The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

https://theathletic.com/news/trevor-bauer-suspension-mlb-dodgers/aYCmQOPClnDJ/ (https://theathletic.com/news/trevor-bauer-suspension-mlb-dodgers/aYCmQOPClnDJ/)

No charges were ever filed against Bauer and the case is closed, so this is a mind boggling suspension. Trevor is.......a psychopath, to be blunt. He had consensual but really violent sex with some girl and to no one's surprise, she claimed rape and pressed charges. Those charges were thrown out due to lack of evidence and Bauer is now suing her. Anyone who enjoys violent sex is a psychopath and needs therapy.

He is appealing this and it's hard not to see how he won't win or have his suspension reduced by 80% or so. Two years without charges is unprecedented and MLBPA will probably bite their tongue and fight this for him, making sure something like this doesn't happen to other players. Other players have beat their wives and girlfriends and gotten way less suspension time than this, so an allegation without charges can't be more.

Unless you specifically consent to the violence, this should not be referred to as "consensual."

It's called BDSM, and sometimes it can get violent.   

I repeat:

Unless you specifically consent to the violence, this should not be referred to as "consensual."

Well, a couple in a BDSM relationship knows that things can get violent at times and they accept that.   This girl probably accused him because they broke up and she was mad at him.   Women who do that are pieces of shit who should be thrown in jail if and when they are caught. 

I swear, it's like the concept of "consent" is like advanced calculus or something to a certain segment of the population.

She may have consented to sex.  That does not mean she consented to being punched in the face.  Bauer himself described her as, "a woman that I hardly knew."  So on what basis would you believe that she was a willing participant in a "BDSM relationship"?

She did, requested to be choked several times. Like I said, I don't think much of "men" who get off on hurting women, but unless they are hiding something, she consented via text and saw him for years afterwards. He is a psycho, but an innocent one, this suspension will not stand and it's going to get real awkward in that Dodgers clubhouse when he comes back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

I don't know the details but choking is a  far cry from face punching if that is indeed what we are talking about.

There might have been some slapping, I'm not sure. Either way, he's a sick guy but two sick people doing consensual acts isn't cause for a 2 year suspension.

If ONE of them didn't consent then it isn't consensual.  If she consented to some of what he did but not all of it then it wasn't consensual. If she consented and then after he began she told him to stop and he continued then it wasn't consensual.  If she was unconscious them she didn't consent.

Watch the video I posted.  It explains consent in easy to understand terms in less than 3 minutes.

I understand consent, Trevor is saying it was all consensual and has the texts that show that she consented to these acts on several occasions and met up with him for years after the alleged assault took place. Only these two would really know what happened that night but there was a reason that no charges were made and the suspension ruling is all but guaranteed to be overturned. Especially when there is precedent for beating your wife IN PUBLIC AT AN MLB EVENT and only getting 81 games like Domingo German did for the Yankees.

Side note, love the Yankees policy of no long hair or beards so they look professional while they have TWO wife beaters on their pitching staff.

Neither of these things have to do with consent.

You can withdraw consent.  Just because you texted something doesn't mean you consented in the moment.  You can still hang out with someone after they've denied you consent, also.

The inability to prove the case in court is a legal standard, but that isn't necessarily a professional standard held by MLB.

I'm not saying he did or he didn't or what will happen, but the examples you are giving literally don't affect the accusations.

I'm looking at it more from a legal standpoint because the truth is, no one will ever know what happened that night unless reports and exams were done immediately. All we have to go on is that this was a consensual pattern in their sexual relationship and with no other evidence, there can be no charges filed.

I realize there are many different factors in each situation but its kind of hard to buy it wasn't consensual when you went back for more. At best, it definitely makes it almost impossible to prove that it wasn't.

I understand your point and from a legal perspective, it's a he said/she said -- there is a legal standard of guilt that might not be met.  Nobody is arguing that.

Internal bylaws of a company don't have that same legal standard.  I don't know what the MLBs laws are or how hard the players union wants to fight or what -- but his legal guilt isn't related to how the company sees their name getting tarnished.  They may think that this dude is a dirtbag and that's enough to keep him out of the news for a couple of years.  I don't know what will stick to him and what won't, but discussing the legality of his allegations really aren't at play here.

I don't mean to argue just to argue, but that's not how consent works.

You can have anal sex with someone yesterday.  They can offer to have anal sex with you tomorrow.  But you don't get to fuck someone's ass in perpetuity because they allowed it in the past and will allow it again in the future.  People's sexual-limit allowances are allowed to change day to day.

No means no -- if he violated that, it's sexual assault.

I'm not saying that he did or he didn't -- but just because someone allows something later doesn't mean it was consensual in the moment.

I completely get consent but he is innocent unless she proves that he isn't. When she continues to stay in a relationship (regardless of the reason) where she had been raped/abused it makes it much harder to "prove" she wasn't consensual to it. When it comes to a he said/she said situation then circumstantial evidence is all you can go by.

