NYT - Redskins Cheerleaders Describe Trip to Costa Rica that Crossed the Line

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

This is the thing though. No matter what if this is true or not this just makes the Redskins look bad. This could be totally fabricated. That's the main thing I'm bent about. Damage is already done. Does not matter now because we are on a minute to minute news cycle and whomever gets the most clicks wins. Truth be damned. Society likes to blast people into oblivion on stories and reports while they could give a good **** if anything is of truth. Being that other cheerleaders are already coming out and refuting this report makes its a question of truth to the original report. Modern journalism makes no effort in thorough reporting anymore and throw **** against a wall hoping it sticks.

I don't think anyone is out there silencing the other cheerleaders.  I fully expected other cheerleaders to speak out against this.  As I said, I'm sure some of them relished in this kind of stuff.  Others don't.  The others are the ones talking.  Nobody from the Redskins came out refuting that they indeed did sell this stuff of to 'sponsors', the escorting, the yachts, etc.

 

Also, folks tend not to believe this kind of stuff when the those with allegations against them aren't terds.  Unfortunately, Dan is a terd.  So yeah - totally makes sense that folks would believe this on it's face.

[clskinsfan]

And here they come. There will be weeks of this stuff ya'll. Get used to it:

 

"DT Francis rips Redskins for 'racist' logo after joining Giants"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/dt-francis-rips-redskins-for-racist-logo-after-joining-giants/ar-AAwHf5v?li=BBnb7Kz

[Renegade7]

47 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

What charges? Felony making women uncomfortable (MWU)? If the piece is correct, it paints the execs that were there as being skeevy and creepy, but the article does mention there was no sex involved. I fail to see what kind of charges could be brought up for this.

Good question.  Let me get back to you on that.  On this one, I'm more comfortable looking into what options there are for pressing charges instead of asking if we should.

[ExoDus84]

Just now, clskinsfan said:

And here they come. There will be weeks of this stuff ya'll. Get used to it:

 

"DT Francis rips Redskins for 'racist' logo after joining Giants"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/dt-francis-rips-redskins-for-racist-logo-after-joining-giants/ar-AAwHf5v?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Sour grapes much? We cut him so he goes off after he joins a divisional rival. Good riddance.

[HigSkin]

3 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

for what it's worth

 

I guess this is one of them....

 

maybe the other...

 

 

[clskinsfan]

5 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

Sour grapes much? We cut him so he goes off after he joins a divisional rival. Good riddance.

 

Problem is now the team name will be linked to the bad press in the national news. And it isnt going away anytime soon. It gives a voice to JAG's like this. I mean we all know he wont make it through Camp before the Giants cut him as well. But the casual observer doesnt know anything about that. They just see an EX REDSKIN calling the team racist. 

 

You have to love the quote from Francis instagram account. I mean WTF is this guy talking about? His film is atrocious. "When the team you were on didn't appreciate you but the team you played against actually pays attention to the film."

 

 

[NewCliche21]

6 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

It's not that hard. My comment was about vulnerability and objectification of women and respect. I guess it just depends where you draw your line in the sand. 

 

If this happened in America and their careers and livelihoods were threatened, would it then be cool with you or is it not about passports? 

 

Sorry if I came off harsh, very near and dear topic to me.  There's a very clear line in the sand:  If she wants to, is capable of understanding the risks involved, and is doing it without any pressure implied or explicit, then go for it.  Be a porn star for all I care; it's your body, do what you want.

When there is *ANY* type of coercion, even implied, then it's not okay.  "Escorting", sex, favors, anything.  It's an exploitation of a vulnerability.  The line is clear and indisputable from my end.  Not aimed at you, but what I tell people is that if you have to question whether or not it's  a bad choice, then it's a bad choice.

