Antonio Brown: the thread that never ends

[Mojouw]

You just can't get it, can you? No one said she couldn't have made shit up.

Some people are incapable of learning.

Also, when was the last time someone made something like this up about an athlete? People, including AB, act like it happens all the time. I try not to pay attention to horrendous off field stuff, but I feel like all the claims I can remember ending up being true...

- - - Updated - - -

Loooong article on AB in USA Today that I assume was in the works before the lawsuit was announced. Main quoted source on AB’s alleged history of abusing women is stepfather Larry Moss, who has his own issues and no doubt has his own ax to grind

But if this is true it is another stunning example of AB being all and only about AB

Talking about Brown, Moss grew angry while noting Brown's mother said she is starting to look for a second job.


“There’s no way in the world his mother should be looking for no second job with the kind of money he has and what she did for him,’’ Moss said.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...es/2298810001/

Hasnt He been estranged from his family since high school? Thought I read somewhere once that he lived with a coach or something...

[steelreserve]

Also, when was the last time someone made something like this up about an athlete? People, including AB, act like it happens all the time. I try not to pay attention to horrendous off field stuff, but I feel like all the claims I can remember ending up being true...

Wasn't there some guy who played quarterback for the Steelers one time that that happened to? Can't remember his name ... Brent Hamburger ... Ben Hackenschleimer ... something like that ... ah, no bells.

But in all seriousness, I think false or at least dubious sexual assault accusations do happen a LOT against pro athletes, because it is one of the best possible ways to blackmail them, or just get revenge. Also by its nature, something that is hazy and difficult to definitively disprove. So really a great tool for anyone looking to start some shit. People are not necessarily good by nature.

There have been a few in the recent past that turned out that way ... if I recall, there was one NFL player (on the 49ers?) who countersued for extortion and won, and others that have gone away after it was discovered the whole intention was to blackmail someone. Many start this simply by "threatening to release sex tapes" (cases such as Zeke Elliott, Von Miller, Jaromir Jagr - most boss response ever, by the way), and it is not too far from there to making accusations, depending on who the person is and how twisted their motivation. Hell, there was even a scheme many years ago to blackmail Jerome Bettis with a trumped-up assault accusation, but that was discredited:


http://old.post-gazette.com/steelers...ttis0912p4.asp

... then you have cases like Brian Banks, where false accusations successfully derailed a guy's career and ruined his life. So this "it never happens" line is just not true.

The ones that DO seem to almost always be true are the accusations of violence. I can recall very few, if any, where there wasn't at least something to it.

Having said all of that, there is really nothing in this case that would lead me to believe Tony Brown's word is any better than this woman's, or she's making it up and should be dismissed out of hand, or anything like that. Who knows, have to wait and see.

Oh! It was Rapistberger. Ben RAPISTBERGER! That was the guy I was thinking of.

Hasnt He been estranged from his family since high school? Thought I read somewhere once that he lived with a coach or something...

Makes sense, if I had to put up with that guy for any length of time, I'd probably be estranged from him too.

[EzraTank]

Meet Tom444 and Mojouw the social justice warriors of Steelers Universe!

Remember when they virtue signal it's the law! I only hope someday we're all capable of learning from their great wisdom.

[tom444]

Some people are incapable of learning.

Also, when was the last time someone made something like this up about an athlete? People, including AB, act like it happens all the time. I try not to pay attention to horrendous off field stuff, but I feel like all the claims I can remember ending up being true...

Yeah, clearly there's smoke here. How much fire, not for me to say at this juncture.

[Fire Goodell]

I'm wondering why people can't have a discussion without taking backhanded shots at people, seriously, let the case play itself out, none of us knows shit right now

[86WARD]

Regardless of how the case plays out and whether he is guilty or not, the emails he sent and the things he’s written is enough for him to suffer the old “conduct detrimental” penalty.

[EzraTank]

Regardless of how the case plays out and whether he is guilty or not, the emails he sent and the things he’s written is enough for him to suffer the old “conduct detrimental” penalty.

Agreed, but this is the Patriots and Kraft and Goodell are buds. And as of right now he's still allowed to play this weekend.