He isn't innocent.  He is "not guilty", from a purely US legal standpoint. 

But we aren't talking about a legal US court -- we are talking about MLB's internal standards.

^^^ I was speaking legally and didn't mean to imply the guy didn't do anything wrong.

Yeah, you're right, although I am shocked a powerful Union like the MLBPA allowed their players to get suspended and fined from accusations alone. That being said, this is going to get overruled based on the length of it alone. If they went for 30 games or something, he still fights it but maybe it stands because that's just 6 or 7 starts. 2 years is unprecedented in any sport and their own history of suspensions contradicts this punishment.

As I pointed out above, Domingo German beat his wife in public at an MLB event. 100% guilty and he confessed. He gets 81 games. Trevor denies everything and no charges were pressed and in the court of public opinion, he looks innocent too. 2 year suspension. They will have to explain this to an arbitrator. If a confession gets you 81 games, a denial shouldn't even be half that.

I can't really say.

I've never even heard this guy's name before.

But I think that it's hard to compare suspension with suspension.  One is domestic abuse, the other is sexual assault, so it's not exactly apples to apples.  We also don't know (or I should say that I don't know) the specifics of the allegation, but maybe the MLB directly met with the accuser and her account was very credible.  Maybe they've had issues with this guy.

It could just come down to:
With German - guy did something bad, recognizes and is willing to atone.
With Bauer 2 - guy did something bad (arguably worse), but the MLB doesn't believe him and he's now lying on top of it.

I ultimately think you're correct -- 2 years does seem like an awful long time, almost as if it was intentionally this long to allow for an appeal so that they could cut it in half and still come out looking like they did something.


Additionally, the first case with German is tough because by punishing him, you're also punishing his wife, since she's tied to him financially, so it's almost dissuasive to bring the hammer down on him if she isn't pushing for it.  It's just not a 1:1 scenario to compare.

If one woman is accusing a man of non-constual behavior, there is a small chance she might be lying.  Once two women are accusing the same guy of the same behavior, I find it extremely unlikely both are lying, in particular how much our society treats women who come forward to allege this type of behavior. 

I know two rape victims who both say what happened after they came forward in terms of being both of lying and deserving the rape was more traumatic and worse than the original rape.  I know other rape victims who won't come forward because they know what will happen to them.  The incidents of false accusations is astronautical small compared to the number of men who get away with it.   

So how did you view the Ray Rice incident?  Regardless of what the camera showed, she stayed with him.

The fucked up thing is that the Ray Rice video put him out of the league for good, but the Joe Mixon video didn't.   

Like I said ... when they stay it makes it much "harder" to prove it. I didn't say that they couldn't prove it. Video is a pretty damn powerful tool and as far as I know there is no video of the sex so you ae left with only circumtantial evidence and their he said/she said stories.

But you're not even disputing whether it happened, so video wouldn't make a difference.  Your point was that the fact that she chose to see him again afterwards "proves" that it was consensual.  Janay got married to Ray after he hit her on video.  So what does that prove about how she felt?

And just for clarity here: you specifically indicated women who claimed they had been raped or abused:


Does the fact that Janay Rice didn't leave the relationship - rather, the opposite: she got married to Ray - prove that she was consensual to her abuse?

A punch in the face is a punch in the face.

To be clear, people who are in clear-cut, black-letter physically abusive relationships frequently still go back to their abusive partners.  This does not "prove" that they like or condone the abuse.  There are many complex reasons why it happens.

The fact that she went back to Bauer does not "prove" that she wanted to be punched in the face.  It doesn't prove anything.

LOL ... you keep believiing that Mr Lawyer but thetruth is most people wouldn't think there was something wrong if she went back for more and would require more proof than just her testimony. There are a lot of reasons she may have went back but it doesn't matter.  It may not be right but it is the human way of interpretting things. Unfortunately it doesn't matter to the law if you kill someone as long as no one can prove it or a jury says you didn't do it ala Casey Anthony and OJ. Being raped, punched, threatened etc. is no different. I get that it sux but life isn't always fair.

^ Why are you still talking about law?

For the upteenth time, this isn't about law.

If he is talking about proving it then he is talking about law. I don't see where proving it is relavant if not the law. People can and do believe whatever they want without proof of anything. Just watch the same news story on dfferent channels or skim through social media.

No one is taking about a criminal conviction.  MLB doesn't need a guilty verdict to suspend him.

Honestly ... I don't see the difference. in regards to the questions you asked me. People aren't going to think any differently about what really happned based on the law vs in public opinion.

I'm sorry I missed this. No one has to prove she wanted to be punched in the face. They have to prove he did something she did not want. The burden of proof is on the accusser.

No. It. Is. Not.

What you are describing is a LEGAL burden for CRIMINAL prosecution (not even civil cases).
The MLB can hear her, believe her, and then act.

