Jump to content

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


YoloinOhio
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Except for, you know, her allegation that Araiza participated in the second encounter.  Don't forget about that.  Kind of important, don't you think?

 

Nobody's doing that.  We save that for the criminal courts.  This issue has a lot more to do with optics and values and business.  He can talk up his constitutional rights with the DA.  (Or maybe he'll exercise them when he's deposed in this action.  Stay tuned on that one.)

 

From a business angle, cutting him was the obvious decision. From a legal standpoint, he's currently innocent until proven guilty, no matter what an attorney, who seems to be losing the plot, posts on Twitter.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

Maybe other teams knew and this was why 2 punters went ahead of him in the draft? Oh well. Absolutely needed to just move on. Hoping for the best for the girl involved in the situation and if it ends up being misinformation then it’s unfortunate there was job loss and reputation damage but this organization doesn’t need that risk.

Might have been a nice question for yesterday's presser.  As in, did you contact the teams who drafted punters ahead of you to see if they knew about this in advance of the draft. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Except for, you know, her allegation that Araiza participated in the second encounter.  Don't forget about that.  Kind of important, don't you think?

 

It's an allegation at this point.  One that wasn't even followed-up by the SDPD.  If Araiza wasn't involved with it, what information did you want him to provide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's an allegation at this point.  One that wasn't even followed-up by the SDPD.  If Araiza wasn't involved with it, what information did you want him to provide?

 

I don't understand your point.  The prior poster indicated that there is no evidence that Araiza participated in the alleged second encounter.  I pointed out that there is such evidence, in the form of a statement of the alleged victim.  I'm not sure where you're coming from here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Might have been a nice question for yesterday's presser.  As in, did you contact the teams who drafted punters ahead of you to see if they knew about this in advance of the draft. 

Someone asked that.  He said in the last few days they’ve spoken with “double digit” teams, none of whom heard anything. If a team did know something, given the current firestorm, my guess is they would have reached out to Beane.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So far, the attorney has alleged the police are slow walking this, the DA is handling it politically, that the Bills are enablers of sexual assault for drafting a guy to kick footballs,  and now, that an Ariaza apology and donation for participating in this horrific incident involving gang assault and piercings being ripped out might have solved the problem for him and he might still be kicking for the Buffalo Enablers. 
 

Interesting. 


 


 


 

 

It's been about nine months and no charges though they have a girl who suppossidly was covered in blood and bruised. That's strange, I'd say. 

 

Looks like this lawyer is trying to exert as much pressure on the one person who knows something and has/had the most to lose by not talking. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, muppy said:

haha Interesting is one word for it.  I am shocked this guy had the smarts to pass the bar exam. He is acting the fool in full public view hermano.   it is not a good look.

 

40 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Yeah, he makes no sense.

He’s gotten national attention for his work thus far, elevating his status and his style of practicing law.  One could argue it all makes sense, and he’s doing exactly what he set out to do. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Red King said:

Araiza was tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion.  The Bills organization was under siege from the press about keeping such a monster on the team, even though nothing had been proven.  There is no way they could funtion under those circumstances.  As such, they didn't have a choice.  For their own good they had to cut him, and I agree with the move.

 

What disgusts me are the people that immediately assumed he's guilty, referring to him as trash and worse, before anything comes to light.  I also hate when people who don't want to jump to conclusions are accused of defending him.  It's not the same!

 

What's done is done. The Bills didn't have a choice.  Time to move on.

 

I agree with your disgust towards the immediate assumption of guilt.  There have been some tweets and some posts that are hard for me to read assuming guilt.

 

That said, there's the opposite claque which says his "fundamental rights" are being violated and his life ruined because he's been fired from his job, which is poppycock - no one has a fundamental right to work for a specific employer, or to play in the NFL, and he's got a lot of life in front of him - including, potentially, in the NFL once this gets resolved.

 

I guess my main thing with Beane's presser where I found it disingenuous (though I guess maybe Beane has to frame it this way for PR and legal reasons) is implying that something factual changed between July 29/30 and yesterday - that they learned more details from the lawsuit, or that they were working hard night and day to "do their own research" and uncover the facts.  I don't buy that.  The details came out in the 29 July LA Times article and were linked to Matt Araiza the next day by his lawyer's call to the Bills.  They are allegations.  The lawsuit is still allegations.

 

I agree with you that the Bills released him because they were under seige, not just from the press, but from social media - but also because reading the allegations laid out in the lawsuit is painful, and it seemed to be causing distress to McDermott and in the locker room.  This would inevitably create division and controversy between players who likely hold the same spectrum of opinions we've seen on this board.

