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

[JESSEFEFFER]

1 hour ago, JoPoy88 said:

When you say “no one in the media knew about it” I’m assuming you mean NFL media? Because I agree with you there. But the LA Times (also media) have been looking into this for several months at least.

When did Matt get connected to it in any published account?  Where was the info to be had?  If a rumor like this were posted here, it would quickly get removed as have others.  Who are the people in the know who are willing to talk?   Most have reasons to keep quiet.  Investigators, prosecutors, coaching staff, college administration.  The LA Times June story did not connect names to the incident.

[Sierra Foothills]

6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This is really good.  Thanks for taking the time to put it together.  

 

I do have some quibbles.  By putting "or not" in parentheses, you're suggesting that it probably was willful.   There is no evidence that they willfully ignored any information, and that's exactly contrary to what Beane has said.   They did not know anything about this before the end of July, at which point they didn't ignore it.  

 

Yes, they could have had more regular contact with plaintiff's counsel, but what was that supposed to be?  A phone call asking if there was more information?   I agree, that would be a good thing to do, but in this case (and most) it would not have turned up anything new.   There wasn't any reason to believe that this long after the event, new information would arise.  But if that's the best criticism you can come up with, then I'd say the Bills did a pretty good job.  

 

I agree completely that cutting Araiza was the expedient and correct thing to do.  It will end the media circus.  And I agree that it wasn't done, as Beane said, because it was the best thing for Araiza.  It wasn't.  But it was done for culture.  There had to be players (or wives) who were troubled by the allegations and who were troubled to have deal with having the guy as a teammate.  McDermott is promising these guys an ideal environment in which to become better football players, and having that kind of distraction goin on is not conducive to an ideal environment.  So, culture was one of the reasons they did what they did. 

Hey Shaw.

 

I always enjoy your posts.

 

To the first bolded, No I was not suggesting it was willful. I was suggesting it was possibly willful but I do believe the Bills were unaware of the situation. They have a great track record. If it were another team I might be more skeptical of what was known.

 

To the second bolded, the Bills could have asked to speak to the victim. They might have been denied access but at least they could have said "we wanted to speak to the victim" which is a whole lot better than not asking to speak to the victim. They could also have asked to speak to any witnesses. Did they ever follow up with law enforcement?

 

To the final bolded I can concede that preserving the culture was aided by cutting Araiza however it wasn't like the team had any choice because they didn't.

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

Hey Shaw.

 

I always enjoy your posts.

 

To the first bolded, No I was not suggesting it was willful. I was suggesting it was possibly willful but I do believe the Bills were unaware of the situation. They have a great track record. If it were another team I might be more skeptical of what was known.

 

To the second bolded, the Bills could have asked to speak to the victim. They might have been denied access but at least they could have said "we wanted to speak to the victim" which is a whole lot better than not asking to speak to the victim. They could also have asked to speak to any witnesses. Did they ever follow up with law enforcement?

 

To the final bolded I can concede that preserving the culture was aided by cutting Araiza however it wasn't like the team had any choice because they didn't.

Thanks for clarifying the willful thing.  I don't think they knew more and ignored it. 

 

Yes, they could have done those things, but my point is that they were all pretty low probability things.  Plaintiff's lawyer is unlikely to permit contact with the Bills, at least not under any conditions the Bills would accept, and the police aren't going to be sharing the results of an ongoing investigation.  So, sure, there were things that the Bills could have done that they didn't, and it would have helped in their media relations this week if they could point to all those things if they had done them, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.   No publication is going to go to the mat over why the Bills didn't pursue the lawyer.  It just isn't a story that has legs.  

 

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.  

Edited August 29, 2022 by Shaw66

[JESSEFEFFER]

18 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

To your first point (numbered above), it was reported in the Associated Press that there were teams that were aware of the Araiza situation pre-draft. The AP is a very credible news organization not least of all because they are a not-for-profit. 

 

Are you now aware of their reports or do you choose to ignore them.

 

To your second point, I don't believe the Bills knew about the rape story pre-draft but other teams did know, thus the Bills fell short in this regard. It is binary, they either passed or failed. They failed. Is this too difficult to understand?

 

To your third point, Do you believe it's the job of a Bills beat reporter to scour for theoretical news surrounding the San Diego State Football program? If Microsoft hires an executive is it a newspapers job to vet him?

The story was vague about what they knew.  It implied it was a general sense of a problematic incident involving him but not knowing the details.  

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, BillsFanSD said:

I haven't seen any evidence at all that any NFL teams knew about this allegation or that Araiza was connected to it.  No team has indicated that they knew about this allegation during the draft.  No scouts, no GMs, nobody. 

 

Maadi is an AP writer for Tampa, similar to Wawrow here.  Like other AP employees, they're required to have two independent corroborating sources before publishing (including twitter when presenting as themselves, an AP employee).

 

This was in the Lawsuit thread and I think upthread here, but people do miss these things.

 

1 hour ago, BillsFanSD said:

Nobody in the media knew anything about it either.  

