Shams: Spurs Waive Josh Primo

[vy65]

Think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. Basically there is a scenario where the Spurs handled this absolutely right at all times, even to the point of being self-sacrificing. And there's a scenario where they were conspirators with Primo. I thought RCD was running with a scenario close to ideal for the Spurs.

My guess is that the Spurs knew about Primo at least by the time the incident with the psychologist happened. The Spurs probably told Primo he had one more chance, and when the hotel thing happened and was confirmed, they cut him. Assuming they took precautions to make sure staffers weren't put in vulnerable positions around him, it's possible they met their actual burden. It's not clear that an accusation, even a credible one, would warrant announcing it to the world. We don't know if the psychologist came forward to the team and if she did, if she had a recommendation for what to do. For all we know, she told them to give him another chance and that his actions come from mental health issues. They may have worked with her on precautions before she left. Or she may have told them he should be let go, and they were like, "Assuming we keep him, how can we try to prevent this from happening again?"

There are so many different ways to interpret the situation. I don't think the Spurs are going to come out of this as cartoon villains or heartless. I think they're going to come out as a team that tried to work with a troubled player whom they thought was taking the steps he needed to to get better. They were doing the same thing some team is going to end up doing eventually. I know from experience that a lot of people with these types of problems are really good at pretending like they're taking accountability and thus avoiding the confrontation that is needed to address the issue. I think the Spurs wanted to believe Primo, and Primo was good at lying to himself and others to allay their concerns. I do think the Spurs released him hoping it would be the wake-up call he needed to fix his so he could come back. But I doubt they'll feel the same way once this whole thing is over. Primo used them, and their letting themselves get used might've caused suffering to others. If this psychologist isn't the only staff member Primo did this to, then this is going to get really ugly. The hotel worker is bad enough. But if the Spurs knew Primo was a risk to the work environment and they inadequately protected their employees from that risk, it'll cost jobs.

So if I have you right, you think there’s a scenario where the psychologist told the spurs to give primo another shot after he exposed himself to her - only for her to lawyer up after he exposed himself again to another women. That is beyond stupid - she wouldn’t lawyer up after an incident involving a third party if she waived her claim by going along with the spurs giving primo more rope to hang himself with. If the psychologist truly wanted to give Primo a second chance, why would she renege and lawyer up when he exposed himself to another. Tony Buzbee is not going to take a case that will hurt his profile as a plaintiffs lawyer and/or doesn’t have a damages model worth his while. What you’re describing is the type of thing plaintiffs attorneys avoid. Absolutely none of what you said makes sense given the anticipated lawsuit.

All of which says nothing about the workplace environment SS&E would be creating in that hypothetical. They have a known sexual assailant on their hands and, despite being confronted with victims who the Spurs believe to be telling the truth, nevertheless allow Primo to run amok? That’s the definition of gross negligence - intentional disregard of a known risk.

I don’t know of any “precautions” you could plausibly take to address that situation - do you think the spurs made Primo wear a chas y belt?

Sexual assault is never something that you gloss over with another chance - particularly in this social climate.

[ElNono]

Gonna be interesting to hear how many millions are needed to appease the big trauma and emotional distress she suffered from seeing BBC…

[ducks]

Gonna be interesting to hear how many millions are needed to appease the big trauma and emotional distress she suffered from seeing BBC…

Yeah seeing such a small must be very emotional unstable just ask the lawyer

[Joseph Kony]

Yeah seeing such a small must be very emotional unstable just ask the lawyer

we can just ask your wife instead tbh

[BatManu20]

Gonna be interesting to hear how many millions are needed to appease the big trauma and emotional distress she suffered from seeing BBC…

I imagine the cross examination of the witness going something like this tbh.

[Chomag]

Could be enough scandal here to what gets the Sprs org. Sold to Austin

[Joseph Kony]

Could be enough scandal here to what gets the Sprs org. Sold to Austin

please. look at all the with the Mavericks FO and nothing happened to them. Hefty fine and penalty? maybe within the realm of possibility. But being forced to sell the team and move over Primo whipping his out? come on

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Could be enough scandal here to what gets the Sprs org. Sold to Austin

More like the Sin City Spurs. Gearing up for the big Vegas move. They’re going to pack up in the middle of the night like when the Raiders moved to LA.