[DesertSteel]

Regardless of how the case plays out and whether he is guilty or not, the emails he sent and the things he’s written is enough for him to suffer the old “conduct detrimental” penalty.

But I guess after your team has had a serial killer, stuff like sex trafficking, cocaine, sexual harassment, et al are not all that detrimental by comparison.

[steelreserve]

Agreed, but this is the Patriots and Kraft and Goodell are buds. And as of right now he's still allowed to play this weekend.

Well, I'm not above wishing he gets hurt.

[86WARD]

But I guess after your team has had a serial killer, stuff like sex trafficking, cocaine, sexual harassment, et al are not all that detrimental by comparison.

True. Probably just sounds like a Friday/Saturday night at the Kraft Compound...

[AtlantaDan]

No surprise here and IMO the correct decision since Roger & Friends have not yet even spoken to plaintiff.

NFL not placing AB on exempt list

And no surprise Belichick is not going to do anything on his own

Asked Friday whether Brown would play, Patriots coach Bill Belichick answered, "We'll do what's best for the team." He later added that the team is trying to get Brown, who signed Monday, up to speed as quickly as possible.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ab-exempt-list

[tom444]

[Mojouw]

Wasn't there some guy who played quarterback for the Steelers one time that that happened to? Can't remember his name ... Brent Hamburger ... Ben Hackenschleimer ... something like that ... ah, no bells.

But in all seriousness, I think false or at least dubious sexual assault accusations do happen a LOT against pro athletes, because it is one of the best possible ways to blackmail them, or just get revenge. Also by its nature, something that is hazy and difficult to definitively disprove. So really a great tool for anyone looking to start some shit. People are not necessarily good by nature.

There have been a few in the recent past that turned out that way ... if I recall, there was one NFL player (on the 49ers?) who countersued for extortion and won, and others that have gone away after it was discovered the whole intention was to blackmail someone. Many start this simply by "threatening to release sex tapes" (cases such as Zeke Elliott, Von Miller, Jaromir Jagr - most boss response ever, by the way), and it is not too far from there to making accusations, depending on who the person is and how twisted their motivation. Hell, there was even a scheme many years ago to blackmail Jerome Bettis with a trumped-up assault accusation, but that was discredited:


http://old.post-gazette.com/steelers...ttis0912p4.asp

... then you have cases like Brian Banks, where false accusations successfully derailed a guy's career and ruined his life. So this "it never happens" line is just not true.

The ones that DO seem to almost always be true are the accusations of violence. I can recall very few, if any, where there wasn't at least something to it.

Having said all of that, there is really nothing in this case that would lead me to believe Tony Brown's word is any better than this woman's, or she's making it up and should be dismissed out of hand, or anything like that. Who knows, have to wait and see.

Oh! It was Rapistberger. Ben RAPISTBERGER! That was the guy I was thinking of.




Makes sense, if I had to put up with that guy for any length of time, I'd probably be estranged from him too.

Thanks for pointing some of those out. Like I said, I try to pay as little attention as possible to this kinda stuff.

FWIW, I think Ben did exactly what was alleged to an extent. He totally had sex with that lady in a bathroom in a crap bar in podunk Georgia. That I have almost always been convinced of. What I am not certain about is the events leading up to and the aftermath of it all. If I remember correctly, that was the crux of the whole thing. So long ago, I don't actually remember or really care to look back into it.

- - - Updated - - -

This whole issue raises another tangent for me about the NFL and sports leagues in general. I am not sure I am on board with non-criminal off-field stuff impacting whether these guys play or not.

Drug testing is another thing, so let's leave that aside for the moment. But I have always thought if the players are not actually in jail or in criminal court proceedings, then they can play. Isn't that basically how it is out in the regular world?

I get that it is about PR and avoiding protests and bad news cycles for the league. But I am not sure it is the teams or the leagues responsibility to keep up the mythology that all pro-athletes are role models and not crappy human beings. Which, in my opinion, most of the league suspensions are driven by.

[steelreserve]

Thanks for pointing some of those out. Like I said, I try to pay as little attention as possible to this kinda stuff.

FWIW, I think Ben did exactly what was alleged to an extent. He totally had sex with that lady in a bathroom in a crap bar in podunk Georgia. That I have almost always been convinced of. What I am not certain about is the events leading up to and the aftermath of it all. If I remember correctly, that was the crux of the whole thing. So long ago, I don't actually remember or really care to look back into it.

