better than living in a world where an organization get a free pass because there's zero media scrutiny. Even "bad media" keeps people and organizations honest.

 

Others here think the reporting is biased against the team and that the team is being treated too harshly. It seems like most of these "poor Bills" reactions are homerism (and I'm not referring to the works of Homer). As I stated upstream, objectively the Bills have made some missteps during this controversy. MINIMALLY:

• The Bills either willfully (or not) ignored information that other teams were aware of... that Araiza and the SDSU football team were the subject of a rape investigation.
• The Bills did not maintain contact with the plaintiff's lawyer who reached out to the team to make them aware of the investigation. Plaintiff's lawyer even followed up with the Bills but the club did not respond. The Bills had zero to gain and much to lose (even from a pure optics standpoint) by not staying engaged with the plaintiffs lawyer.

Based on the timing of Araiza's release it's clear the Bills were not standing on principle so much as they were bowing to public pressure.  Bills Head Coach Sean McDermott appeared on Barstool Sports on Tuesday 8/23/22 and said what a "great kid" Araiza was. This was 22 days after the plaintiff's attorney spoke to the Bills attorney and 2 days before the Bills said they had conducted a "thorough investigation. How much was McDermott kept in the dark about what was going on? Isn't this a mishandling of the situation?

 

When the Bills released Araiza they were not standing up for him or for due process nor were they supporting their "culture." Releasing Araiza became necessary and unavoidable (except in the opinions of a few delusional posters here).

 

As for the performance of Skurski, Graham, Gaughan and the others who have come under criticism, I haven't listened to the press conferences so I can't speak to the quality of the questions but I have read their pieces and have no problems with what these guys have written and reported. Also it seems like for context, most of you have not read the Araiza articles that have been published in the major newspapers. The local media is doing just fine with their reporting.

That’s a bit one sided wouldn’t you say?  One of the reporters cited a “direct quote” from Araiza in phrasing a question to Beane.  I think it was Tim Graham.  The “direct quote” he referenced was from the plaintiff’s lawyer’s description of phone call he says took place between the plaintiff and Araiza with police listening in.  In what journalistic world would that be considered a “direct quote”?  How is a question like that in any way professional?  On what planet should Beane take a statement from an adversarial lawyer as admission of guilt by Araiza as the reporter seemed to expect?

 

There are countless other examples of questions asked, articles written and spoken opinions by reporters that simply lack not only context, but factual premises.  One example is the new host of GMFB saying some teams had “police reports” before the draft that should have been shared league wide.  While I agree with her premise that info like this should be shared, the FACT is that no police report exists even today.  There may have been rumors or stories, but calling them police reports is incorrect.  Unlike the dishonorable reporter at the Bills presser, she seemed to be trying to get to the truth, but she was still wrong on facts.  Do people really expect an organization that takes actions at the whim of lying or ignorant reporters because they are reporters?  Shirley.
 

A free press does contribute to society and they are permitted to be biased, as they should be, but when they base their spin on inaccuracies or flat out falsehoods, they should be called on it.  
 

The Bills have stated they wanted to base their decision on facts but that it was difficult to gather all facts on this timeline and that Araiza has more to worry about than football.  Although skepticism is warranted on any topic like this, nothing they have done publicly has proven their statement false.  They are also constrained in how much they can share about what they did and how.  Their track record is strong as well.  
 

They weren’t perfect and they stated this, but the skewering they are getting is beyond unwarranted. 

[Beck Water]

5 hours ago, UKBillFan said:

Sorry to be pedantic, but wasn’t Watson charged with multiple accounts of sexual assault rather than rape?

 

Watson wasn't charged with anything.  There were several cases where charges were under consideration, but no charges were filed.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/11/deshaun-watson-will-not-face-criminal-charges/

 

Correct that the allegations Watson faced were "sexual misconduct", not rape

[Sierra Foothills]

43 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

It's important not to distract from the real reason for why American news media is failing us as a society - and it's MONEY/GREED. That's it. We should call it out directly as opposed to dancing around it.

 

As I said, I worked in the business. I saw the greed. It's a huge part of the problem with the news media but it's not the only one. And really it almost goes without saying because greed is the same problem which afflicts all industries... it's a given.