 

3 hours ago, Alexa said:

I read the article. All they had to do was say no. Being a Redskins cheerleader isn't a career job. They all should have said no, give me my passport back. Are these women so weak that they're going to be intimidated by a director of a cheerleading team? I just don't get that. I would have told that person to F off, I quit. Or F off I'm taking this to the league office. Now it's a big deal 5 years later?   Also how is it Snyder's fault? Everyone assumes he has his hands in everything. I seriously doubt he was telling the director of cheerleading to make the cheerleaders take their tops off and go out w/ sponsors. 

 

As far as the passports, obviously the director was trying to play tough. But do these girls have any common sense? Is a director of cheerleading really going to leave a cheerleader behind in Costa Rica cause she didn't obey orders to go out to a club w/ a sponsor? Please. That would never ever happen. 

 

I'm not saying there isn't blame. The director should be fired and move on. No need to take this to the Supreme Court. No need to try and turn this into something it's not. 

 

Very, very, very, very, VERY easy to say as an armchair quarterback.  This victim-blaming and minimization infuriates me to no end.  There's too short a character limit for me to even get started, so I won't.

To be clear:  I'm not trying to impugn your character or anything like that.  I'm saying this viewpoint is factually wrong from a professional standpoint (source: I've been in this field for 15 years) and demonstrates a lack of understanding.  That doesn't mean you're dumb.  I don't understand how gravity works because I'm not a scientist, it doesn't make me stupid and isn't a judgment.  It just means that you don't realize the inaccuracy, pervasiveness, and danger of this very common type of view.

And Snyder is in charge, man.  This, or any other "scandal", will always go to the person in charge.  I don't see how that's questionable.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

22 hours ago, Paul Cumberland said:

A 2013 story coming out in 2018.  Let's hope this is has already been taken care of

 

These reads like you hope they murdered the cheerleaders and buried them in Costa Rica.

[OVCChairman]

5 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

Problem is now the team name will be linked to the bad press in the national news. And it isnt going away anytime soon. It gives a voice to JAG's like this. I mean we all know he wont make it through Camp before the Giants cut him as well. But the casual observer doesnt know anything about that. They just see an EX REDSKIN calling the team racist. 

 

You have to love the quote from Francis instagram account. I mean WTF is this guy talking about? His film is atrocious. "When the team you were on didn't appreciate you but the team you played against actually pays attention to the film."

 

 

 

 

I hope he gets to line up against Scherff a few times this season... 

[Malapropismic Depository]

Maybe we should stop calling them the "Skins" if that nickname promotes/programs this kind of behavior.

 

[NewCliche21]

51 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

I hate that no matter what facts are given as soon as a story breaks its automatically true and the hell with and facts that come out later. This guilty before innocent society that is present today is literally a witch hunt anymore. As soon as someone has an axe to grind somewhere someone will no doubt go to obscene lengths to damage other humans. True or not this damning of fellow human beings before even knowing any truth is the scariest part of any allegation.

 

1)  What facts are coming out later?

2)  When are they coming out?

3)  How do you know that those are the "real" facts?

4)  How do you know when all of the facts are out?
5)  What axe to grind?
6)  What obscene length to damage other humans?
7)  What "any truth" are you talking about?
8)  How are you passing judgement on the validity of the claims and those making the claims when you say that you can't pass judgment on something or someone without having the full facts?

[Patrick Evidente]

19 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

And here they come. There will be weeks of this stuff ya'll. Get used to it:

 

"DT Francis rips Redskins for 'racist' logo after joining Giants"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/dt-francis-rips-redskins-for-racist-logo-after-joining-giants/ar-AAwHf5v?li=BBnb7Kz

Did the Redskins draft this guy or he chose to sign?

[OVCChairman]

11 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Sorry if I came off harsh, very near and dear topic to me.  There's a very clear line in the sand:  If she wants to, is capable of understanding the risks involved, and is doing it without any pressure implied or explicit, then go for it.  Be a porn star for all I care; it's your body, do what you want.

When there is *ANY* type of coercion, even implied, then it's not okay.  "Escorting", sex, favors, anything.  It's an exploitation of a vulnerability.  The line is clear and indisputable from my end.  Not aimed at you, but what I tell people is that if you have to question whether or not it's  a bad choice, then it's a bad choice.