You can argue that they shouldn't do that or that it's not fair or whatever, but they don't have to prove him guilty.

So then: since Janay got married to Ray Rice after he punched her in the face, it is "hard to prove" she did not want to be punched in the face.
And even if she directly says "I did not want to be punched in the face," that does not count, because she went back to him after it happened.

Agreed 100%, which is why it's so crazy to me that the Union let this be the case. To clarify what I stated above, Domingo didn't have a tearful breakdown and confessed to hitting his wife, he did it in front of teammates and MLB executives AND it was on camera. He just didn't fight the charges and got 81 games. To me, this will be Bauer's defense:

-Investigated by the police and no charges were pressed
-Complete lack of evidence outside of an accusation
-Alleged victim on at least one occasion consented to being choked and hit
-Alleged victim met with Bauer several times over the course of a few years after alleged incident took place
-Domingo got suspended for assault in public, in front of people and served 81 games. 2 year suspension based off of accusation is 4 times what he got.

To me, that is a very solid case with the arbitrator. Of course, like you say, this isn't the justice system. This is the MLB Kangaroo Court. The arbitrator can hear Trevor for 3 seconds and uphold the 2 year suspension. Trevor would then sue in the legal system but as we found out with Tom Brady and the NFL, MLB has the power to suspend players arbitrarily as it was granted to them by the players themselves. As long as they don't fine Clint Frazier $50,000 a day for being ginger, they can do what they want.

One more note here:

Let me just point out this absurd reversal of victim and offender.

You seem to believe that the default assumption should be that Bauer was totally justified in being violent towards this woman, and that the "burden of proof" is on HER to PROVE that she DIDN'T want to be a target of violence.  This is insane.

But this is consistent with the conservative worldview: if a woman makes a rape allegation, the burden of proof is on HER to PROVE that she DIDN'T want sex, not on the alleged assailant to prove that she affirmatively gave her consent.

That's also the LEGAL worldview in the U.S.   It's in the Constitution.   You should try reading it sometime. 

And a lot of times, women do make false rape allegations because they are mad at the guy.   Women who do that should be locked up.

No, the legal worldview in the US is not "if someone punches you in the face, first you have to prove you didn't want it."  Domestic violence cases would be unprosecutable if this were true.

I think the issue in this case is that she says it got way more violent and nonconsensual than Bauer says it did. In that case, the burden of proof is on her. If he threw her out the window and he says that is what she wanted, THEN the burden of proof is on him.

There are two very different things going on here.

1) "Did the alleged actions happen?"
Which, fine!  If there is a dispute over whether Bauer punched her in the face, that question should be resolved.  In a criminal court, that question would need to be answered beyond a reasonable doubt; in a civil court, that question would need to be answered by the preponderance of the evidence; in an employer investigation, they could use an even lower standard than that.

2) "Were the actions consensual?"
If it is determined (to the appropriate standard of the setting) that the actions did happen, consent matters.  If she says it "got more nonconsensual" than Bauer says it did, that's the textbook definition of exceeding consent.

Agreeing to a kiss is not agreeing to be felt up.
Agreeing to be felt up is not agreeing to sex.
Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to be choked.
Agreeing to be choked is not agreeing to be punched in the face.

The argument over whether it happened is not the same as the argument over whether it was consensual.  So far, a lot of people in this thread haven't been disputing that the violence happened, but have insisted she needs to prove she DIDN'T agree to the violence, which is backwards.  That's not how consent works.

Yes, this is one of the cases where we are discussing many different things at once and this is where it is confusing. To my knowledge, while she consented to similar stuff in the past, she is saying at this particular time she did not and it got bad. He is saying, once again to my knowledge because it's hard to pinpoint this stuff down now, that she consented to this rough stuff but it didn't get as bad as she claims.

So, the burden of proof on him is that he needs to show that she consented to his version of events. The burden of proof on her is proving her claims that it got really bad and she never said to do that. It's very murky and if she ever had to testify, would probably do very poorly on the witness stand considering she saw him for years after. Bauer is suing her and her attorney and that is typically not something a guilty person would do as it will bring up cellphone records and all sorts of other things.

Then again, a psychopath like Bauer probably wouldn't look favorable to a jury either. Moral of the story, if the thought of hurting women turns you on, go see a therapist.

While not being into BDSM myself, from what I understand about that community is that those limits are clearly defined and there really isn't gray area as to what's acceptable.  The relationship is built on rules and trust and safety.  It sounds like they aren't doing it right.

That is the case between couples or adult performers. Bauer and the woman were just casual hookups over the course of a few years, doesn't seem like they ever dated. Which makes it an even worse idea, especially for an athlete who makes big money.

Most likely what the MLB, or NFL, does is listen to both sides (hopefully), then they look at how THEIR bottom line will be affected, then act for or against the player.  Sadly, 95% comes down to money.

My safe word is kumquat