*blue font*

[ElNono]

I imagine the cross examination of the witness going something like this tbh.

“At that moment plaintiff saw a snake-like figure and suddenly realized she won’t be able to have sexual intercourse with her husband anymore”

[Chinook]

So if I have you right, you think there’s a scenario where the psychologist told the spurs to give primo another shot after he exposed himself to her - only for her to lawyer up after he exposed himself again to another women.

Yes, I think there's a scenario where you initially forgive/agree to overlook before you see it's a pattern. Or a scenario where the Spurs said, "We'll handle it" you believe them until you see it happens again. It doesn't look like she lawyered up when first happened. In most scenarios we're weighing, she only lawyers up after Primo gets waived.

If the psychologist truly wanted to give Primo a second chance, why would she renege and lawyer up when he exposed himself to another.

You're seriously asking why someone who gave Primo another chance would withdraw that good will after seeing him do the act again? That tends to be how second chances work.

Also, if you don't think women make those calculations for when to push for accountability on with SA/SH charges, you might not have looked into the matter too much.

Tony Buzbee is not going to take a case that will hurt his profile as a plaintiffs lawyer and/or doesn’t have a damages model worth his while. What you’re describing is the type of thing plaintiffs attorneys avoid. Absolutely none of what you said makes sense given the anticipated lawsuit.

Buzbee isn't Perry Mason. Most of the suits he brought up against Watson were dismissed. He doesn't have to take slam-dunk cases to help his image. Being known as the lawyer who seeks accountability against athletes is going to raise his profile. You're also treating this hypothetical delay in filing suit as if the psychologist signed an NDA and is breaking it. Typically speaking, if you do something -- formally or informally -- based on a condition and that condition is violated, you can withdraw the conditional thing you offered. There's currently no evidence that the psychologist immediately began procedures to filing suit after the incident. Something explains that delay, and those delays are extremely common anyway.

All of which says nothing about the workplace environment SS&E would be creating in that hypothetical. They have a known sexual assailant on their hands and, despite being confronted with victims who the Spurs believe to be telling the truth, nevertheless allow Primo to run amok? That’s the definition of gross negligence - intentional disregard of a known risk.

First, you're changing the scenario. We aren't talking about the Spurs at that point knowing about multiple charges among people in their organization. It's precisely that revelation that would do tremendous damage to their credibility. That hypothetical is a situation where they know of one accusation. One accusation, even if from someone credible, is not the same thing as a conviction or incontrovertible proof. Or it might be one incident coupled with Primo smoothing things over with both the Spurs and the psychologist. More than a regular victim, there's a very good possibility that the psychologist played an active role in how those early events played out. It's going to be really interesting to hear what she has to say, because we could end up learning a lot more about the team's decision-making than we would had she been a trainer or vendor.

I don’t know of any “precautions” you could plausibly take to address that situation - do you think the spurs made Primo wear a chas y belt?

So the choices on how to deal with SA/SH aren't just to lock every man who commits those actions away or to give up and have open season on women. Believe it or not, there are actual strategies to limit the chances of something occurring. Primo could be escorted at all times when on the team's property. All of the female staffers who might interact with Primo outside of public situations might have been re-assigned. It's possible the web some scenarios have the Spurs tracing to uncover the second incident might be part of the safeguards the team put in place. That might seem ludicrous to you, and in reality, it would've proved inadequate. But if Primo is the guys he's shaping up to be, he was probably really good at convincing the Spurs he was the straight-and-narrow and basically followed the rules until that stay in Minnesota. People can appear to change, convince others to forgive them and then backslide. Anyone who's actually dealt with people in similar situations (addiction, adultery, mental illness) know that these cycles of trust building and breaking aren't very uncommon. This is all hypothetical, but the Spurs would be responsible for getting caught in that and the damage to their employees that caused. But that's not necessarily the same thing as them not taking the issue seriously or trying to suppress it for PR reasons.

