2019 AB Watch: Legal & Exemption List Posts Only

Status
Not open for further replies.

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
10,150
Washington
Did I skim the article or was the “second accusation” AB standing too closely behind a woman painting his portrait wearing nothing but a towel?

I don’t want to diminish what a shithead this guy may be—or a monster even—but that doesn’t scream misconduct to me or anything remotely sanctionable. But maybe I missed some crucial details here.
Walking up behind her while she was kneeling, with a hand towel covering his dick.

I don't know what counts as misconduct, but yeah, it sounds like she got quite the surprise when she turned and saw AB's covered genitals at eye level.

On her second day, however, the atmosphere curdled. The artist says at one point she was in a kneeling position while painting and turned to find Brown behind her, naked, holding a small hand towel over his genitals. “He was flirty with me but I paid him no mind because I was there on business, plus, I had already seen him with multiple girls in the short time I was with him,” says the woman. “I was about 40% done on the second day, and I’m on my knees painting the bottom, and he walks up to me butt-ass naked, with a hand cloth covering his [penis] and starts having a conversation with me.” She took it as a clear sexual come-on. “Unfortunately, I’ve been tried [by men] a lot of times, so I just kept my cool and kept painting,” she says. “After that, it all ended abruptly.”
 

Reggie's Racquet

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2009
5,359
Texas/Montana
Walking up behind her while she was kneeling, with a hand towel covering his dick.

I don't know what counts as misconduct, but yeah, it sounds like she got quite the surprise when she turned and saw AB's covered genitals at eye level.
If AB is covering his private parts with a hand towel then he has smaller problems than this.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I think its exactly the opposite. The NFL doesn't want to -- and should avoid -- any sort of "no league action if its 'only a civil case'" approach.

For the nth time, it has nothing to do with it being a "civil case." The only thing that matters is that the league now knows that AB has been accused of rape, and the league can't really *not* look into it. If the accuser brought with her videotape of AB injecting her with a sedative and then raping her, I think the NFL would probably take action even though "only a civil case" is pending.

They might also want to: (shocking, I know) talk to AB, or look at other relevant evidence before making a decision or -- as suggested above -- announcing that it doesn't have enough information to reach a reliable conclusion at this time.
That's an overstatement in my view. Denny has nicely made your point up thread, and perhaps you have too, but while there is no principled reason to treat facts that are unearthed in connection with a civil suit differently, it appears that the NFL has never put someone on the exempt list when a criminal case or video was not involved. The NFL in general gives lip service to precedent when meting out punishments. As a result, I think it has something to with it being a civil matter. And, at the same time, that it's a civil matter doesn't end the inquiry or give AB a pass based on that alone.
 

GoDa

lurker
Sep 25, 2017
690
There's a lot of legal views in this non-legal thread!!!!!
Thread title confused me. I thought the other thread was for the smartypants guys that wanted to talk in a most serious manner... and this one was for everyone else.
 

SeoulSoxFan

Dope
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
19,208
Maybe a time to make this one strictly football/strategy/on-field performance-related and the other a legal-investigation-exemption list one. Thoughts?
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,933
Maybe a time to make this one strictly football/strategy/on-field performance-related and the other a legal-investigation-exemption list one. Thoughts?
As someone who will obsess over the AB story until I get some kind of resolution, this works.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
As someone who has contributed to the blurring of the lines, I think that distinction works, too.

Football versus exemption related issues.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Maybe a time to make this one strictly football/strategy/on-field performance-related and the other a legal-investigation-exemption list one. Thoughts?
Yes, please. I have no knowledge of or control over, and very little interest in the battle being waged in the traditional media, social media, or law offices re: AB.
On the other hand, I would like to discuss his role in this offense.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
17,503
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Guys I really have no idea which thread this question fits in as it refers to potential gameplan ramifications of a suspension so apologies in advance if its not this one but...

