Packer Player Under Investigation In Sexual Assault

[Tarlam!]

Calling out a player for being stupid and shedding other players and the team in a bad light is a sign of leadership by my line of thinking. I appreciate Clay taking as much of a stand as he could.

Favre was guilty of mass adultery, regularly being publicly drunk and disorderly and his immaturity level, well.... Where was the moral outrage during his heydays? Oh, how naive of me. It's part of his "legend".

The apparent double standards displayed on ethics in the USA never ceases to amaze me.

[Scott Campbell]

Calling out a player for being stupid and shedding other players and the team in a bad light is a sign of leadership by my line of thinking. I appreciate Clay taking as much of a stand as he could.

Favre was guilty of mass adultery, regularly being publicly drunk and disorderly and his immaturity level, well.... Where was the moral outrage during his heydays? Oh, how naive of me. It's part of his "legend".

The apparent double standards displayed on ethics in the USA never ceases to amaze me.

He was never accused of anything publicly. Apples and oranges.

[KYPack]

OK.

I wasn't going to weigh in on this deal, but here goes..

Remember this bit from the Bedard article on the now famous incident?

But Peter Bartell of New Berlin, who arrived at Wilderness about 3 a.m. with a group from the Ho-Chunk Casino, said he heard a boisterous party at the same cabin where the Packers stayed.

"To me it sounded like a bunch of drunks having a bachelor's party," he said.

It sounded like a bachelor party because that's what was happening. What will make a herd of young football players howl in the middle of the night after a golf outing?

Two strippers putting on a show for the boys.

Sounds like Brandon stayed around for an extra show. After it was over, those kind of girls like to get paid for their service. If you don't pay, they will damn sure try to get you to pay. I'm sure they threatened to call the cops and that's just what they did.

Now all the young Packers are paying for Brandon's extra show.

And, at Casa Underwood, cabinet doors are being slammed shut & Brandon is finding different places around the house to sleep. 'Cause Mrs Underwood is pretty pissed right now.

[Scott Campbell]

at, my friends, is the cleaned up, nice, ready-for-the-press version of what Matthews and his teammates are saying about Underwood possibly hiring prostitutes (yes, that’s the word on the street) at a charity event. Off the record, the guys whose names were in the paper in relation to this incident are beyond pissed.

They may well be prostitutes, but the evidence is flimsy at best at this point. If they are, that makes Underwood look really bad, but makes it easier for him to make the case that any sex was consensual. The other problem though, is that prostitution is illegal, so perhaps Underwood is guilty of hiring a prostitute. Wasn't Matthews the one who rented the condo? If so, does he have any responsibility for what happens there? It could partially explain why he seems really ticked off.

If they were hookers, it probably makes it easier to avoid the rape charges. But it also proves premeditated stupidity.



But what if Underwood wasn't the one that lined up the strippers?

[cheesner]

If they were whores, then the case becomes very problematic.

They cannot charge Underwood with rape - only shop lifting.

[vince]

All players are not treated equally, that's for sure Tar. by the fans and the teams.

For what it's worth, I think Brett Favre... nevermind

[pbmax]

So speculation so one sided it allows the poster to declare the result virtually conclusive is OK on the internet.

But pointing out the flaws in the conclusion is not OK on the internet?

JH merely painted a likely scenario based on what limited facts are given. The only conclusion he reached was that the situation was suspicious. If someone disagrees and wants to point out the flaws in that conclusion they should be able to do so without playing the sexist card on JH.

Likely? Only in a fevered imagination. That you acknowledge the limited scope of the facts we know make it unlikely his scenario is likely.

And its the second time this offseason that with limited facts he has gone straight to the woman saw an opportunity and therefore sought revenge/money.

[Scott Campbell]

If they were whores, then the case becomes very problematic.

They cannot charge Underwood with rape - only shop lifting.

[Tarlam!]

He was never accused of anything publicly. Apples and oranges.

That's trite. He admitted it in his numerous publications. Underwood is guilty of no more wrongdoing than Favre up to this point. Just because he's being accused doesn't make him guilty. Just because he denies it, doesn't meaN he's innocent.

I've publicly stated my opinions on sexual abuse. This case isn't a parrallel of other recent cases.