There is no doubt he at least got a sloppy blowjob from a half-drunk chick in the men's room crapper, although who did what and why was all uncertain ... I think the police chief said "It's unclear whether any crime occurred, so we can't press charges, but nobody has anything to be proud of here," which is about as good a way of putting it as I can think of.

The one a couple years BEFORE that was the real suspicious one. Remember that woman who worked in a hotel in Lake Tahoe, and said Ben coaxed her up to his room, and then just forcibly pinned her down and raped her for no reason at all? And then before long it came out that she had, like ... severe issues ... and they found a whole series of emails and text messages to other people talking about her imaginary boyfriend Ben (which I think began a few days before he was supposed to be there, for some celebrity golf tournament or something), and she made up this whole fantastical double life that actually didn't exist at all? That all happened too.

I think that there are people out there who get it in their heads that, because they met a famous person, or know a famous person, or slept with a famous person, they ought to share some of that fame, and when it doesn't work that way, it drives them out of their minds. Sure, most people know better than that, but not all of them. Something like 4-5% of the general population has a serious mental illness, which - besides being a pretty frightening statistic by itself - goes a long way toward explaining a LOT of (very real) terrible behavior by crazy athletes and celebrities, and also the odd crazy accusation that doesn't add up.

This whole issue raises another tangent for me about the NFL and sports leagues in general. I am not sure I am on board with non-criminal off-field stuff impacting whether these guys play or not.

Drug testing is another thing, so let's leave that aside for the moment. But I have always thought if the players are not actually in jail or in criminal court proceedings, then they can play. Isn't that basically how it is out in the regular world?

I get that it is about PR and avoiding protests and bad news cycles for the league. But I am not sure it is the teams or the leagues responsibility to keep up the mythology that all pro-athletes are role models and not crappy human beings. Which, in my opinion, most of the league suspensions are driven by.

That's exactly how it ought to be if you ask me. Employers, colleges, sports leagues, etc. are not the police, they are not the courts, and they do not have access to the same information as the police and courts. Most "investigations" conducted by them are a joke, and wouldn't even meet the most basic legal standards, and everyone can see this.

Not to mention, as I've said repeatedly in these kinds of discussions, the effect of the league investigating and suspending players for ordinary street crime is actually to draw MORE attention to it. There was NO shortage of the same type of behavior in the past, but without all these public airings and official statements, people just kind of grumbled and went, "Well, that guy sounds like an asshole, but if it was that important, I'm sure he'd be in jail; at least he can play ball."

Like ... if all the suspensions actually caused athletes to stop getting arrested, then you could consider it a success at cleaning up your image. If you just keep suspending them, and they keep getting arrested, and you keep suspending them some more - well, that's how you make your image even worse. I don't think the image of the NFL is any better today than it was before the player conduct policy; in fact, it's probably about the worst it's ever been.

Unfortunately, out in the regular world, I think it's starting to not work the way it should either. Getting more and more common for people to be fired for anything that could be considered controversial at all - and in fact, that's increasingly used as a weapon by people with certain political leanings (guess which ones) to scare their opponents into silence for fear of losing their livelihoods.

And so now we've come full circle back to the whole debate over "believe all women," #MeToo, Brett Kavanaugh ... how much skepticism are you allowed to express publicly before your job is at stake? Which opinions can you hold before the Thought Police come for you? Some things with much deeper implications. And I think that a good reason why the Kavanaugh case was brought up repeatedly was that you can be certain there was some ... thing ... behind the scenes watching the outcome. Not even the results of the case itself, but of what other people were able to get away with saying and thinking publicly. And if things had been slightly different - if signs were clear that the muzzle was on tight enough and asking certain questions was no longer accepted - that would be a big green light for all sorts of things that you don't want to think about. That battle is not over, by the way, and I think the escape was very narrow.

[Mojouw]

Tucker Carlson having a job single-handedly proves there are no thought police.

Thought police and what not is just a scare tactic used by the people who want to say the quiet parts out loud and are pissed off that they can't.

But we are veering off into murky waters that have nothing to do with football.

