By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sports Discussion - So, Cristiano Ronaldo is an alleged Rapist.

SecondWar on 04 October 2018
contestgamer said:

There's no definitive proof. He shouldn't be droped from Juventus either way, Juventus and FIFA arent law enforcement. If he's guilty and it can be proved 100% in court of law then they can deal with it. If it is not, then he should have the right to play soccer. 

I think most clubs initially 'drop' the player so as not to distract from the rest of the team and to enable to player to get themselves sorted. 

But out of curiosity, how do you think it should go? I remember a few years back, the same thing happened with an English player, Adam Johnson. He was briefly suspended after being accused of having a relationship with a 15 year old. He was later brought back into the team, and eventually sacked when he pleaded guilty to the charge. I believe he is still in prison.



Around the Network
contestgamer on 04 October 2018
jason1637 said:
contestgamer said:

Not proven. And either way, he's paid her 400k with the clear understanding that this would go away. You cant have your cake and eat it to. 

Its in the documents he told his lawyers.

And raping someone and paying them not to mention it is still fucked up dude.

It might be. But she accepted the offer. An agreement was made. I cant trust anyones word that would break an agreement or contract in that way. To me she should be disqualified from speaking about this, because she had made a contractual agreement with him to do so.



contestgamer on 04 October 2018
SecondWar said:
contestgamer said:

First of all, they're doing it publicly and not through the law. Second of all, in vast majority of cases they offer absolutely no definitive proof. Hardly any of the accused have been prosecuted yet their lives are ruined. Any woman can cry rape and ruin a mans life with a half decent story.

And about this case - Ronaldo has already paid her almost 400k years ago. To me it smells like she's blown the money and needs another payoff. Even if what he did was true, she had the chance to prosecute at the time. She chose a payoff instead. Don't come back a decade later, by the time you've probably spent all that money and try to come after him again. You had two options; take the payoff or prosecute. She made her pick. 

And what does Ronaldo feeling like a slave in 2009 have to do with this case or his character? Zero

For the latter point, it says quite a lot about his character. He was already earnings millions but called himself a slave as his then club were not allowing him to transfer to Real Madrid. It showed him to be entitled and very self-absorbed. I don't believe him to be that person now, but I think having that sort of attitude at the time the alleged event took place is quite relevant to the case.

Also if Ronaldo paid her off, then that does suggest he has something to hide. If not, then why pay her off at all? In any regards, the mental effects of sexual assault are typically so traumatic victims don't exactly recall reliving it, as you would have to do in court. This is why many cases are reported much later or not at all. Has she asked for more money? It doesn't seem like that is her goal here.

But the line 'ruin a man's life' just stinks. It reminds me off an old Bojack Horseman episode. The allegations are not proven - yet, but they may well be in time (equally they may not). You criticise people for assuming guilt prematurely but you appear to be assuming innocence on the basis its a claim against a famous person so the claimant must only be doing it for attention or money - which is equally as farcical.

To me she's in the wrong regardless what happened. 

a. It didnt happen and she's lying.

b. it did happen and she agreed to keep it quiet for 400k and is now breaking that agreement, once the money was likely spent



jason1637 on 04 October 2018
contestgamer said:
jason1637 said:

Its in the documents he told his lawyers.

And raping someone and paying them not to mention it is still fucked up dude.

It might be. But she accepted the offer. An agreement was made. I cant trust anyones word that would break an agreement or contract in that way. To me she should be disqualified from speaking about this, because she had made a contractual agreement with him to do so.

Wow. I'm at a loss of words reading this. You're basically saying it doesn't matter that he raped her because she got money and signed an NDA. That's such a fucked up thing to say on si many levels.



contestgamer on 04 October 2018
jason1637 said:
contestgamer said:

It might be. But she accepted the offer. An agreement was made. I cant trust anyones word that would break an agreement or contract in that way. To me she should be disqualified from speaking about this, because she had made a contractual agreement with him to do so.

Wow. I'm at a loss of words reading this. You're basically saying it doesn't matter that he raped her because she got money and signed an NDA. That's such a fucked up thing to say on si many levels.

I'm not saying that "it doesnt matter". It does matter, and that's why she had the choice to prosecute or accept a payoff. I'm saying that an agreement was made to keep this between them and 400k was exchanged for that understanding. I dont see how you can just void agreements/contracts, because you no longer wish to be bound by them. That to me antithetical to our system of law. Agreements matter.



