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

[Gibbit]

6 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

The cheerleader director gets her direction from someone though.  I highly doubt that person is Snyder or Allen.  That said, the team releases a statement that all is well, rather than saying they take the allegations seriously and will investigate.  At best, they are negligent in all this.  At worst, complicit.

 

 

not always I bet. Though if topless shoot in costa rica wasn't oked by somebody I guess that director would be putting her job in jeopardy youd think......maybe she didn't need oks though if her girls were supposed to keep it hush. Still whats the shoot for, a topless calender or playboy or something?

its bad, but I don't see Snyder or allen taking any real heat for this besides media lashing. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, Gibbit said:

not always I bet. Though if topless shoot in costa rica wasn't oked by somebody I guess that director would be putting her job in jeopardy youd think......maybe she didn't need oks though if her girls were supposed to keep it hush. Still whats the shoot for a topless calender or playboy or something?

 

Ask yourself this:

 

Why would the cheerleading director be motivated to pimp out her staff?

 

 

[Gibbit]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Ask yourself this:

 

Why would the cheerleading director be motivated to pimp out her staff?

 

 

theyre hired? article said she did stuff like this to promote her dance group "capitol something"

[LadySkinsFan]

It's not uncommon for some women to throw other women under the bus to obtain their own personal illusion of power from the male leaders.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

19 minutes ago, dyst said:

Doesn’t this quote imply somethhing like that happened?

 

”For the photo shoot, at the adults-only Occidental Grand Papagayo resort on Culebra Bay, some of the cheerleaders said they were required to be topless, though the photographs used for the calendar would not show nudity.”

 

has anyone actually looked at any of the photos? lol...

 

 

 

 

She's topless in this pic. That's body paint up top (if it's not, it's a DAMN tight shirt lol). 

 

She was required to be topless to apply the body paint. She was required to be topless for this shot, although it's not what we'd normally imagine when we think "topless pic". While the paint does, I guess, cover her breasts she is still topless.

 

Right now, the article doesn't go into much detail concerning why the sponsors were sent there, who made the decision to send them and what, if anything, they knew about the photoshoot.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Gibbit said:

theyre hired? article said she did stuff like this to promote her dance group "capitol something"

 

Capital Something lol....

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, Gibbit said:

theyre hired? article said she did stuff like this to promote her dance group "capitol something"

 

But what incentive does she have to appease rich guys that buy suites?

 

You really think that she just went rogue to satisfy the demands of a bunch of rich old men, just because?

 

I’m not condoning her role in this but it seems a bit far fetched for her to come up with all this on her own.

I’ll just say that I’m glad to see some folks draw a line here that otherwise have been soft on Dan and Bruce.  There is good in this world.  While very few usual suspects continue to serve as Dan and Bruce’s pro bono counsel.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Yuck. I hope this isn’t true but it would not surprise me.

 

 

Wonder how many draft pics this will cost us...

[Gibbit]

Just now, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

But what incentive does she have to appease rich guys that buy suites?

 

You really think that she just went rogue to satisfy the demands of a bunch of rich old men, just because?

 

I’m not condoning her role in this but it seems a bit far fetched for her to come up with all this on her own.

yeah clearly its redskins approved, but they do body paint nudes in SI

 

I'm not saying she went rogue....just saying she probably doesn't need every detail approved by higher ups as far as the passport thing, the sponsors and the escort. Shes the cheerleader director. I doubt theres anyone higher in cheerleading stuff than her in the building

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, Gibbit said:

yeah clearly its redskins approved, but they do body paint nudes in SI

 

I'm not saying she went rogue....just saying she probably doesn't need every detail approved by higher ups as far as the passport thing, the sponsors and the escort. Shes the cheerleader director. I doubt theres anyone higher in cheerleading stuff than her in the building

That doesn’t mean she makes all the rules.  Everyone answers to someone.  I’d bet it wasn’t her idea to have rich guys pay to be escorted by her staff or attend yacht parties.  It was probably her idea to call it a “team bonding” trip.

[Gibbit]

Just now, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

That doesn’t mean she makes all the rules.  Everyone answers to someone.  I’d bet it wasn’t her idea to have rich guys pay to be escorted by her staff or attend yacht parties.  It was probably her idea to call it a “team bonding” trip.

who knows

 

She denies the claims so unless she gets fired and then blames a higher up, I guess the buck stops with her at the moment

[Califan007 The Constipated]

9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

But what incentive does she have to appease rich guys that buy suites?

 

You really think that she just went rogue to satisfy the demands of a bunch of rich old men, just because?

 

I’m not condoning her role in this but it seems a bit far fetched for her to come up with all this on her own.

I’ll just say that I’m glad to see some folks draw a line here that otherwise have been soft on Dan and Bruce.  There is good in this world.  While very few usual suspects continue to serve as Dan and Bruce’s pro bono counsel.