 

 

Very, very, very, very, VERY easy to say as an armchair quarterback.  This victim-blaming and minimization infuriates me to no end.  There's too short a character limit for me to even get started, so I won't.

To be clear:  I'm not trying to impugn your character or anything like that.  I'm saying this viewpoint is factually wrong from a professional standpoint (source: I've been in this field for 15 years) and demonstrates a lack of understanding.  That doesn't mean you're dumb.  I don't understand how gravity works because I'm not a scientist, it doesn't make me stupid and isn't a judgment.  It just means that you don't realize the inaccuracy, pervasiveness, and danger of this very common type of view.

And Snyder is in charge, man.  This, or any other "scandal", will always go to the person in charge.  I don't see how that's questionable.

 

 

Have witnessed this myself, primarily in the restaurant industry.  Without giving a blatant threat, the implied understanding was there.  If you don't play by this managers rules, you get terrible scheduling, bad server sections, minimal shifts, and generally are the 1st one dismissed at the end of the night.  She never had to say anything about it but she ruled the roost... And I know of multiple people being essentially held hostage out of sheer implied intimidation.  

[NewCliche21]

1 minute ago, Patrick Evidente said:

Did the Redskins draft this guy or he chose to sign?

 

He's on his sixth team now and only got real playing time with us.

Swaggy was mad when he left that he didn't get re-signed.  Not worth what he wanted, but he definitely busted his ass to get what he ended up getting.  That passive-aggressive "I'll prove you wrong by winning elsewhere" attitude is worthy of respect.

This talking **** before the ink is dry bull**** is for cowards, crybabies, and JAG's.

[OVCChairman]

3 minutes ago, Patrick Evidente said:

Did the Redskins draft this guy or he chose to sign?

 

Quote

On October 12, 2016 Francis signed with the Washington Redskins.^[10] He was promoted to the active roster on November 29, 2016.^[11] He was waived on December 10, 2016, and was re-signed back to the practice squad.^[12][13] Francis signed a futures contract with the Redskins on January 2, 2017.^[14]

 

[clskinsfan]

2 minutes ago, Patrick Evidente said:

Did the Redskins draft this guy or he chose to sign?

He was a UDFA to the Dolphins. The Giants make his FIFTH team in 5 years. Yet this JAG thinks we cant evaluate talent or tape? And to my original point. Now every sorry player like this has their opportunity for national news because of this debacle.

[Playaction2Sanders]

OMG I feel like I committed this crime. How the hell can I sport any kind of Redskins gear or support the team with this kinda reputation. I feel like I'm gonna have to skip the next 5 seasons just to cleanse myself.. WTF really???

[NewCliche21]

1 minute ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Have witnessed this myself, primarily in the restaurant industry.  Without giving a blatant threat, the implied understanding was there.  If you don't play by this managers rules, you get terrible scheduling, bad server sections, minimal shifts, and generally are the 1st one dismissed at the end of the night.  She never had to say anything about it but she ruled the roost... And I know of multiple people being essentially held hostage out of sheer implied intimidation.  

 

Yep, this isn't limited to women or sexual misconduct (to be PC).  This is any type of authority exploiting any type of vulnerability.  Employment, familial, social, academic, marital, anything.  Exploitation is always wrong, always.

I'm not saying that authority doesn't inherently have authority.  I'm saying there's the right way to utilize it and then what happened here.

Just now, Playaction2Sanders said:

OMG I feel like I committed this crime. How the hell can I sport any kind of Redskins gear or support the team with this kinda reputation. I feel like I'm gonna have to skip the next 5 seasons just to cleanse myself.. WTF really???

 

Maybe take those five years you're taking off and get some training in comedy.  You're doing it wrong.

[youngestson]

3 hours ago, nonniey said:

Oh yeah that would look great lets fire the victims, 

Yeah, unfortunately, that's what I wrote.