 

Let me say up-front that if one of your points is that there's a bunch of holier-than-thou second guessing of the Bills going on with some members of the media right now, I would agree.  But as far as the story being out there in the media:

 

Before the draft?  Probably not.

Before the lawsuit came out:

June 3 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-03/sdsu-san-diego-state-football-players-claim-rape-girl

July 29 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-29/teenager-recounts-alleged-rape-by-san-diego-state-football-players

 

Let's review the details that were in that latter:

Quote

She arrived at the Halloween party dressed as a fairy. She had already been drinking with her friends, she said, when she met a San Diego State football player at the house just blocks from campus. The player gave her a drink and eventually led her inside the house to a bedroom where she said several of his teammates took turns sexually assaulting her, slamming her down on a bed and ripping out her piercings.

Covered in blood, she found her friends outside after what she believed to be more than an hour.

“I was just raped,” she told them.

The next day, with bruises across her neck and down her legs, she filed a report with San Diego police and underwent a rape exam at Rady Children’s Hospital. The arduous process lasted through the night as her body was swabbed and she was tested for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Photos provided to The Times by her attorney, Dan Gilleon, show dark bruises across her neck, and on her knee and calf. One photo shows blood on part of her costume. Gilleon said he is preparing a lawsuit that would include names of known suspects.

 

Now, the story doesn't name Matt Araiza specifically.  But it includes a lot of specific details:

-Player gave her drink and brought her to room where she was gang raped (unclear if player participated)

-Gang rape left her bruised and bloody

-Police report was filed and rape exam performed

 

So when the alleged victim's lawyer called the Bills and spoke with Kathryn D'Angelo then emailed, Matt Araiza's name could be subsituted for "player" in the LA Times story and handed off to the PR/Communications department for their "take" on how that would come across.

 

1 hour ago, BillsFanSD said:

If you really think the Bills knew that Araiza was credibly connected to a gang rape and drafted him anyway, I think your priors are way off.

 

I don't think the Bills knew any of this prior to the draft.  They have said they did not know, and that if they did, it would have taken him off their board.

I think it's a good question if they left any actions not taken through which they could have known.

 

I agree with Shaw66 that likely the Bills are asking themselves this question and some of their procedures will likely change.

[Wayne Arnold]

35 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

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.

 

You could've just said "profit".

[BillsFanSD]

34 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

To your first point (numbered above), it was reported in the Associated Press that there were teams that were aware of the Araiza situation pre-draft. The AP is a very credible news organization not least of all because they are a not-for-profit. 

Can you provide a link?  The only story I've seen is one that suggests that two teams might have been vaguely aware that there was something about Araiza but had no idea what it was.  I haven't seen any stories indicating that any teams knew that he was accused of drugging a girl so that she could raped. 

6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Maadi is an AP writer for Tampa, similar to Wawrow here.  Like other AP employees, they're required to have two independent corroborating sources before publishing (including twitter when presenting as themselves, an AP employee).

Yeah, this is exactly the story I was talking about.  It doesn't say that anybody knew these allegations.  In fact, it says the opposite.

[JESSEFEFFER]

6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Maadi is an AP writer for Tampa, similar to Wawrow here.  Like other AP employees, they're required to have two independent corroborating sources before publishing (including twitter when presenting as themselves, an AP employee).

 

This was in the Lawsuit thread and I think upthread here, but people do miss these things.

 

 

Let me say up-front that if one of your points is that there's a bunch of holier-than-thou second guessing of the Bills going on with some members of the media right now, I would agree.  But as far as the story being out there in the media:

 

Before the draft?  Probably not.

Before the lawsuit came out:

June 3 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-03/sdsu-san-diego-state-football-players-claim-rape-girl

July 29 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-29/teenager-recounts-alleged-rape-by-san-diego-state-football-players

 

Let's review the details that were in that latter:

 

Now, the story doesn't name Matt Araiza specifically.  But it includes a lot of specific details:

-Player gave her drink and brought her to room where she was gang raped (unclear if player participated)

-Gang rape left her bruised and bloody

-Police report was filed and rape exam performed

 

So when the alleged victim's lawyer called the Bills and spoke with Kathryn D'Angelo then emailed, Matt Araiza's name could be subsituted for "player" in the LA Times story and handed off to the PR/Communications department for their "take" on how that would come across.

 

 

I don't think the Bills knew any of this prior to the draft.  They have said they did not know, and that if they did, it would have taken him off their board.

I think it's a good question if they left any actions not taken through which they could have known.

 

I agree with Shaw66 that likely the Bills are asking themselves this question and some of their procedures will likely change.

 

I think it's all about who you know and what they are willing to say.  I wonder if the SDSU coaching staff was under a gag order otherwise more NFL teams would have known.

[Beck Water]

9 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

Can you provide a link?  The only story I've seen is one that suggests that two teams might have been vaguely aware that there was something about Araiza but had no idea what it was.  I haven't seen any stories indicating that any teams knew that he was accused of drugging a girl so that she could raped. 

Yeah, this is exactly the story I was talking about.  It doesn't say that anybody knew these allegations.  In fact, it says the opposite.

 

? 