Is anyone at all concerned that the resolution of this situation results in a exempt / suspension status very late this season and/or even in the playoffs? I feel like the Patriots would have ample time to rework the offense now, but am worried if this thing drags out it would be highly typical to get yet another December or January surprise and, while certainly survivable, would be very poorly timed.
 
Feb 19, 2015
2,661
Guys I really have no idea which thread this question fits in as it refers to potential gameplan ramifications of a suspension so apologies in advance if its not this one but...

Is anyone at all concerned that the resolution of this situation results in a exempt / suspension status very late this season and/or even in the playoffs? I feel like the Patriots would have ample time to rework the offense now, but am worried if this thing drags out it would be highly typical to get yet another December or January surprise and, while certainly survivable, would be very poorly timed.
It's a valid concern. I happen to think that he either gets put on the exempt list within a few weeks to a month (basically after the NFL finishes the initial investigation). Or they decide they don't have enough info and it drags out to the conclusion of the civil trial and/or settlement.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
39,819
deep inside Guido territory
They met with Taylor for 10 hours on Monday. If they don't already know by now whether they are placing him on any sort of list I don't think they will for this week. Today is the start of the week of practice for Sunday.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Guys I really have no idea which thread this question fits in as it refers to potential gameplan ramifications of a suspension so apologies in advance if its not this one but...

Is anyone at all concerned that the resolution of this situation results in a exempt / suspension status very late this season and/or even in the playoffs? I feel like the Patriots would have ample time to rework the offense now, but am worried if this thing drags out it would be highly typical to get yet another December or January surprise and, while certainly survivable, would be very poorly timed.
I'm not concerned for this. The NFL is filled with injuries every week, causing every team to have to re-work their tactics and strategies. Losing Brown to this would be no worse than losing him to an ACL (cf. Welker, Game 16, 2013; Brady, Game 1, 2008, et al.) or losing him to a PED suspension mid-season. In some ways, it might be easier, simply because the possibility for it is at least more known than for the other two possibilities.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
They met with Taylor for 10 hours on Monday. If they don't already know by now whether they are placing him on any sort of list I don't think they will for this week. Today is the start of the week of practice for Sunday.
I wonder if you charted the probabilities of some action by the league over time, it would be a rapidly diminishing curve, where the highest probs were last week and this, and then it would go down pretty quickly from there.
 

Dick Pole Upside

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
4,288
39.932N, -85.848W
Guys I really have no idea which thread this question fits in as it refers to potential gameplan ramifications of a suspension so apologies in advance if its not this one but...

Is anyone at all concerned that the resolution of this situation results in a exempt / suspension status very late this season and/or even in the playoffs? I feel like the Patriots would have ample time to rework the offense now, but am worried if this thing drags out it would be highly typical to get yet another December or January surprise and, while certainly survivable, would be very poorly timed.
Personally, I am anticipating a suspension or exempt-list status to occur in the second half of the season (Roethlisberger civil sexual misconduct/4 games being the floor, Zeke multi-faceted shitbaggery/6 games being the ceiling).

In that case, Phil Dorsett is the on-field solution. He's AB-Lite, but he's in the Circle of Trust and catches everything. Assuming the other WRs maintain health and availability, the Patriots could do a lot worse.

If Gordon slips up for some reason, Harry should be back and would slot into that role.

Yes, that would likely result in a downgrade in overall offensive output, but by that time the Patriots will know what they have on offense for each of the position groups (OL, RBs, WRs, TE) not to mention a fine-tuned defensive approach.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,598
Hingham, MA
Guys I really have no idea which thread this question fits in as it refers to potential gameplan ramifications of a suspension so apologies in advance if its not this one but...

