Again, no. The temporary restraining order has *already* had an effect on his career! He has been suspended (with pay) and likely will be suspended without pay if / when it becomes permanent. Do you think that endorsement money won't change? Or his future pay won't? That is implausible to the extreme.
And I'm not 100% sure of this, but my reading of tweets from the courtroom indicate that they admit anal penetration but deny it occurred when she was unconscious. That is, the defense is that she consented to rough sex, including rough anal sex. What is your basis for concluding that he admits unconscious sex?
Yes they have! That is the entire purpose of the line of questioning that you are objecting to. They are claiming that she is lying about the lack of consent.
Yes. If they establish that she is lying, he will be back pitching. And should be.
Do I think she is lying? No, I don't. Especially following the OH case noted earlier this week and lightly informed by his hostile and aggressive conduct in dissimilar situations. (That latter evidence of things like his twitter feed too is probably irrelevant in this hearing but informs my out of court beliefs.) But he is entitled to present his case. This isn't some kangaroo court where accusation equals guilt.
My understanding of the defense - and I would welcome a citation to anything that differs - is that they claim that he stopped when she became unconscious.
Again, no. The temporary restraining order has *already* had an effect on his career! He has been suspended (with pay) and likely will be suspended without pay if / when it becomes permanent. Do you think that endorsement money won't change? Or his future pay won't? That is implausible to the extreme.
And I'm not 100% sure of this, but my reading of tweets from the courtroom indicate that they admit anal penetration but deny it occurred when she was unconscious. That is, the defense is that she consented to rough sex, including rough anal sex. What is your basis for concluding that he admits unconscious sex?
Yes they have! That is the entire purpose of the line of questioning that you are objecting to. They are claiming that she is lying about the lack of consent.
Yes. If they establish that she is lying, he will be back pitching. And should be.
Do I think she is lying? No, I don't. Especially following the OH case noted earlier this week and lightly informed by his hostile and aggressive conduct in dissimilar situations. (That latter evidence of things like his twitter feed too is probably irrelevant in this hearing but informs my out of court beliefs.) But he is entitled to present his case. This isn't some kangaroo court where accusation equals guilt.
But consent cannot be given (or withheld) while unconscious.
My understanding of the defense - and I would welcome a citation to anything that differs - is that they claim that he stopped when she became unconscious.