I think we do both agree that the NFL's policies on a variety of issues are utter nonsense driven by bizarre and unverified gauges of public opinion. Which the NFL typically mistakes as being represented by who shouts loudest on Twitter first.

[steelreserve]

Tucker Carlson having a job single-handedly proves there are no thought police.

Thought police and what not is just a scare tactic used by the people who want to say the quiet parts out loud and are pissed off that they can't.

But we are veering off into murky waters that have nothing to do with football.

I think we do both agree that the NFL's policies on a variety of issues are utter nonsense driven by bizarre and unverified gauges of public opinion. Which the NFL typically mistakes as being represented by who shouts loudest on Twitter first.

I think you could remove "the NFL" from that post and have a statement that is just as true!

[tom444]

No surprise here and IMO the correct decision since Roger & Friends have not yet even spoken to plaintiff.

NFL not placing AB on exempt list

And no surprise Belichick is not going to do anything on his own

Asked Friday whether Brown would play, Patriots coach Bill Belichick answered, "We'll do what's best for the team." He later added that the team is trying to get Brown, who signed Monday, up to speed as quickly as possible.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ab-exempt-list

The Patriots can sit AB but I would think they have to be careful about going too much further. At some point they'd be getting into denying AB the right to work when he hasn't been proven guilty of anything but being an asshole.

[Mojouw]

I think you could remove "the NFL" from that post and have a statement that is just as true!

For sure. With any "customer facing" business venture there is a rush to listen to the first/loudest thing that they hear.

I think some companies are starting to get it. Just make whatever decision you think is best, and take it on the teeth for like 4 days and everyone moves on to the next thing. The NFL (and others) are convinced there is a way to thread the needle where you don't take it on the teeth. With the internet drive "outrage culture" we live in, there is no path to avoiding taking it on the teeth.

Remember when no one was going to ever shop at Target again because bathrooms or predators or something or other? That blew over in like a hot minute.

[DesertSteel]

Drug testing is another thing, so let's leave that aside for the moment. But I have always thought if the players are not actually in jail or in criminal court proceedings, then they can play. Isn't that basically how it is out in the regular world?

In high profile jobs or senior management positions? Not even close. You don't get to keep showing up to work like nothing happened.

[AtlantaDan]

The Patriots can sit AB but I would think they have to be careful about going too much further. At some point they'd be getting into denying AB the right to work when he hasn't been proven guilty of anything but being an asshole.

IMO the ticking time bomb for the Pats this season is if AB thinks he is being deprived of a fair opportunity to hit the incentive clauses in his contract

AB may go ballistic if anyone sits him to reduce his ability to hit those incentive numbers but if Belichick sits him rather than the league that lights the fuse

[tom444]

In high profile jobs or senior management positions? Not even close. You don't get to keep showing up to work like nothing happened.

But those employees usually aren't operating under a CBA.

"Given that the American workforce is increasingly non-unionized, many employees do not have experience with workplaces governed by CBAs. As a result, many assume that the NFL is like any other at-will employer and can suspend whoever it wants, for any reason and for any length of time. This, however, is not the case: As we learned in the Tom Brady matter, and as we are learning in the Elliott case, the CBA and individual contracts determine the extent of the NFL’s power, and if the players believe that the NFL has exceeded that power, they can bring suit in federal court. Here, the NFL has, through the CBA, relatively broad authority to discipline its players. In light of the most recent decision, Elliott is now serving his suspension."

https://www.theharmanfirm.com/blog/c...ee-rights-nfl/

[GoSlash27]

Thought police and what not is just a scare tactic used by the people who want to say the quiet parts out loud and are pissed off that they can't.

I'm afraid you just torpedoed your own argument. There is a reason "they can't say the quiet parts out loud", and that reason is what they call the 'thought police'.

In this case, people are allowed to say "AB is a scumbag and I think he's lying", but they are not allowed to say "This chick seems shady AF, her story doesn't check out, and I think *she's* lying. At least not out loud. That part, they keep quiet. And yeah, it pisses them off.

[vader29]

[tom444]

......................... but they are not allowed to say "This chick seems shady AF, her story doesn't check out, and I think *she's* lying. At least not out loud. That part, they keep quiet. And yeah, it pisses them off.