Is anyone at all concerned that the resolution of this situation results in a exempt / suspension status very late this season and/or even in the playoffs? I feel like the Patriots would have ample time to rework the offense now, but am worried if this thing drags out it would be highly typical to get yet another December or January surprise and, while certainly survivable, would be very poorly timed.
This basically happened with Gordon last year. His last game was the Pittsburgh loss in week 15. Didn't seem to hurt, based on my recollection of weeks 16-17 and the playoffs.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,933
This basically happened with Gordon last year. His last game was the Pittsburgh loss in week 15. Didn't seem to hurt, based on my recollection of weeks 16-17 and the playoffs.
Last year you had a better OL and Gronk though. The way I see it, I think they’ll be fine as long as they have 1 of AB/Gordon and a healthy Harry. If you remove both AB/Gordon and still don’t have Gronk, then they’re certainly still very good but it’s a much tougher sledding, especially if KC is blocking your way.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,817
I would agree that taking AB out of the team as it is currently constructed would not doom its chances of making a repeat visit to the Super Bowl. However, the issue is that we don't know how the team will look in, say, Week 10.

The loss of Dion Lewis in Week 9 in 2015 was a big blow, but not necessarily a killer by itself. However, couple that with Edelman's injuries that season, and the losses of Blount, Dobson, and Solder, and some of the typical Gronk injuries, and suddenly Fred Steven Jackson becomes the focus of the offense.

EDIT: Typo
 
Last edited:

amRadio

lurker
Feb 7, 2019
146
I think if AB is headed for the Exempt List that will happen sooner than later. I doubt that they would just come around to that course of action around week 9 or 10. If he makes it through the next two weeks, he'll probably be fine re: Exempt List. I definitely expect a 4-6 game suspension when his civil trial is concluded, but I'm not sure whether that will affect the Patriots or not.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
12,125
I would agree that taking AB out of the team as it is currently constructed would not doom its chances of making a repeat visit to the Super Bowl. However, the issue is that we don't know how the team will look in, say, Week 10.

The loss of Dion Lewis in Week 9 in 2015 was a big blow, but not necessarily a killer by itself. However, couple that with Edelman's injuries that season, and the losses of Blount, Dobson, and Solder, and some of the typical Gronk injuries, and suddenly Fred Jackson becomes the focus of the offense.
Wasn’t it the decomposing remnants of Steven Jackson?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
39,819
deep inside Guido territory
I think if AB is headed for the Exempt List that will happen sooner than later. I doubt that they would just come around to that course of action around week 9 or 10. If he makes it through the next two weeks, he'll probably be fine re: Exempt List. I definitely expect a 4-6 game suspension when his civil trial is concluded, but I'm not sure whether that will affect the Patriots or not.
Didn't it take the NFL over a year to discipline Elliot?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,598
Hingham, MA
Last year you had a better OL and Gronk though. The way I see it, I think they’ll be fine as long as they have 1 of AB/Gordon and a healthy Harry. If you remove both AB/Gordon and still don’t have Gronk, then they’re certainly still very good but it’s a much tougher sledding, especially if KC is blocking your way.
I don't think AB matters at all to be honest. To me it is 100% about the health of the offensive line. If they have to play playoff games with the unit they had playing in the second half then they could have Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, Gronk, and Barry Sanders and I still don't think they would win.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,982
I think if AB is headed for the Exempt List that will happen sooner than later. I doubt that they would just come around to that course of action around week 9 or 10. If he makes it through the next two weeks, he'll probably be fine re: Exempt List. I definitely expect a 4-6 game suspension when his civil trial is concluded, but I'm not sure whether that will affect the Patriots or not.
on what basis would they Exempt him now, this season (but later this season), and then suspend him again when his trial is concluded?

I mean, not that being capriciously punitive would be out of character for Goodell, but it seems like worst case it would be one or the other, no?

edit: goes without saying that this line of discussion could be moved to the discussion of his case, rather than his footballing. Seems like nobody is paying much attention to that dividing line. New Thread title: The Case Against Antonio Brown (?)
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,097
I could see a later addition to the exempt list, as other things come out. For example, word is that people are possibly pursuing criminal charges against Brown based on his debt to them. Let's say that in week 7 they file criminal charges. Then Goodell could put him on that list at that point.