 

13 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

Only the league can place players on administrative leave. And that only occurs when the player is formally charged with a felony or violent crime. 

 

So I ask again, since you're the ultimate source of integrity, morality and judgement - when should they have released him?

 

To the bolded I have never claimed to be a person of great integrity or character but I understand you're butt hurt because I pointed out your silly statement that the Bills could have hung onto Araiza if they wanted to. I understand and forgive your anger.

 

To the questions, IF a team cannot put a player on leave, then the team should have approached the league, told them of the situation and requested that THEY place the player on administrative leave. OR, if that wasn't possible they should have told Araiza that he should request a personal leave. Whatever obstacles you would like to conjure up, there's always a workaround. The point is the same... he should have been put on ice.

 

As for the timing, there was no time better than what I already stated... the day of or directly after the conversation with the plaintiff's attorney.

 

5 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

That’s a bit one sided wouldn’t you say?  One of the reporters cited a “direct quote” from Araiza in phrasing a question to Beane.  I think it was Tim Graham.  The “direct quote” he referenced was from the plaintiff’s lawyer’s description of phone call he says took place between the plaintiff and Araiza with police listening in.  In what journalistic world would that be considered a “direct quote”?  How is a question like that in any way professional?  On what planet should Beane take a statement from an adversarial lawyer as admission of guilt by Araiza as the reporter seemed to expect?

 

There are countless other examples of questions asked, articles written and spoken opinions by reporters that simply lack not only context, but factual premises.  One example is the new host of GMFB saying some teams had “police reports” before the draft that should have been shared league wide.  While I agree with her premise that info like this should be shared, the FACT is that no police report exists even today.  There may have been rumors or stories, but calling them police reports is incorrect.  Unlike the dishonorable reporter at the Bills presser, she seemed to be trying to get to the truth, but she was still wrong on facts.  Do people really expect an organization that takes actions at the whim of lying or ignorant reporters because they are reporters?  Shirley.
 

A free press does contribute to society and they are permitted to be biased, as they should be, but when they base their spin on inaccuracies or flat out falsehoods, they should be called on it.  
 

The Bills have stated they wanted to base their decision on facts but that it was difficult to gather all facts on this timeline and that Araiza has more to worry about than football.  Although skepticism is warranted on any topic like this, nothing they have done publicly has proven their statement false.  They are also constrained in how much they can share about what they did and how.  Their track record is strong as well.  
 

They weren’t perfect and they stated this, but the skewering they are getting is beyond unwarranted. 

 

I previously stated that I hadn't listened to the press conferences. I said I was judging the media based on what was written. Based on the written word I have no major objections to the treatment that the Bills are receiving.

 

Were the Bills flawless in their handling of the situation?

 

No.

 

Is life unfair?

 

Sometimes it is.

 

In this particular case does the punishment fit the crime?

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

When you're upper management in a multi-billion dollar industry are you paid the big bucks to make decisions and live with the consequences?

 

Absolutely.

 

I think the main thing the media might be missing is that the Bills have been a top class organization for going on 6 years. One mishandled situation out of dozens of perfectly executed situations shouldn't change that. But recency bias is something that all workers have to deal with.

[Beck Water]

5 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said:

When should they have released Araiza in your mind? Immediately after he received a text from this turd?

 

No

 

In fact, I expect in general, sports organizations may have a policy not to respond until there's a civil or criminal proceeding.  They probably get more cranks calling with demands and accusations than we know about.

 

However in this case, the turd was linked to two articles about a gang rape involving SDSU players, one of which gave graphic details.  So it should have been clear that he was not your average crank caller and his call deserved investigation and follow-up.  Which I believe it likely received, quality and depth known to OBD.

 

I've given my answer to "when should they have released Araisa?" in other posts.

 

5 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said:

You can fault McDermott for getting emotionally attached to his players (obvious from Friday's post-game press conference) if you want. But I wouldn't.

 

I'm not sure McDermott's emotions were obviously caused by emotional attachment to his players.  I think he was shaken by what he read in the lawsuit.  YMMV

 

5 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said:

The Bills didn't really need to release Araiza. Hell, the Browns just signed a guy who's been accused of raping 20+ women to a giant contract. Bills could've held on to Araiza as long as it took for this situation to be resolved if they really wanted.