Sexual assault is never something that you gloss over with another chance - particularly in this social climate.

First, you're assuming some kind of assault when it might not be. There are degrees of indecent exposure (the thing Primo is actually being accused of). It can happened in conjunction with sexual assault, and some of the rumors suggest that it might have done so on at least one occasion. As a pattern, it's also an indicator of future more egregious sexual violence, which is why the Spurs were absolutely right to let him go after hearing it was a pattern or that he wasn't actually doing what he needed to to break the pattern (depending on the scenario). But it is something people can mature past or work their way through with the right intervention, which is what Primo's supposedly seeking now and what this scenario has the Spurs/the psychologist making a condition of further employment/not filing suit. I 100-percent agree it should always be taken seriously, but that doesn't always mean complete ostracization or court proceedings. If Primo wasn't lying, he probably does need help, and that help could go much further toward preventing another offense than simply suing him, firing him and never letting him earn a living. Then he'll just be a big strong mentally unstable dude roaming the streets of Toronto. It's not exactly the silver bullet solution.

[scott]

So if I have you right, you think there’s a scenario where the psychologist told the spurs to give primo another shot after he exposed himself to her - only for her to lawyer up after he exposed himself again to another women. That is beyond stupid - she wouldn’t lawyer up after an incident involving a third party if she waived her claim by going along with the spurs giving primo more rope to hang himself with. If the psychologist truly wanted to give Primo a second chance, why would she renege and lawyer up when he exposed himself to another. Tony Buzbee is not going to take a case that will hurt his profile as a plaintiffs lawyer and/or doesn’t have a damages model worth his while. What you’re describing is the type of thing plaintiffs attorneys avoid. Absolutely none of what you said makes sense given the anticipated lawsuit.

All of which says nothing about the workplace environment SS&E would be creating in that hypothetical. They have a known sexual assailant on their hands and, despite being confronted with victims who the Spurs believe to be telling the truth, nevertheless allow Primo to run amok? That’s the definition of gross negligence - intentional disregard of a known risk.

I don’t know of any “precautions” you could plausibly take to address that situation - do you think the spurs made Primo wear a chas y belt?

Sexual assault is never something that you gloss over with another chance - particularly in this social climate.

The alternative, quite plausible scenario:

The therapist reported the incident to the Spurs. The Spurs hired a third party to conduct an independent investigation, which turned out to be inconclusive or could not substantiate the claim (which does not mean it didn't happen). The Spurs communicated that to the therapist and she quit as a result. Later, more incidents became known to the Spurs, ones they could substantiate, so they immediately disciplined him by waiving him.

That leaves the question of the therapist lawyering up. I see two plausible scenarios here:

1. She lawyered up ahead of time, the Spurs were issued a demand letter (which almost always comes before anyone goes public, because in many cases your leverage is higher before you go public as the offending party will pay a premium to keep it from going public). This could have spurred (no pun intended) SS&E to dig deeper into allegations, or maybe it was the straw that broke the camels back, or maybe it was coincidental and led the Spurs to move on a termination they were making anyway. The worst case scenario, also probably the most likely for the Spurs, is that it moved them to take action immediately so that it appeared they are proactive.

2. Also quite plausible, the therapist had not lawyered up prior to Primo being terminated, and had kind of "moved on" because when an independent investigation takes place it typically gives the employer quite a bit of cover. Upon the news of Primo being waived, the therapist had a realization that maybe this is an opportunity to lawyer up or maybe she was telling friend " that guy, this is what he did to me" and the friend said "you should get a lawyer!" That isn't to say the therapist was being opportunistic, but window had opened up with Primo being waived that perhaps she wasn't alone and this was a systemic issue. In a case like this, it isn't difficult to wind up with Tony Buzbee and for him to make a quick move to representation.