 

In the article it claims that one of those rich guys financially supported her dance group "Capital Something". So she'd have some reason so schmooze up rich guys wanting to spend time with her "girls".

[clskinsfan]

Just now, Gibbit said:

yeah clearly its redskins approved, but they do body paint nudes in SI

 

I'm not saying she went rogue....just saying she probably doesn't need every detail approved by higher ups as far as the passport thing, the sponsors and the escort. Shes the cheerleader director. I doubt theres anyone higher in cheerleading stuff than her in the building

 

Yeah. I dont think the photoshoot nudes are an issue at all. Hell. ESPN does a "body" issue every year. Nude photo shoots are what they are. And the models know that going in. 

 

The issue is taking their passports and "asking" them to escort rich sponsors to a club. The women themselves admit that nothing sexual happened. But puting them in that position is unacceptable. No other way to put it. The bigger issue is what it does to the look of the franchise and more specifically it's owner. This is not a good look no matter how he tries to spin it. And their press release after this broke only makes them look worse. "Contractually protected to ensure a safe and constructive environment" Really????

 

 

[dyst]

18 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

has anyone actually looked at any of the photos? lol...

 

 

 

 

She's topless in this pic. That's body paint up top (if it's not, it's a DAMN tight shirt lol). 

 

She was required to be topless to apply the body paint. She was required to be topless for this shot, although it's not what we'd normally imagine when we think "topless pic". While the paint does, I guess, cover her breasts she is still topless.

 

Right now, the article doesn't go into much detail concerning why the sponsors were sent there, who made the decision to send them and what, if anything, they knew about the photoshoot.

Well whatever the semantics, clearly some of them were very uncomfortable with how it was handled, which is a huge red flag when you consider the passport confiscations, the empty bar with cheerleader feeling forced to attend.

 

I don’t want to assume the Skins are guilty but I also don’t want to ignore the gut feelings these women felt. 

 

They are cheerleaders, Im sure they have been to organized parties in bars before, and I’m sure they have been nude in front of a camera before also, whether during changing clothes or with body paint on...but for them to feel unformfortable this time..to me says something. Something was not right on that trip.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

The issue is taking their passports and "asking" them to escort rich sponsors to a club. The women themselves admit that nothing sexual happened. But puting them in that position is unacceptable. No other way to put it. The bigger issue is what it does to the look of the franchise and more specifically it's owner. This is not a good look no matter how he tries to spin it. And their press release after this broke only makes them look worse. "Contractually protected to ensure a safe and constructive environment" Really????

 

 

1

 

Yep, absolutely right.

 

 

3 minutes ago, dyst said:

Well whatever the semantics, clearly some of them were very uncomfortable with how it was handled, which is a huge red flag when you consider the passport confiscations, the empty bar with cheerleader feeling forced to attended.

 

I don’t want to assume the Skins are guilty but I also don’t want to ignore the gut feelings these women felt. 

 

They are cheerleaders, Im sure they have been to organized paries im bars before, and I’m sure they have been nude in front of a camera before also, whether during changing clothes or with body paint on...but for them to feel unformfortable this time..to me says something. Something was not right on that trip.

 

I  agree with you. But I was saying earlier that the sponsors at the photoshoot won't really turn into anything. It's the passports issue (and to a lesser degree the club thing) that would garner the most heat.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

9 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

In the article it claims that one of those rich guys financially supported her dance group "Capital Something". So she'd have some reason so schmooze up rich guys wanting to spend time with her "girls".

 

One would think the smart PR move on behalf of the Redskins would have been to make a public statement that they were going to look into this and eventually make her the scapegoat.

[dyst]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

I  agree with you. But I was saying earlier that the sponsors at the photoshoot won't really turn into anything. It's the passports issue (and to a lesser degree the club thing) that would garner the most heat.

To add to this, my personal beliefs is that it could turn into something epsecially with the enviorment of awareness that we are in. Maybe not on its own, but lumped together it reads very badly.

[dyst]

6 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

One would think the smart PR move on behalf of the Redskins would have been to make a public statement that they were going to look into this and eventually make her the scapegoat.

Those two don’t go well together.

[Gibbit]

9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

One would think the smart PR move on behalf of the Redskins would have been to make a public statement that they were going to look into this and eventually make her the scapegoat.

I just don't understand why its so far fetched that she could have that much control over details about cheerleaders

 

Who else in the building would care that much about it?

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, dyst said:

Those two don’t go well together.

No doubt.  

 

It just the only way they could really sell Dan/Bruce being in the dark about this is to atleast appear to take a stand and try to pin this on her eventually

[bobandweave]

1 hour ago, dyst said:

Funny how so much gossip leaks about players, coaches and former GMs but this never leaked in 5 years.