Sure they are. What we've grown beyond is the notion that because a woman stays in an abusive relationship the abuse is somehow negated.

[Mojouw]

I'm afraid you just torpedoed your own argument. There is a reason "they can't say the quiet parts out loud", and that reason is what they call the 'thought police'.

In this case, people are allowed to say "AB is a scumbag and I think he's lying", but they are not allowed to say "This chick seems shady AF, her story doesn't check out, and I think *she's* lying. At least not out loud. That part, they keep quiet. And yeah, it pisses them off.

So the counter argument is that people are angry that they cant say racist, bigoted, prejudicial, misogynist, and vile stuff in public forums? Because that is the quiet parts.

And for the record, of course you can say you think she is lying. You just cant solely rest it on the solely on the idea that there is a proper and predetermined reaction or set of actions that an accuser must follow after abusive events. And failing this arbitrary litmus test is an a priori reason to reject the claims. That is not thought police or social justice. That is a simple acknowledgement of what is now known about how abuse impacts its victims and their relationships with abusers.

[AtlantaDan]

Thanks for that - forget the Pepsi & Pizza Hut endorsements - AB is so toxic he cannot even get paid on equipment deals

[steelreserve]

I'm afraid you just torpedoed your own argument. There is a reason "they can't say the quiet parts out loud", and that reason is what they call the 'thought police'.

In this case, people are allowed to say "AB is a scumbag and I think he's lying", but they are not allowed to say "This chick seems shady AF, her story doesn't check out, and I think *she's* lying. At least not out loud. That part, they keep quiet. And yeah, it pisses them off.

I think he genuinely believes that "the quiet part that you can't say out loud" means people are only attacked for saying things that are actually racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted.

Not that people will denounce you as a racist, sexist, or bigot, for voicing benign opinions or facts that they just don't like. That's unfathomable, and believing that people would do it is just crazy tinfoil hat scare tactics.

But no, really, that's what's going on. Changing the acceptable frame of reference by repeating your own mantra loudly and aggressively, until enough people begin to question their own judgment and common sense. Gaslighting 101.

"A great way to tell that someone is not a racist is that they don't like being called a racist. A real racist doesn't care if you call him a racist. He'll just call you a n***** and move on with his day." I don't know whether it was some famous modern philosopher who said that, or some idiot on 4chan, but it's worth mentioning, and applies to most forms of bigotry.

[86WARD]

Maybe the shortest sponsorship of all time?

[GoSlash27]

So the counter argument is that people are angry that they cant say racist, bigoted, prejudicial, misogynist, and vile stuff in public forums? Because that is the quiet parts.

Close. People are angry that they can't say things that might be misinterpreted (intentionally or otherwise) as "racist, bigoted, prejudicial, misogynist, and vile". Which, surprise... is pretty much anything those people disagree with.

And for the record, of course you can say you think she is lying. You just cant solely rest it on the solely on the idea that there is a proper and predetermined reaction or set of actions that an accuser must follow after abusive events. And failing this arbitrary litmus test is an a priori reason to reject the claims. That is not thought police or social justice. That is a simple acknowledgement of what is now known about how abuse impacts its victims and their relationships with abusers.

I can base it on whatever I want, *including* "solely on the idea that there is a proper and predetermined reaction or set of actions that an accuser must follow after abusive events". Neither you nor anybody else has the authority to dictate to me what I'm allowed to say or think. If I'm wrong, then you should be able to provide a superior argument. Silencing people is a sign of weakness. And yes, that also applies to racists, misogynists, bigots, etc.
In her case, there's only one reason why she would hang around someone like AB after allegedly getting raped by him; she wanted money. Hell, there's only one reason *anybody* would spend time around that jackass, period. Likewise, the only reason anyone would spend time around that golddigger is because they want to bone her. A perfect match if you ask me.

[Mojouw]

Ok. So yeah. Just want to say stupid and shitty things out loud. Which of course you can. And go ahead. Just stop being so sensitive and turning it into the thought police when people push back against it.

Also other than politicians, Fox News hosts, Hollywood types, and athlete are actual people getting thought policed into unemployment?

Maybe I’m working in the wrong places but people say whatever the hell all time.