To @tims4wins point, I don't think they need AB either. As long, that is, as Gordon stays good. If they don't have either of them, then they're in bigger trouble. But they still have Harry in reserve, so a WR corps in the playoffs of Gordon, Edelman, Dorsett, Meyers, and Harry, with Watson (still a quality receiver at TE), White, and Rex as receiving options (plus the quality running game), is still a lot of weapons.

The OL is the key. They stay healthy and perform to their capability, this team will punish people. The OL starts to crumble, and Brady gets killed and the running game can't go anywhere, and all bets are off.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,817
I don't think AB matters at all to be honest. To me it is 100% about the health of the offensive line. If they have to play playoff games with the unit they had playing in the second half then they could have Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, Gronk, and Barry Sanders and I still don't think they would win.
I don't know if the OL was *that* bad in the second half. The offense had 6 drives in the 2nd half: two TD's, one FG, 2 punts, and a fumble (which was on Michel), and gained 195 yards in total. And that was with a relatively conservative game plan for most of the 4th quarter. Two of the players were with the team for a very short period. And Brady was sacked twice all game, once in each half.

I could see a later addition to the exempt list, as other things come out. For example, word is that people are possibly pursuing criminal charges against Brown based on his debt to them. Let's say that in week 7 they file criminal charges. Then Goodell could put him on that list at that point.
...
That "word" is obviously from people that don't know what they are talking about. Bad debts are assumed to be a civil matter, unless there was some actual fraud or theft involved. The examples in that SI article do not indicate the possibility of either.
 

amRadio

lurker
Feb 7, 2019
146
on what basis would they Exempt him now, this season (but later this season), and then suspend him again when his trial is concluded?
That isn't what I said. I was simply speculating that if he is going to be put on the exempt list, it will be sooner than later. I expect he will play until his case concludes, at which time I also think he will be suspended. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,618
on what basis would they Exempt him now, this season (but later this season), and then suspend him again when his trial is concluded?

I mean, not that being capriciously punitive would be out of character for Goodell, but it seems like worst case it would be one or the other, no?
Kareem Hunt was placed on the Exempt List and then later suspended for 8 games.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
6,097
Kareem Hunt was placed on the Exempt List and then later suspended for 8 games.
Isn't the purpose of the Exempt List to essentially suspend players pending some sort of conclusion to an investigative process, but with pay so at least they're not losing money? That's different from a suspension, where they DO lose money.

Potentially helpful article here written during the Tyreek Hill allegations:

 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,933
I could see a later addition to the exempt list, as other things come out. For example, word is that people are possibly pursuing criminal charges against Brown based on his debt to them. Let's say that in week 7 they file criminal charges. Then Goodell could put him on that list at that point.

To @tims4wins point, I don't think they need AB either. As long, that is, as Gordon stays good. If they don't have either of them, then they're in bigger trouble. But they still have Harry in reserve, so a WR corps in the playoffs of Gordon, Edelman, Dorsett, Meyers, and Harry, with Watson (still a quality receiver at TE), White, and Rex as receiving options (plus the quality running game), is still a lot of weapons.

The OL is the key. They stay healthy and perform to their capability, this team will punish people. The OL starts to crumble, and Brady gets killed and the running game can't go anywhere, and all bets are off.
They certainly don’t “need” AB. He’s definitely a luxury at this point. They may not even need Gordon depending on how good Harry turns out to be. But if they need to match scores with KC, I’d feel a lot better if one of them is around. Lose both and you are one Edelman injury away from being in real trouble. Harry really is an x-factor for me. We have no idea what he’s going to add.
 

BusRaker

lurker
Aug 11, 2006
474
I think its exactly the opposite. The NFL doesn't want to -- and should avoid -- any sort of "no league action if its 'only a civil case'" approach.