 

Funny like how NBC owned Profootball Talk which has the space for 11 headlines on its front page right now somehow doesn’t have this story on its front page headlines? 

 

This story is being silenced now and was for a long long time. 

 

Monk4thahall (I was there when he gave his HOF speech) I remember that story about Kirk just like you described it. Kirk requested the outfits changed to his approval. I also remember being outspoken here about how I thought it was nuts that he have that right. The story made no sense then but now I think it’s more important that Kirk answer why he requested that then ever before. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

One would think the smart PR move on behalf of the Redskins would have been to make a public statement that they were going to look into this and eventually make her the scapegoat.

 

heh...you used "smart PR move" and "Redskins" in the same sentence lol...

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, Gibbit said:

I just don't understand why its so far fetched that she could have that much control over details about cheerleaders

 

Who else in the building would care that much about it?

The rich dude with the boat has his name on 2 parking spaces at FedEx Field.  I think it’s safe to say he’s viewed as a very prominent fan and donor.  I’d venture a guess those at the top indeed care about pleasing him.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

11 minutes ago, dyst said:

To add to this, my personal beliefs is that it could turn into something epsecially with the enviorment of awareness that we are in. Maybe not on its own, but lumped together it reads very badly.

 

Most definitely. But after reading the other articles on the subject of cheerleaders and professional sports, it becomes evident that something significant needs to be done that stretches way, way outside of the Skins. There's a lot of ugly around the NFL concerning their cheerleaders.

[88Comrade2000]

If this can force Dan to sell the team, that would great. This could be a season long distraction.

[RemoveSnyder]

19 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

I never said I did, and I never said he did.

 

Your speculative comment was an attempt to quantify the extent of knowledge Cousins may or may not have had and then implicate him with the rest of the redskins front office. (Albeit your speculative comment was arching off of my speculative comment, starting with "maybe") 

 

But, that's why you tried to spin is as dirty and used the words: "severely ****ed up." 

 

Your statement was a presumption of the extent of his knowledge and it was a speculative attempt to frame complicity upon Cousins, and you know it. So you can either admit it, or spin it, or retract it. "Maybe" I'll do the same with my speculative comment. 

 

 

If I wanted to use the specifics of the NYT article (passports, nudity, rich men gawking) in building a thesis about Cousins foreknowledge, in relation to his comments some months ago, then I would have referenced them individually and specifically when "speculating" about Cousins knowledge, or lack thereof. 

 

Since I didn't do that, then no, my intention was not to implicate Cousins as having detailed knowledge of the plight of the cheerleaders. 

 

 

There have been articles written in the past regarding the redskins and their cheerleaders and how far they push the sexy envelope. I recall an article where it was quoted by an ex Cowboy, perhaps it was Aikman, who said something along the lines that the redskins tried to use the cheerleaders for distraction. Intimating purposefully using provocative "stuff" to mess with opponents. Perhaps that's just eons old ES talk that I'm conflating, IDK. 

 

 

So, simply, Cousins could have known only that which we all already know, which is, the redskins push the sexy envelope in comparison to the rest of the league. Or perhaps, the only thing he may have know was not even fact but only whisper and innuendo. Something as simple as, "hey, some cheerleaders don't like how they are objectified." Something generic that it wouldn't be beyond the realm of reason that the face of the franchise may have heard at one time or another. 

 

If Cousins only knew that certain cheerleaders with the redskins were displeased with how they were treated and/or used, with no specifics behind, then his silence would have been even worse than some old Dad attempt at a misguided suggestion, conservative uniforms, as you implied. 

 

 

You comment springboarded from the kernel of an idea to total and complete complicity. You should be able to see that. 

And that's what Bruce Allen was famous for when he read his diatribe about Cousins prior to the last season. 

 

 

To presume that Cousins knew anything in detail about Costa Rica, or passports, or toplessness, is just reaching. I didn't go there. And I didn't then go another step and implicate him as having knowledge of such things like nudity for pay, then clumsily go out and offer up the: "the gals need to be more conservatively dressed." 

 

I know exactly what you're referencing there. You're saying, that Cousins is saying, "don't dress like that, you're asking for ..." 

That's what you're implying with your comment. 

 

 

IF the only things Cousins ever heard, gossip style, through other people around him, were that the cheerleaders themselves felt too exposed and were uncomfortable with the amount of objectifying that was going on, I don't have a problem with him raising his voice. 

 

 

With all that said, I'll break from the derailment. I'm sorry to the others. 

 

The people in power should be the ones answering questions. Clearly, Cousins was not the person in power. Nor is he any longer a redskin. If he had been in power and got the things he wanted or demanded, then he'd be on a long term contract. So, no, I don't subscribe to your "and IF" comment.