 

Yes, the Bills needed to release Araisa.   This would have been a divisive distraction in the locker room and to the season.

 

Deshaun Watson was not accused of raping 20+ women - the allegation was sexual misconduct or indecent conduct, I think there may have been 1 or 2 more serious.

 

5 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said:

But they did release him. Precisely when they should have.

 

Disagree.  I think they had nearly 3 weeks to gather and sort what information they could, and once it was clear this wasn't a crank call but a serious matter that would loom over Araisa for a while, they could have quietly released Araisa and kept Haack last Tuesday.  That would have been the "low ripple" approach.

[Wayne Arnold]

11 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

As I said, I worked in the business. I saw the greed. It's a huge part of the problem with the news media but it's not the only one. And really it almost goes without saying because greed is the same problem which afflicts all industries... it's a given.

 

Not nearly the given that you think. 

 

16 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

To the questions, IF a team cannot put a player on leave, then the team should have approached the league, told them of the situation and requested that THEY place the player on administrative leave. OR, if that wasn't possible they should have told Araiza that he should request a personal leave. Whatever obstacles you would like to conjure up, there's always a workaround. The point is the same... he should have been put on ice.

 

As for the timing, there was no time better than what I already stated... the day of or directly after the conversation with the plaintiff's attorney.

 

What would "personal leave" have accomplished? The news still would have come out and Araiza would still be employed by the team and they would have still been pressured to release him.

[4merper4mer]

24 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

As I said, I worked in the business. I saw the greed. It's a huge part of the problem with the news media but it's not the only one. And really it almost goes without saying because greed is the same problem which afflicts all industries... it's a given.

 

 

To the bolded I have never claimed to be a person of great integrity or character but I understand you're butt hurt because I pointed out your silly statement that the Bills could have hung onto Araiza if they wanted to. I understand and forgive your anger.

 

To the questions, IF a team cannot put a player on leave, then the team should have approached the league, told them of the situation and requested that THEY place the player on administrative leave. OR, if that wasn't possible they should have told Araiza that he should request a personal leave. Whatever obstacles you would like to conjure up, there's always a workaround. The point is the same... he should have been put on ice.

 

As for the timing, there was no time better than what I already stated... the day of or directly after the conversation with the plaintiff's attorney.

 

 

I previously stated that I hadn't listened to the press conferences. I said I was judging the media based on what was written. Based on the written word I have no major objections to the treatment that the Bills are receiving.

 

Were the Bills flawless in their handling of the situation?

 

No.

 

Is life unfair?

 

Sometimes it is.

 

In this particular case does the punishment fit the crime?

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

When you're upper management in a multi-billion dollar industry are you paid the big bucks to make decisions and live with the consequences?

 

Absolutely.

 

I think the main thing the media might be missing is that the Bills have been a top class organization for going on 6 years. One mishandled situation out of dozens of perfectly executed situations shouldn't change that. But recency bias is something that all workers have to deal with.

The media, like anything else, is made up of individuals.  You wrote a dissertation about how the world is a better place because of the media and how we are all too stupid to understand this basic fact.  I pointed out how egregiously unprofessional some members of the media have been.  You can easily access the press conference if you’d like.  I haven’t read every article.  I’m sure some are well done.  Not all of them are.  
 

Even your answers above, stated as remedies for what the Bills could or should have done are factually impossible.  The Bills could not approach the league wrt administrative leave for Araiza as the incident in question happened before he was in the NFL.  Araiza apparently told the Bills he had nothing to do with anything….they can’t force him to take a personal leave.  In fact there is NOT ALWAYS a work around even if you think there should be.  Maybe there was one in this case but so far nothing you have proposed is viable.  There is a union involved, The police cannot share anything with the Bills, there are likely things the Bills know but cannot share and on and on.  The press has not highlighted these things as near as I can tell yet they are happy to be critical of the Bills because all of these answers should have been easy.  It’s a joke.

[Sierra Foothills]

38 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

Not nearly the given that you think. 