 

I should have been more careful expressing my point. I don't blame the cheerleaders at all. 

[Unbias]

Anyone who's posting Cheerleaders saying it didn't happen to them as a defense has to stop. All it takes is one girl saying it did happen (which obviously has already happened) and your now on the side of someone pretending it isn't that bad. 

 

Here's what they need to do: 

 

- Call a press conference about the event

- Say they are taking this very seriously and have started an investigation giving every Cheerleader an avenue to voice their concerns

- Talk to all the Cheerleaders, listen to their concerns and pay them money to keep the information proprietary to their investigation

- Have a follow up press conference announcing restructurings (i.e. firings) and that the conduct policies have been rewritten to never let this happen again

 

To be clear, there is no defending these accusations without minimizing the voice of alleged sexual harassment victim(s). The energy it would take to disprove any Cheerleader that wants their story heard/moment of fame (however you want to see it) will only be seen as further trying to fortify a culture of silencing victims.  

[fordranger76]

12 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

1)  What facts are coming out later?

2)  When are they coming out?

3)  How do you know that those are the "real" facts?

4)  How do you know when all of the facts are out?
5)  What axe to grind?
6)  What obscene length to damage other humans?
7)  What "any truth" are you talking about?
8)  How are you passing judgement on the validity of the claims and those making the claims when you say that you can't pass judgment on something or someone without having the full facts?

1. Who knows? Perhaps other cheerleaders perspectives that none of this happened?

2. Maybe when those that deny this start speaking about it?

3. I don't know if these claims are true and neither do you. Only one of us have made up their minds to the validity of the statements made so far.

4. We may never know. However with time I would assume more will come out on the matter to determine an accurate reaction.

5. Always could be someone hiding in the grass about something. How do we know these cheerleaders were not put up to saying this? Maybe one of them is pissed that their career did not turn out how they wished. We have no idea in reality as of yet. I don't know and none of us do as of yet!

6. See number 5. If said cheerleader is pissed off at someone why not go after the very people that she is pissed off at to damage and hurt them if at all possible.

7. Truth. These women could be talking out of their asses. We don't know yet. I'm not going to blast the team over an event yet when there are other women denying about what was written in this article.

8. I am a neutral party in this. I am stating the case for the unheard here. They may be telling the truth. Just because I am waiting before I go jump off a bridge about it and hear all sides does not mean I am passing judgement. 

 

Bottom line is many are assuming this is all true. I am not. I will withhold my view on it until I have heard all sides and well hell even some proof instead of just allegations. Just because I don't feel like attacking the GM, owner. commish, or anyone else doesn't make me a bad person. It just makes me a little more patient in my outrage.

[Unbias]

11 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

He's on his sixth team now and only got real playing time with us.

Swaggy was mad when he left that he didn't get re-signed.  Not worth what he wanted, but he definitely busted his ass to get what he ended up getting.  That passive-aggressive "I'll prove you wrong by winning elsewhere" attitude is worthy of respect.

This talking **** before the ink is dry bull**** is for cowards, crybabies, and JAG's.

 

It's a part of the NFL. Teams decide not to draft, resign or cut players and they often get a chip on their shoulder for being passed on. 

 

When Tom Brady talks about being undervalued we make a documentary. When Swaggy does it we say 'business as usual'. 

 

His comments do carry some concern for me. With each year that passes people are getting more sensitive towards racial/stereotype issues and society is looking to make an example out of what was once the norm. Right now if the 2013 Cheerleader scandal isn't handled property people will start looking at something the larger media can get behind that's anti-Redskin. For us we have an organized group opposing the name that would love the attention. I honestly do see a time in the future where the name is changed. I just hope we can hold on for another 5 years. 

[NewCliche21]

1 minute ago, fordranger76 said:

1. Who knows? Perhaps other cheerleaders perspectives that none of this happened?

2. Maybe when those that deny this start speaking about it?

3. I don't know if these claims are true and neither do you. Only one of us have made up their minds to the validity of the statements made so far.