For the nth time, it has nothing to do with it being a "civil case." The only thing that matters is that the league now knows that AB has been accused of rape, and the league can't really *not* look into it. If the accuser brought with her videotape of AB injecting her with a sedative and then raping her, I think the NFL would probably take action even though "only a civil case" is pending.
How does this happen without the DA pressing criminal charges? He/she'd be fired.

My guess is that the NFL punts on this. Imagine how much work it would be for them to investigate, hear appeals, and possible face extended legal challenges (a la deflategate) for every accusation against an NFL player. And it will get worse. we all err on the side of laziness
 

SeoulSoxFan

Dope
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
19,208
Moved the last couple of pages of posts here to get a fresh start. For the on-field/strategy-related posts, please use this new thread:
Thanks for your patience, y'all.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
26,916
AZ
on what basis would they Exempt him now, this season (but later this season), and then suspend him again when his trial is concluded?

I mean, not that being capriciously punitive would be out of character for Goodell, but it seems like worst case it would be one or the other, no?

edit: goes without saying that this line of discussion could be moved to the discussion of his case, rather than his footballing. Seems like nobody is paying much attention to that dividing line. New Thread title: The Case Against Antonio Brown (?)
The exempt list is allowed to be used pending investigation into serious misconduct at the commissioner's discretion, but only for so long as necessary to complete the investigation. Since it is considered leave with pay, the NFL seems to believe it can do both without much problem. If they have chosen not to exempt him after speaking with Taylor it starts to seem more unlikely. Although who knows in the end. Maybe they have leads to follow up for corroboration and want to do that.

Given that it's week 3 there also may be a view that there's no pressing need for an exempt list if they think the investigation will be done in the next month or two. So long as there are six games left in the season, you can give him the max punishment that the PCP allows no matter when you finish. It's a bit of an unusual situation. It's not like other cases (Hill) that came up during the off season and you have a player on a de facto one year deal. If the league perceives that the investigation -- or as much investigation as they can do with the civil case pending -- is likely to be something that can get completed, they might as well finish it and do what they are going to do.
 

lambeau

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2010
1,138
Connecticut
So let's investigate through the Ravens (11/3) or Eagles (11/17) and get any suspension prior to playoffs.
Of course appeals could push it past the season completely.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
9,406
Waltham, MA
How does this happen without the DA pressing criminal charges? He/she'd be fired.

My guess is that the NFL punts on this. Imagine how much work it would be for them to investigate, hear appeals, and possible face extended legal challenges (a la deflategate) for every accusation against an NFL player. And it will get worse. we all err on the side of laziness
It's not just laziness. It's the public embarrassment (and NFLPA ammunition) when the legal system draws the complete opposite conclusion that they did.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
61,203
Oregon
It's not just laziness. It's the public embarrassment (and NFLPA ammunition) when the legal system draws the complete opposite conclusion that they did.
The NFL already confirmed that the laws of science don't matter, why should the laws of justice?
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
10,150
Washington

Apparently a two year statute of limitations for rape? Seems awfully short. Even more so if they are unwilling to investigate the last allegation which took place in May 2018.

Doesn't sound right, but maybe I'm missing something.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,440
Seattle, WA
I'm chiming in where I don't belong just to state that someone seeking a monetary settlement from the accused sure as hell colors the situation for me. I mean, they have every right to do so, but it kind of cedes the high ground, doesn't it?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
37,006
I'm chiming in where I don't belong just to state that someone seeking a monetary settlement from the accused sure as hell colors the situation for me. I mean, they have every right to do so, but it kind of cedes the high ground, doesn't it?
Not at all. It’s still a punitive measure, and allows the victim more control over the prosecution of the case than a criminal action.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,817

Apparently a two year statute of limitations for rape? Seems awfully short. Even more so if they are unwilling to investigate the last allegation which took place in May 2018.

Doesn't sound right, but maybe I'm missing something.
I believe they were referring to the other sexual misconduct/assault allegations that are in the civil lawsuit, which to my knowledge would fall far short of a rape charge. The May 2018 incident took place in Florida.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.