I do agree, however, that this is will probably be bad for SS&E, but not as bad as some might think (see Dallas Mavericks, Washington Football Team)

[scott]

Also, speaking from first hand experience, a lot of victims of workplace abuse/assault that is short of a physical assault/rape will say that they don't want anyone to get in trouble, they just want the behavior to stop. However, once investigations begin (which is the proper way to handle these situations - not by telling the perp to simply stop it), victims moods often change (I would argue this is a good thing) to a stance of wanting appropriate punishments handed down.

I have been involved in cases where a victim will say she doesn't want the perp punished, just for the behavior to stop - then an investigation comes back finding no credible evidence of the assault, and suddenly the victim changes heart. This is fairly understandable, as now you have a formal process that is effectively telling a victim they are wrong (which isn't necessarily the case, it is only saying that there is not credible evident of the assault beyond that person's word - which makes punishment difficult because now you are possibly facing unlawful termination and defamation issues).

I think it is entirely possible that is what happened here, though we're highly unlikely to fully know the details. We will likely eventually see a complaint filed that alleges the Spurs of being the worst people on the planet, responsible for global warming, Trump's election, cancer, the final season of GoT, etc. This is what plaintiff's attorney's do. We must also not jump to the conclusion that the Spurs are actually guilty of these things. I'd be willing to wager that the truth lies somewhere along the lines of the scenario I laid out above.

So, again - here is my guess of what "really" happened. This would also happen to be the absolutely best case scenario for the Spurs. This is "playing it by the book". It will still look bad for the Spurs.

1. Therapist is assaulted and she reports it.
2. Spurs hire a third party to conduct an independent investigation.
3. Investigation comes back inconclusive or unable to credibly substantiate the allegations.
4. Because of this, the therapist quits. The Spurs probably give Primo some kind of minor disciplinary action or warning.
5. More allegations eventually surface (maybe this Minnesota hotel thing). Spurs investigate and substantiate or decide where there is smoke there must be fire and terminate Primo.
6. Therapist sees this (and maybe talks to friends still at SS&E who tell her what happened) and decides it's time to lawyer up.

[kht]

Also, speaking from first hand experience, a lot of victims of workplace abuse/assault that is short of a physical assault/rape will say that they don't want anyone to get in trouble, they just want the behavior to stop. However, once investigations begin (which is the proper way to handle these situations - not by telling the perp to simply stop it), victims moods often change (I would argue this is a good thing) to a stance of wanting appropriate punishments handed down.

I have been involved in cases where a victim will say she doesn't want the perp punished, just for the behavior to stop - then an investigation comes back finding no credible evidence of the assault, and suddenly the victim changes heart. This is fairly understandable, as now you have a formal process that is effectively telling a victim they are wrong (which isn't necessarily the case, it is only saying that there is not credible evident of the assault beyond that person's word - which makes punishment difficult because now you are possibly facing unlawful termination and defamation issues).

I think it is entirely possible that is what happened here, though we're highly unlikely to fully know the details. We will likely eventually see a complaint filed that alleges the Spurs of being the worst people on the planet, responsible for global warming, Trump's election, cancer, the final season of GoT, etc. This is what plaintiff's attorney's do. We must also not jump to the conclusion that the Spurs are actually guilty of these things. I'd be willing to wager that the truth lies somewhere along the lines of the scenario I laid out above.

So, again - here is my guess of what "really" happened. This would also happen to be the absolutely best case scenario for the Spurs. This is "playing it by the book". It will still look bad for the Spurs.

1. Therapist is assaulted and she reports it.
2. Spurs hire a third party to conduct an independent investigation.
3. Investigation comes back inconclusive or unable to credibly substantiate the allegations.
4. Because of this, the therapist quits. The Spurs probably give Primo some kind of minor disciplinary action or warning.
5. More allegations eventually surface (maybe this Minnesota hotel thing). Spurs investigate and substantiate or decide where there is smoke there must be fire and terminate Primo.
6. Therapist sees this (and maybe talks to friends still at SS&E who tell her what happened) and decides it's time to lawyer up.