Around the Network
OhNoYouDont on 04 October 2018
contestgamer said:
jason1637 said:

Wow. I'm at a loss of words reading this. You're basically saying it doesn't matter that he raped her because she got money and signed an NDA. That's such a fucked up thing to say on si many levels.

I'm not saying that "it doesnt matter". It does matter, and that's why she had the choice to prosecute or accept a payoff. I'm saying that an agreement was made to keep this between them and 400k was exchanged for that understanding. I dont see how you can just void agreements/contracts, because you no longer wish to be bound by them. That to me antithetical to our system of law. Agreements matter.

Obstruction of justice is also part of that system of law and such a contract would certainly fall under that...



TheBird on 04 October 2018
SecondWar said:
contestgamer said:

First of all, they're doing it publicly and not through the law. Second of all, in vast majority of cases they offer absolutely no definitive proof. Hardly any of the accused have been prosecuted yet their lives are ruined. Any woman can cry rape and ruin a mans life with a half decent story.

And about this case - Ronaldo has already paid her almost 400k years ago. To me it smells like she's blown the money and needs another payoff. Even if what he did was true, she had the chance to prosecute at the time. She chose a payoff instead. Don't come back a decade later, by the time you've probably spent all that money and try to come after him again. You had two options; take the payoff or prosecute. She made her pick. 

And what does Ronaldo feeling like a slave in 2009 have to do with this case or his character? Zero

For the latter point, it says quite a lot about his character. He was already earnings millions but called himself a slave as his then club were not allowing him to transfer to Real Madrid. It showed him to be entitled and very self-absorbed. I don't believe him to be that person now, but I think having that sort of attitude at the time the alleged event took place is quite relevant to the case.

Also if Ronaldo paid her off, then that does suggest he has something to hide. If not, then why pay her off at all? In any regards, the mental effects of sexual assault are typically so traumatic victims don't exactly recall reliving it, as you would have to do in court. This is why many cases are reported much later or not at all. Has she asked for more money? It doesn't seem like that is her goal here.

But the line 'ruin a man's life' just stinks. It reminds me off an old Bojack Horseman episode. The allegations are not proven - yet, but they may well be in time (equally they may not). You criticise people for assuming guilt prematurely but you appear to be assuming innocence on the basis its a claim against a famous person so the claimant must only be doing it for attention or money - which is equally as farcical.

The fact that you support the MeToo movement just shows me what kind of disgusting human being you are. No point in arguing with a brick wall who doesn't know better. It has not been used once for good, it is only there to destroy the innocent for a few seconds of fame and attention.

 

Moderated - think-man

Last edited by think-man - on 05 October 2018

contestgamer on 04 October 2018
OhNoYouDont said:
contestgamer said:

I'm not saying that "it doesnt matter". It does matter, and that's why she had the choice to prosecute or accept a payoff. I'm saying that an agreement was made to keep this between them and 400k was exchanged for that understanding. I dont see how you can just void agreements/contracts, because you no longer wish to be bound by them. That to me antithetical to our system of law. Agreements matter.

Obstruction of justice is also part of that system of law and such a contract would certainly fall under that...

It's obstruction of justice in California and a few other places. In most places it, is not. Regardless, they both agreed. It's a contract. It's providing justice according to the victim herself, hence why she would sign such a contract.



OhNoYouDont on 04 October 2018
contestgamer said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Obstruction of justice is also part of that system of law and such a contract would certainly fall under that...

It's obstruction of justice in California and a few other places. In most places it, is not. Regardless, they both agreed. It's a contract. It's providing justice according to the victim herself, hence why she would sign such a contract.

It's obstruction any time you withhold information pertaining to a criminal matter. Her agreement to a monetary settlement would be a civil matter, it does not address the criminal matter which would be assessed by a district attorney.



contestgamer on 04 October 2018
OhNoYouDont said:
contestgamer said:

It's obstruction of justice in California and a few other places. In most places it, is not. Regardless, they both agreed. It's a contract. It's providing justice according to the victim herself, hence why she would sign such a contract.

It's obstruction any time you withhold information pertaining to a criminal matter. Her agreement to a monetary settlement would be a civil matter, it does not address the criminal matter which would be assessed by a district attorney.

It would still be quite unethical. She clearly withheld the information from prosecution following the exchange of money.