That Aud Smell

It’s a family birthday tonight. I’ll read this later. I am humbled by the level of engagement by a poster I respect.

The question of “should he lose his job” us not only academic at this point, it seems to ignore the peculiar, unique circumstances of being employed as an NFL player. In the NFL’s multi-billion dollar entertainment industry, the brands are paramount. Goodell talks un-ironically about “protecting the shield” (the NFL logo). Araiza’s currently implicated in an alleged gruesome sex assault, rape. Absent really compelling exculpatory evidence - of which there is apparently none here - he’s going to get cut if he can’t get put on the exempt list or some such. The Bills cannot allow the brand to suffer in order to give Araiza the most fair treatment and process possible. That’s just the nature of the business.

He said it appears to be the case. The language I bolded.

So we’re already setting aside her allegations that she was bombed when she began talking to Araiza (sp?) - and therefore potentially incapable of consent - and that she he then roofied a new drink for her - and that she was then forced face down onto a bed where she went in and out of consciousness as she was raped by several men? Gah. Okay. I took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. In my defense, I was walking the dog. Also, your OP at least allowed for that interpretation (?). My bad, though. I also stand by my takes - (1) didn’t like the use of a photo on the Tweet (otoh, I acknowledge a neutral (albeit not great) reason it appeared there), (2) didn’t like that it was hunky pic (otoh, the doofus smiley headshot could have been worse in some ways). I would have preferred a neutral team graphic if one were needed.

My son just said the same thing. Not unfair. I still don’t like the hunky heartthrob quality of the pic. To your question: There was a report last night that punter visits are being scheduled. I’ll repost spotrac’s listing of FA punters.

The ability of a heterosexual guy to say that another guy looks hunky (handsome, etc. - choose your word) in a photo is no cause for self reflection. The inability to do so, OTOH … . As my Gen Z son pointed out: They used the exact same content to announce it on Instagram, so, if they broadcast the exact same post across multiple social media platforms, then they needed to use a photo (for Instagram). So, an interest in doing it quickly probably resulted in the use of a photo on platforms where it wasn’t at all necessary. Even so. They should have used his normie team head shot.

I’m wondering whether there’s been turnover with the Bills social media team. Posting a hunky picture of the guy as part of the Tweet announcing his release is a weird (bad) choice.

It’s the CBA that governs here moreso than NY law. And NFL players get cut all the time for (alleged) acts of moral turpitude. I’m not sure what the NFLPA would be able to grieve here. Me neither. She had the scoop first on Twitter.

Not sure what the legalities are. Perhaps they’re looking to void his contract rather than just cut him.

fwiw

Odd.

I think we have differing definitions of “new” information. All of the relevant events - perhaps outside of their being framed in legal pleadings - occurred many months ago. I’m not necessarily talking about what the Bills knew; I’m talking about what they should have known. If they just learned new information a few days ago, I’m asking why they’re only learning it now when it was knowable in July.

I was speaking purely - and rather specifically- from the standpoint of not wanting a junior lawyer to get saddled with blame. That’s all. Just a side note, really.

Or they get filed when the family feels the police are dragging their feet. There’s a story out there attributing such concern from the girl’s father. He was quoted (or interpolated (?)) as saying the defendants’ status as football players was influencing the pace of the investigation … which seemed off to me. This ain’t Alabama — it’s SDSU.

Which begs the question about how thorough their initial investigation could have been. There’s no new information that’s emerged on this matter. They’re just late in getting it. And the fault for that may well be theirs.

I’ve heard it reported that the alleged conduct falls outside the commissioner’s jurisdiction. Which is too bad. I think so? But McDermott in his presser last night kept saying that they have a lot of work to do on the matter.

I agree that the team needs time to investigate. It sounds to me like that clock started ticking - or should have started ticking - several weeks ago. It sounds like the team put itself in a bad position by not following up diligently when they should have. So now they want (need) more time, but the public perception is - not unfairly - that it’s past time when something should have been done or decided - one way or the other. I keep seeing that Bills in-house attorney’s name mentioned (DeAngelo). I’m hoping she won’t be scapegoated on the timing and scope of the team’s investigation.

Initial indications weigh heavily against that. Besides which: At a minimum, he’s already essentially admitted that he had sex with a 17 year old.

Why would the Bills risk squandering the incredible goodwill they’ve cultivated over a rookie punter? So strange.

They mean it to imply that their knowledge of the complaint’s allegations post-dates their cutting Haack. But, as you say, they’re being vague about it so they can avoid stepping in it. The kinds of specific - and horrific - allegations found in that complaint could (should?) have been enough to tip the balance against a player who was in a close competition. (From what I read in the camp coverage, it was a close competition.)

Bills seem to say otherwise:

Oy vey. If the Bills knew about the complaint’s allegations when they cut Haack — yuck.

Knowing of the report when they cut Haack is almost as bad (or as bad?) as knowing when they drafted him.

fwiw

Welp.