Primo that dumb to it a second time after he got easy with #1 (exposure to therapist)?

[scott]

Primo that dumb to it a second time after he got easy with #1 (exposure to therapist)?

I mean, you gotta be pretty dumb to start with to expose your self to someone, period.

[pookenstein]

Somebody should edit a Primo segment into this.

[biba]

Also, speaking from first hand experience, a lot of victims of workplace abuse/assault that is short of a physical assault/rape will say that they don't want anyone to get in trouble, they just want the behavior to stop. However, once investigations begin (which is the proper way to handle these situations - not by telling the perp to simply stop it), victims moods often change (I would argue this is a good thing) to a stance of wanting appropriate punishments handed down.

I have been involved in cases where a victim will say she doesn't want the perp punished, just for the behavior to stop - then an investigation comes back finding no credible evidence of the assault, and suddenly the victim changes heart. This is fairly understandable, as now you have a formal process that is effectively telling a victim they are wrong (which isn't necessarily the case, it is only saying that there is not credible evident of the assault beyond that person's word - which makes punishment difficult because now you are possibly facing unlawful termination and defamation issues).

I think it is entirely possible that is what happened here, though we're highly unlikely to fully know the details. We will likely eventually see a complaint filed that alleges the Spurs of being the worst people on the planet, responsible for global warming, Trump's election, cancer, the final season of GoT, etc. This is what plaintiff's attorney's do. We must also not jump to the conclusion that the Spurs are actually guilty of these things. I'd be willing to wager that the truth lies somewhere along the lines of the scenario I laid out above.

So, again - here is my guess of what "really" happened. This would also happen to be the absolutely best case scenario for the Spurs. This is "playing it by the book". It will still look bad for the Spurs.

1. Therapist is assaulted and she reports it.
2. Spurs hire a third party to conduct an independent investigation.
3. Investigation comes back inconclusive or unable to credibly substantiate the allegations.
4. Because of this, the therapist quits. The Spurs probably give Primo some kind of minor disciplinary action or warning.
5. More allegations eventually surface (maybe this Minnesota hotel thing). Spurs investigate and substantiate or decide where there is smoke there must be fire and terminate Primo.
6. Therapist sees this (and maybe talks to friends still at SS&E who tell her what happened) and decides it's time to lawyer up.

That could explain this (posted the 29th October) :

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Based on the media advisory, a few things are clear to me. 1) this lawsuit has been percolating for a while and Buzbee and his client already tried negotiating with the Spurs (the primary defendant due to financial reasons) and the Spurs were either a) not taking it seriously by providing low ball settlement offers or b) non-responsive. I see almost no universe by which the Spurs has no advanced knowledge of what happened based on how things are proceeding.

2) The purpose of this press call is to drub up enough media controversy to make the settlement much bigger, and the Spurs are being stupid for not just making a generous enough offer now to stop the bleeding. In 99% of cases like this the plaintiff would prefer not to go to court. If I had to guess, based on nothing other than what’s presented, the biggest question is how far up the food chain this goes and how many executives get dragged in to it. I think RC Buford is probably fine because he was the author of the quote in the press statement. Brian Wright is probably caught up in this, but I sadly think Pop is as well, depending on how the plaintiff’s complaints were filed internally. I would be shocked if she didn’t have good do entation on dates and times to demonstrate workplace discrimination here.

Sometimes these things just get as far as the organization’s general counsel, but I would be shocked if that was the case here given it was a contractor/consultant.

[Maddog]

Tom Petrini realTomPetrini
6m
The law firm representing the former Spurs consulting psychologist says they will address "the veracity of recent public statements made by both the Spurs organization and Primo, interactions with individuals within the San Antonio Spurs organization."

Odd phrasing as both Spurs and Primo have essentially said nothing publicly.

That said, this is not good. There's a long history of situations like these not being handled properly by organizations- even when they thought they where handling it properly.

[KingKev]

More like the Sin City Spurs. Gearing up for the big Vegas move. They’re going to pack up in the middle of the night like when the Raiders moved to LA.



