UKBillFan

Then due diligence has been shocking. The Bills press release stated a full investigation has taken place, though goodness knows what that means. You’d think the phrasing would be very different had then been caught unawares.

The issue with rape, and why it’s so difficult to press criminal charges, is a lot of it is down to the alleged victim claiming one thing and the defendant saying something else. This is the allegation - Araiza’s statement will say something very different. Then there will probably be differing witness statements about her state of inebriation too, some saying she was in no state to give consent and others saying she was fully aware and capable of making decisions.

This story was seemingly in the public domain on 30th July. How could they not know?

For me, the following should be put to Beane. Whether he’ll answer is another question entirely. - Did the front office know about the allegation prior to Araiza being drafted? If so, why did they decide to draft him? - If not, did they know about the allegation prior to cutting Haack? If so, why did they decide to leave us in a potentially tricky position heading into a Super Bowl run? If not, why not, when it was in the public domain a month ago?

I wish someone losing his call whilst swinging a helmet was our biggest problem at the moment.

I hardly think we’re in a position to cast aspersions at the Browns currently.

Because this was in the public domain a month ago.

Allegation from the victim’s attorney.

Being from the other side of the pond, I don’t know how the college would have the power to limit and restrict a police investigation? The police themselves being corrupt and protecting famous (local) athletes I can understand, but the college being able to hold things back?

Or could be that he was aware that she had sex with numerous people (in his mind, either with consent or aware than she was raped) so advised her to be checked, rather than meaning he had a STD himself.

For most I agree - but I would have thought a supposed ‘open and shut’ case (to use the phrase used previously) would go through quicker? Certainly the alleged victim and her father expected resolution before now.

Araiza’s Defense Attorney claims to have witnesses saying something different. If it is open and shut you have to wonder why we’re ten months in without criminal proceedings commencing and that’s something which will surely turn the heat up under the state department and the college in particular.

Ask him to be put on the Exempt list makes most sense at this stage, I would have thought, then cut him if found guilty.

It’s now gone to the DA for a decision.

She reported it to the police the day after it happened - allegedly there has been a lot of foot dragging from the state department and the college due to who the defendants were.

And the players too - potential Super Bowl year and the press conferences will be about the potential rapist. Least we can do is put him on the exempt list and ban him from training with the team until the decision is made by the DA but that should have been done, at the very latest, as part of the PR statement.

60 yard field goal with one step. He’ll cover and we can pick someone up on waivers. Perhaps we rated Haack so low that we were willing to take the risk, but it leaves a sour taste.

Have to admit, I dislike civil charges for offences as serious as this for that reason. But I understand in this case why she has done as she reported it 10 months ago and nothing has come of it, either way.

Have to admit, finding it difficult to be quite so concerned about her age but that’s only due to me being used to U.K. law, where age of sexual consent is 16.

Agree to an extent though people talk and this was doing the rounds in San Diego; did it not get back to the Bills? OK, fair enough, let’s say it didn’t. Did the report published on 30th July not get back to the Bills? My personal opinion is ot did and that’s when they undertook an investigation. For whatever reason, they found in his favour.

Criminal charges pending.

Can’t see it myself. If the organisation had doubts over Araiza they would not have cut Haack and I refuse to believe the first they heard of this allegation was today. Edit - cut, not fit.

Seems like the college dragged it’s heals - the police have only just been able to turn the evidence to the DA office for a decision. Think the alleged victim is pressing civil charges now as she only has a year to do so, which will be up in October.

There was surprise from some pundits that he dropped to the sixth round. It potentially looks more understandable now. But I’m not going to judge too much on us drafting him - my bugbear is playing him and picking him over Haack when this was in the public domain a month ago.

That’s down to the organisation - if they didn’t know then WHY didn’t they when the story first broke, and somehow got missed by most, on 30th July. If they did know why have they decided to take the gamble they have with him rather than sticking with the more limited but baggage (to put it very mildly) free Haack?