 

 

What would "personal leave" have accomplished? The news still would have come out and Araiza would still be employed by the team and they would have still been pressured to release him.

 

Sorry to be an ####### btw. I try to hide that part of me but it's sometimes beyond my control.

 

As mentioned by a quality poster in this topic, the consolidation of the media industry into "~5 companies" is well known and probably the biggest part of the problem with the industry (and all industries IMO). I believe the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine is also a contributing factor. I also believe the skirting of the "Equal Time" rules is another incremental step in the wrong direction. There are other smaller problems that have to do with social media, our educational system, and other things.

 

As for what a personal leave would have accomplished, it would have distanced the team from the player while still retaining the player. By doing this the Bills would still be "standing by the player" and "protecting the spirit of due process" and at the same time "protecting their culture."

 

Maybe the better suggestion is the one by Beck Water where they kept Haack and simply cut Araiza. Less straight forward but easier.

 

At any rate I think the Bills should have taken the opportunity of the July 30th conversation to distance themselves from the player. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Sierra Foothills

[Sierra Foothills]

8 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

The media, like anything else, is made up of individuals.  You wrote a dissertation about how the world is a better place because of the media and how we are all too stupid to understand this basic fact.  I pointed out how egregiously unprofessional some members of the media have been.  You can easily access the press conference if you’d like.  I haven’t read every article.  I’m sure some are well done.  Not all of them are.  
 

Even your answers above, stated as remedies for what the Bills could or should have done are factually impossible.  The Bills could not approach the league wrt administrative leave for Araiza as the incident in question happened before he was in the NFL.  Araiza apparently told the Bills he had nothing to do with anything….they can’t force him to take a personal leave.  In fact there is NOT ALWAYS a work around even if you think there should be.  Maybe there was one in this case but so far nothing you have proposed is viable.  There is a union involved, The police cannot share anything with the Bills, there are likely things the Bills know but cannot share and on and on.  The press has not highlighted these things as near as I can tell yet they are happy to be critical of the Bills because all of these answers should have been easy.  It’s a joke.

 

To the bolded, I did not write "you are all too stupid." What I actually wrote was:

 

"That said, in reading this topic many of you have a very limited view on the cost/benefit of the news media and also the job that the Bills beat writers are doing with Araiza-gate.

 

A few of you don't understand what the world would be like if the media didn't exist. Having free media (as opposed to state-run media) asking even stupid questions is better than living in a world where an organization get a free pass because there's zero media scrutiny. Even "bad media" keeps people and organizations honest.

 

Others here think..."

 

So please don't misrepresent what I wrote. Let's try not to waste each other's time.

 

If you don't want to understand what I'm saying that's fine. But let me try one more time:

 

I don't care how they accomplished distancing themselves from Araiza after speaking with the plaintiff's attorney on July 31st... they should have taken that opportunity to do so. If there was no workaround then they should have cut him... anything other than what they did which was waiting until they were forced to cut him.

 

Is that better???

[Beck Water]

13 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

As for what a personal leave would have accomplished, it would have distanced the team from the player while still retaining the player. By doing this the Bills would still be "standing by the player" and "protecting the spirit of due process" and at the same time "protecting their culture."

 

This is kind of an aside, but I've been trying to find if the NFL has a "personal leave" policy for players, and I haven't found one.  Personal leave for employees, yes.  We do occasionally see news about players entering treatment for drug or alcohol abuse or mental health issues, so there must be a provision for it. but of course those are fundamentally health issues

 

I think a part of the problem here is the options being limited by the CBA and its exclusion of pre-draft events from league discipline.

 

I agree that in an ordinary industry, announcing that "Mr Voldemort has been placed on administrative leave pending resolution of his legal issues" is a standard way of the company dissociating itself from someone facing serious legal allegations, while allowing them to keep their job pending due process.  I'm just unclear on what options for leave were actually available to the Bills under the CBA.

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Beck Water

[Sierra Foothills]

3 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

This is kind of an aside, but I've been trying to find if the NFL has a "personal leave" policy for players, and I haven't found one.  Personal leave for employees, yes.  We do occasionally see news about players entering treatment for drug or alcohol abuse or mental health issues, so there must be a provision for it. but of course those are fundamentally health issues

 

I think a part of the problem here is the options being limited by the CBA and its exclusion of pre-draft events from league discipline.