*blue font*

and bring back Primo to be the face of the franchise

[offset formation]

There's no way the top brass is dumb enough to know about this prior to picking up his option and continue to talk about him being the future of the franchise...

But if they were, heads will roll

That's what I've been saying.

Edit: spelling

[MVPCues]

Primo that dumb to it a second time after he got easy with #1 (exposure to therapist)?

It is not an intelligence issue. It is an impulsive behavior problem he can't resist.

[ElNono]

Solid move to do the presser in Houston, so the -limped San Antonio media can’t try to bury this.

[offset formation]

Also, speaking from first hand experience, a lot of victims of workplace abuse/assault that is short of a physical assault/rape will say that they don't want anyone to get in trouble, they just want the behavior to stop. However, once investigations begin (which is the proper way to handle these situations - not by telling the perp to simply stop it), victims moods often change (I would argue this is a good thing) to a stance of wanting appropriate punishments handed down.

I have been involved in cases where a victim will say she doesn't want the perp punished, just for the behavior to stop - then an investigation comes back finding no credible evidence of the assault, and suddenly the victim changes heart. This is fairly understandable, as now you have a formal process that is effectively telling a victim they are wrong (which isn't necessarily the case, it is only saying that there is not credible evident of the assault beyond that person's word - which makes punishment difficult because now you are possibly facing unlawful termination and defamation issues).

I think it is entirely possible that is what happened here, though we're highly unlikely to fully know the details. We will likely eventually see a complaint filed that alleges the Spurs of being the worst people on the planet, responsible for global warming, Trump's election, cancer, the final season of GoT, etc. This is what plaintiff's attorney's do. We must also not jump to the conclusion that the Spurs are actually guilty of these things. I'd be willing to wager that the truth lies somewhere along the lines of the scenario I laid out above.

So, again - here is my guess of what "really" happened. This would also happen to be the absolutely best case scenario for the Spurs. This is "playing it by the book". It will still look bad for the Spurs.

1. Therapist is assaulted and she reports it.
2. Spurs hire a third party to conduct an independent investigation.
3. Investigation comes back inconclusive or unable to credibly substantiate the allegations.
4. Because of this, the therapist quits. The Spurs probably give Primo some kind of minor disciplinary action or warning.
5. More allegations eventually surface (maybe this Minnesota hotel thing). Spurs investigate and substantiate or decide where there is smoke there must be fire and terminate Primo.
6. Therapist sees this (and maybe talks to friends still at SS&E who tell her what happened) and decides it's time to lawyer up.

All great points. But the wild card of picking up his option a mere two weeks ago will likely come into play in any legal action. And it's a potentially damning affirmation of any past behavior that they may have known about. Specifically, can you imagine if they knew in 2020 prior to drafting him that he'd allegedly been kicked out of his prep school, yet proceeded to draft him without due diligence.

Can you imagine if there are other "hotel incidents?"

Can you imagine if they've received even one other complaint ever, that he had done something like it?

And the thing is, the plaintiff in this case would know and that would undoubtedly come out in discovery because also undoubtedly it would have been something the organization knew about too, not just her from client privileged communications with Josh.

Again, I am hopeful the Spurs don't have any jeopardy here, but the more drip drip that is released starts to strain credulity that they didn't.

Finally, don't take it from me. PATFO is undoubtedly in full legal protection mode because they see the seriousness of what could be coming.

Given Pop's good will in the women's right arena, it won't look good if it becomes clear he cosigned keeping Primo on his team for another year that he potentially knew was whipping out his junk on the semi-regular.

[offset formation]

One piece of good news is that with post #1624 (this one), Primo's draft day thread from 2 years ago has now been usurped by this one of him being a sexual predator in just three days. Never should have been drafted...

Life turns on a dime.

[JADG79]

Totally agree you with you

The Spurs messed up bringing a young woman tempting the new "Negro de Whatsapp" google it, is a meme in latin america.

Note to file: Don’t hire any more female consultants to work with horny young men.