It says that at least two teams (where Maadi has contacts willing to talk anonymously) were aware

 

5 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

 

I think it's all about who you know and what they are willing to say.  I wonder if the SDSU coaching staff was under a gag order otherwise more NFL teams would have known.

 

I dunno about "gag order" but what coach worth his salt is going to lower the stock of his players by offering negative information that would deep-6 their draft stock, especially if it's rumors?

 

It is about who you know, and probably also where you hang out and listen.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Beck Water

[Wayne Arnold]

48 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

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).

 

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.

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes 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.

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

[JESSEFEFFER]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

? 

It says that at least two teams (where Maadi has contacts willing to talk anonymously) were aware

 

I dunno about "gag order" but what coach worth his salt is going to lower the stock of his players by offering negative information?

 

It is about who you know, and probably also where you hang out and listen.

Actually I think this happens often.  Sure they want to promote their program but they need good relationships with NFL scouts to do it.  Letting an NFL team get burned like this hurts their cause so they should be honest.

[DrDawkinstein]

 

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.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

… 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. …

Agreed. I would add that another big contributing factor has been the change in media ownership laws since the 80s as well. Use to be strict regulations on how many and what types of outlets could be owned by a single entity both nationally and locally. Consolidated corporate media ownership has hurt our ability to report and consume news. 

[Beck Water]

On 8/28/2022 at 3:24 PM, Sierra Foothills said:

My thought is that most people here seem to think the Bills either handled this very well or very poorly.

 

But again the truth doesn't always fit into a nice, tidy binary box.

 

The Bills did some things well and other things poorly. You could probably assign them a numerical grade. I dock them points for not doing better on the due diligence/vetting of Araiza. I also dock them points for not continuing the engagement between De'Angelo and Gilleon. They had nothing to lose and possibly something to gain by staying connected in this conversation... even if it's just for good optics. The Bills have not been flawless in this situation but I think overall they responded pretty well. 

 

I agree with this.  The Bills did some things well and some things poorly, and they didn't handle this in the most "ripple free" manner they probably could have (which would likely have been to cut Araiza and keep Haack, then look for an upgrade before the season).

 

I think the Bills seriously mis-read or mis-understood "how the Frog would jump", meaning what Gellion (victim's lawyer's) intended outcomes were.  Keeping a line of communication open to him could only have helped in this regard. 

 

I also think (and this is mapping what's been said onto some 'lessons learned' situations where I've been involved) there were probably a couple of communication SNAFUs, where cross-line communication between Legal/Business side and the Football side of the Bills organization was insufficient.

 

If I had one question I could ask Sean McDermott and Brandon Beane separately, it would be "Last week, when you discussed 80 man roster cuts, were you aware of the July 29 LA Times article describing the condition of a victim of an alleged gang rape by SDSU players and IDing her lawyer as Dan Gellion, and were you informed that in a phone call to the Bills on June 30th, Gellion identified one of the players involved as Matt Araiza?"

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

26 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

Actually I think this happens often.  Sure they want to promote their program but they need good relationships with NFL scouts to do it.  Letting an NFL team get burned like this hurts their cause so they should be honest.

 

I think you're absolutely correct when it comes to big programs that send a lot of players to the NFL like Alabama

 

But how many players have been drafted from SDSU (open question, I genuinely have no clue)?

I could see where if a program has very few players drafted, when they have a guy who seems like a sure-fire pick he's a bit of a "unicorn" to them and the temptation would be to polish his horn

 

That may be an ill-chosen metaphor....

[Shaw66]

7 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I could see where if a program has very few players drafted, when they have a guy who seems like a sure-fire pick he's a bit of a "unicorn" to them and the temptation would be to polish his horn

 

That may be an ill-chosen metaphor....

!!!

[JESSEFEFFER]

30 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I think you're absolutely correct when it comes to big programs that send a lot of players to the NFL like Alabama

 

But how many players have been drafted from SDSU (open question, I genuinely have no clue)?

I could see where if a program has very few players drafted, when they have a guy who seems like a sure-fire pick he's a bit of a "unicorn" to them and the temptation would be to polish his horn

 

That may be an ill-chosen metaphor....

I looked it up.  Here's the link.  One of 4 in the last draft.

 

San_Diego_State_Aztecs_in_the_NFL_Draft

[Beck Water]

9 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

I looked it up.  Here's the link.  One of 4 in the last draft.

 

San_Diego_State_Aztecs_in_the_NFL_Draft

 

Oh, wow.  OK.  But still - previous years 1-2 per year.  I dunno, I just think it may be a different way of thinking than the perennial contenders with multiple draft picks per year have.

 

And maybe it's stinkin' thinkin' and it's gonna change.  Sounds as though the coach and AD are starting to hear some music:

 

 

 

[Motorin']

35 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Oh, wow.  OK.  But still - previous years 1-2 per year.  I dunno, I just think it may be a different way of thinking than the perennial contenders with multiple draft picks per year have.

 

And maybe it's stinkin' thinkin' and it's gonna change.  Sounds as though the coach and AD are starting to hear some music:

 

 

 

 

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?"

[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.