Edited by Beck Water
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

Someone asked that.  He said in the last few days they’ve spoken with “double digit” teams, none of whom heard anything. If a team did know something, given the current firestorm, my guess is they would have reached out to Beane.  

I didn't hear it asked as specifically as I framed it.  As in, was one of those "double digit teams" a franchise that drafted a punter ahead of Araiza in this year's draft.  The point there is that there may be many teams that didn't know of this because they had no interest in drafting a punter.  But a few, including two who drafted punters ahead of the Bills, may have been aware of the issue in advance of the draft.  So I'd like to know if those two teams knew of this allegation before the draft.  Much more material than asking whether, say, the Seahawks (who employ Michael Dickson) were aware of this issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

It's been about nine months and no charges though they have a girl who suppossidly was covered in blood and bruised. That's strange, I'd say. 

 

Looks like this lawyer is trying to exert as much pressure on the one person who knows something and has/had the most to lose by not talking. 

That’s part of the challenge if you’re someone interested in the facts before deciding anecdotally whether or not he should be on a football team you follow.  I understand the Kennedy and Smollette families getting a pass due to influence, but does a San Diego State football team player generate the type of juice to tamp this down in 2022? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Someone asked that.  He said in the last few days they’ve spoken with “double digit” teams, none of whom heard anything. If a team did know something, given the current firestorm, my guess is they would have reached out to Beane.  

Double digit isn't 31.  Get on the phone and figure this out.  Sounds like the Bills have a problem vetting potential draftees that they need to look into. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I don't understand your point.  The prior poster indicated that there is no evidence that Araiza participated in the alleged second encounter.  I pointed out that there is such evidence, in the form of a statement of the alleged victim.  I'm not sure where you're coming from here.  

A statement from a victim is by definition an allegation, not evidence.  
 

Obviously these are allegations of horrible acts and should never be ignored, but calling it evidence is a dangerous path.  A allegation deserves investigation, which may or may not turn up evidence.

 

If I said my cat had kittens and SectionC3 stole them, I have not provided any evidence, I’ve only alleged something.  

  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

I didn't hear it asked as specifically as I framed it.  As in, was one of those "double digit teams" a franchise that drafted a punter ahead of Araiza in this year's draft.  The point there is that there may be many teams that didn't know of this because they had no interest in drafting a punter.  But a few, including two who drafted punters ahead of the Bills, may have been aware of the issue in advance of the draft.  So I'd like to know if those two teams knew of this allegation before the draft.  Much more material than asking whether, say, the Seahawks (who employ Michael Dickson) were aware of this issue. 

 

A point.  You should PM or tweet at one of the Bills Beat reporters.  Maybe they can ask Beane that specifically. 

 

Wawrow and another AP writer (they have to have 2 independent primary sources for everything they write) also state that they spoke with 3 teams who didn't know, but two teams who DID - can't be the teams who drafted a punter ahead of Araiza, as it was stated they didn't draft a punter.

 

I would think the Bills would like to know what was different about their pre-draft process that they uncovered something the Bills and other teams missed.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I didn't hear it asked as specifically as I framed it.  As in, was one of those "double digit teams" a franchise that drafted a punter ahead of Araiza in this year's draft.  The point there is that there may be many teams that didn't know of this because they had no interest in drafting a punter.  But a few, including two who drafted punters ahead of the Bills, may have been aware of the issue in advance of the draft.  So I'd like to know if those two teams knew of this allegation before the draft.  Much more material than asking whether, say, the Seahawks (who employ Michael Dickson) were aware of this issue. 

If the Seahawks knew and didn’t reach out to the Bills over the last few days to inform them of what they knew, then the Seahawks would have to be a real shady outfit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

A statement from a victim is by definition an allegation, not evidence.  
 

Obviously these are allegations of horrible acts and should never be ignored, but calling it evidence is a dangerous path.  A allegation deserves investigation, which may or may not turn up evidence.

 

If I said my cat had kittens and SectionC3 stole them, I have not provided any evidence, I’ve only alleged something.  

Sorry, but you're wrong.  The statement is evidence.  She said it happened.  Standing alone, it's sufficient to indict and to convict.  

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

If the Seahawks knew and didn’t reach out to the Bills over the last few days to inform them of what they knew, then the Seahawks would have to be a real shady outfit.  

Or they employ arguably the best punter in the NFL and had no reason to waste time vetting Araiza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Double digit isn't 31.  Get on the phone and figure this out.  Sounds like the Bills have a problem vetting potential draftees that they need to look into. 

There is a dimension in our universe known as “time”.  You may be familiar with it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SDS unpinned this topic
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...