[RashanGary]

Either case, I was open to both any possible scenerio, I just gave my gut calls, the way it read at first sight. The first one, the court agreed, there wasn't enough evidence. The 2nd, if the things coming out now are true, could have been dead on the money.

I'd accept and appology, but I don't think you're man enough.

[Scott Campbell]

So speculation so one sided it allows the poster to declare the result virtually conclusive is OK on the internet.

But pointing out the flaws in the conclusion is not OK on the internet?

JH merely painted a likely scenario based on what limited facts are given. The only conclusion he reached was that the situation was suspicious. If someone disagrees and wants to point out the flaws in that conclusion they should be able to do so without playing the sexist card on JH.

Likely? Only in a fevered imagination. That you acknowledge the limited scope of the facts we know make it unlikely his scenario is likely.

And its the second time this offseason that with limited facts he has gone straight to the woman saw an opportunity and therefore sought revenge/money.

The "grizzled vets" comments were totally sexist. And perhaps fortuitous.


He smelled something fishy. No pun intended.

[pbmax]

And if Matthews does not know anything about the incident (probably an overstatement, he probably saw something, even incidental) he would not help Underwood by providing details to the press. It is entirely possible that the players know nothing that would help exonerate Underwood if this is truly a he said-they said situation.

If Matthews wanted to show support for Underwood, he could have done so without giving details of what he knows to the press. He didn't want to do that. It doesn't mean that Underwood is guilty, that Matthews thinks he's guilty, or even that I think Underwood is guilty (I have no idea).

In my opinion, Matthews was less than supportive to Underwood. There are a lot of explanations for why he was that way.

Yes, there are possibly a number of reasons why. But they all revolve around deflecting blame away from themselves. I did finally see the video from which you got the comments and it sounds just like Sitton's or Matthews' quoted remarks: that the situation was unfortunate and that they had NOTHING to do with it. Underwood is under the bus only so far as the players knocked him down trying to get as far away from the bus as possible.

I guess I don't see this behavior as indicative of anything other than the player's own embarrassment over being involved in this. Its difficult to come to Underwood's defense when you are backpedaling away from this as quickly as possible.

I think KYPack's reading of this sounds about right. Though, the hiring of entertainment needn't have involved all the players present.

[pbmax]

So speculation so one sided it allows the poster to declare the result virtually conclusive is OK on the internet.

But pointing out the flaws in the conclusion is not OK on the internet?

JH merely painted a likely scenario based on what limited facts are given. The only conclusion he reached was that the situation was suspicious. If someone disagrees and wants to point out the flaws in that conclusion they should be able to do so without playing the sexist card on JH.

Likely? Only in a fevered imagination. That you acknowledge the limited scope of the facts we know make it unlikely his scenario is likely.

And its the second time this offseason that with limited facts he has gone straight to the woman saw an opportunity and therefore sought revenge/money.

The "grizzled vets" comments were totally sexist. And perhaps fortuitous.


He smelled something fishy. No pun intended.

Even a blind squirrel finds an opportunistic, grizzled vet once in a while.

And JH using "grizzled vets" in commenting about a sexual assault might be him transferring his feelings about Brett into another topic.

Just a joke Justin, I apologize as I post it.

[vince]

I think KYPack's reading of this sounds about right. Though, the hiring of entertainment needn't have involved all the players present.

Agreed.

[pbmax]

OK.

I wasn't going to weigh in on this deal, but here goes..

Remember this bit from the Bedard article on the now famous incident?

But Peter Bartell of New Berlin, who arrived at Wilderness about 3 a.m. with a group from the Ho-Chunk Casino, said he heard a boisterous party at the same cabin where the Packers stayed.

"To me it sounded like a bunch of drunks having a bachelor's party," he said.

It sounded like a bachelor party because that's what was happening. What will make a herd of young football players howl in the middle of the night after a golf outing?

Two strippers putting on a show for the boys.

Sounds like Brandon stayed around for an extra show. After it was over, those kind of girls like to get paid for their service. If you don't pay, they will damn sure try to get you to pay. I'm sure they threatened to call the cops and that's just what they did.

Now all the young Packers are paying for Brandon's extra show.

And, at Casa Underwood, cabinet doors are being slammed shut & Brandon is finding different places around the house to sleep. 'Cause Mrs Underwood is pretty pissed right now.

Maybe the players stuck Brandon with the bill?