 

I agree that in an ordinary industry, announcing that "Mr Voldemort has been placed on administrative leave pending resolution of his legal issues" is a standard way of the company dissociating itself from someone facing serious legal allegations, while allowing them to keep their job pending due process.  I'm just unclear on what options for leave were actually available to the Bills under the CBA.

 

 

For my own part I'm not going to go digging for procedural ways to accomplish what I proposed even though nothing short of doing that would satisfy some posters here... 

 

Related to leaves of absence, Tom Brady was gone for 11 days.

 

Maybe someone here can explain the technical procedure for that.

 

 

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Sierra Foothills said:

Sorry to be an ####### btw. I try to hide that part of me but it's sometimes beyond my control.

 

As mentioned by a quality poster in this topic, the consolidation of the media industry into "~5 companies" is well known and probably the biggest part of the problem with the industry (and all industries IMO). I believe the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine is also a contributing factor. I also believe the skirting of the "Equal Time" rules is another incremental step in the wrong direction.

 

As for what a personal leave would have accomplished, it would have distanced the team from the player while still retaining the player. By doing this the Bills would still be "standing by the player" and "protecting the spirit of due process" and at the same time "protecting their culture."

 

Maybe the better suggestion is the one where they kept Haack and simply cut Araiza.

 

At any rate I think the Bills should have taken the opportunity of the July 30th conversation to distance themselves from the player. 

 

With the benefit of hindsight, sure.  At the time, I'm sure Araiza's lawyer laid-out his defense to the Bills and told them the statutory rape charge wouldn't stick and that the other stuff was baseless allegations as far as Araiza was concerned (one or both of the other alleged rapists might be charged, I don't know).  And without criminal charges (which, again, I'm sure P's attorney was told weren't coming, hence the civil suit), they figured nothing further would happen.  I'm sure it surprised everyone when the civil suit was filed.  

[4merper4mer]

Just now, Sierra Foothills said:

 

To the bolded, I did not write "you are all too stupid." What I actually wrote was:

 

"That said, in reading this topic many of you have a very limited view on the cost/benefit of the news media and also the job that the Bills beat writers are doing with Araiza-gate.

 

A few of you don't understand what the world would be like if the media didn't exist. Having free media (as opposed to state-run media) asking even stupid questions is better than living in a world where an organization get a free pass because there's zero media scrutiny. Even "bad media" keeps people and organizations honest.

 

Others here think..."

 

So please don't misrepresent what I wrote. Let's try not to waste each other's time.

 

If you don't want to understand what I'm saying that's fine. But let me try one more time:

 

I don't care how they accomplished distancing themselves from Araiza after speaking with the plaintiff's attorney on July 31st... they should have taken that opportunity to do so. If there was no workaround then they should have cut him... anything other than what they did which was waiting until they were forced to cut him.

 

Is that better???

You just re-read that and you don’t think it looks like you’re calling people stupid?  Shirley.

 

I’ll grant you that “ many of you” doesn’t equal “all of you” but come on.  Now you’re implying I don’t want to understand what you’re  saying…another shot at my intelligence and/or honesty.   I do understand what you’re saying though.  You’re just wrong.

 

To the July 31 comment:  In the worldview you just described, any lawyer with any story could call any team and target any player at any time.  You’d have that player go away for a while.  Can you see any circumstances where this approach might not work out all that well?  In this case at this time there appears to be something very real at the root.  But even now it is not fully understood from any objective source of information anywhere.
 

Just in Araiza’s case….McDermott walks into the locker room on August 1 to a few questions like: where’s Matt?  His answer?  Well a lawyer called with a story that we have no objective information about but we told Matt to stay away for a while anyway.   Fast forward two weeks and for the sake of argument say the whole thing turned out to be a hoax.  You’re McDermott:  let’s hear what you tell the team.  Oh also let’s hear what you told the NLFPA in the first place when Araiza complained and you had just broken 717 union rules.
 

Seriously dude you sound like the professor in Back to School trying to explain business to Thornton Mellon.