4. We may never know. However with time I would assume more will come out on the matter to determine an accurate reaction.

5. Always could be someone hiding in the grass about something. How do we know these cheerleaders were not put up to saying this? Maybe one of them is pissed that their career did not turn out how they wished. We have no idea in reality as of yet. I don't know and none of us do as of yet!

6. See number 5. If said cheerleader is pissed off at someone why not go after the very people that she is pissed off at to damage and hurt them if at all possible.

7. Truth. These women could be talking out of their asses. We don't know yet. I'm not going to blast the team over an event yet when there are other women denying about what was written in this article.

8. I am a neutral party in this. I am stating the case for the unheard here. They may be telling the truth. Just because I am waiting before I go jump off a bridge about it and hear all sides does not mean I am passing judgement. 

 

Bottom line is many are assuming this is all true. I am not. I will withhold my view on it until I have heard all sides and well hell even some proof instead of just allegations. Just because I don't feel like attacking the GM, owner. commish, or anyone else doesn't make me a bad person. It just makes me a little more patient in my outrage.

 

1)  So saying that it didn't happen is a fact but saying it did happen is?  I must be misinterpreting that, forgive me.

2)  They already have.  How many do we need six?  A certain percentage?  How many tweets, and do IG posts count?

3)  You and I have very different standards for credibility.  I'm not going to convince you otherwise, so I'm not going to try.

 

4)  So you're guessing something will come out so just wait and see for an indeterminate amount of time?

5)  I'll translate into what that sounds like: There could possibly maybe be something at some point.  Who knows?

6)  We have no idea about reality and will at some point maybe?  I have to be misinterpreting that, too.

7)  I thought you said we have to wait until women deny in order to know the facts, and the facts the things that say that it didn't happen.  So if the denials are the truth and are factual, then how many more do we need?

8)  Fair enough.

Your posts don't make you a bad person.  They just make you someone with whom I vehemently disagree.  I'm sorry if implied otherwise.

5 minutes ago, Unbias said:

 

It's a part of the NFL. Teams decide not to draft, resign or cut players and they often get a chip on their shoulder for being passed on. 

 

When Tom Brady talks about being undervalued we make a documentary. When Swaggy does it we say 'business as usual'. 

 

His comments do carry some concern for me. With each year that passes people are getting more sensitive towards racial/stereotype issues and society is looking to make an example out of what was once the norm. Right now if the 2013 Cheerleader scandal isn't handled property people will start looking at something the larger media can get behind that's anti-Redskin. For us we have an organized group opposing the name that would love the attention. I honestly do see a time in the future where the name is changed. I just hope we can hold on for another 5 years. 

 

Oh I'm just saying who he is, that's all.  Individuated from current context.  You and I are on the same page on the whole picture.

[Rskins91]

If the former cheerleaders are tweeting #fakenews and saying the story is inaccurate, they should expand and explain their perspectives and give reasons as to why. I don't want to hear "It didn't happen to me so it can't be true." That's BS that discredits women who come forward, and discourages future reporting.

 

If they have legitimate proof or a way to show the accusations aren't accurate, they should step forward with more than social media posts.

[NewCliche21]

Just now, Rskins91 said:

If the former cheerleaders are tweeting #fakenews and saying the story is inaccurate, they should expand and explain their perspectives and give reasons as to why. I don't want to hear "It didn't happen to me so it can't be true." That's BS that discredits women who come forward, and discourages future reporting.

 

If they have legitimate proof or a way to show the accusations aren't accurate, they should step forward with more than social media posts.

 

See this is the problem when it goes to "She said, she said" situations.  There's a ton of shame involved in this, so many cheerleaders may have never disclosed it happening, never heard of it happening, or in denial, or a number of other legitimate reasons that they genuinely don't recall or don't believe that it happened.

Person A can say it happened and Person B can say it didn't and both can pass lie detector tests as long as they genuinely believe what they're saying.