Roberto Osuna, the Blue Jays, and the Limits of Presuming Innocence
The Toronto Blue Jays managed the singular feat Tuesday of being no-hit and having that no-hitter register as only the second-worst news of the day. Whenever that happens, you know you’re having a very bad day.
All-Star closer Roberto Osuna of the Toronto Blue Jays was charged with assault Tuesday and put on administrative leave by Major League Baseball, preventing him from playing for at least a week.
Osuna assaulted a woman, according to Toronto police.
Now, obviously there’s a lot to unpack here, and we don’t have all of the facts. In fact, at this point all we know is that Osuna was arrested for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend, then released. Multiple sources have confirmed that the incident in question was indeed one of domestic violence. But the Blue Jays had what might be considered an interesting response to the allegations.
“We are taking the matter extremely seriously, as the type of conduct associated with this incident is not reflective of our values as an organisation,” the team said.
Osuna has been placed on administrative leave per Article II of the Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy in the CBA, a move the team says it “fully supports.”
Let’s start with the Blue Jays’ statement. As a lawyer, among the first things one learns is that words matter, and what struck me about that statement is what was missing from it. Nowhere in that statement is there any qualification, like the words “allegedly” or “if true.”
Now, to be fair, John Gibbons was more measured in his response:
“You’re dealing with human beings, regardless of walk of life. Hopefully there’s nothing there,” said Gibbons. “I love the kid, not because of what he’s done for us on the field, but because of who he is and my relationship with him over the years. Really, society in general, there’s got to be a zero-tolerance policy, you’ve got to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t protect themselves. Hopefully when it’s all said and done, he’s back with us, it’s behind him and things turn out fine.”
But even there, any qualification is lukewarm at best. And that is very odd, especially for Canada. Remember from our discussion of Miguel Sano that a presumption of innocence does not apply to things like employers or public debate. As I explained then:
In other words, due process is being notified of a government or quasi-government proceeding and having an opportunity to participate in it fairly. It’s also not equivalent to a presumption of innocence, either, although that’s become part of due process in criminal proceedings. Most people are surprised to learn that the Constitution nowhere explicitly contains a requirement that people be presumed innocent. Courts added that requirement later; in a case called Pagano v. Allard, the court does a fairly decent job of explaining how courts interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to graft a “presumption of innocence” onto procedural due process after that amendment was ratified. In other words, due process requires that a judge and jury presume a defendant is innocent before trying them for a crime and make the state prove it. It doesn’t require that FanGraphs readers (or Sano’s employer, for that matter) do the same.
Canada has a much stronger presumption of innocence than the United States does. While there is no express presumption of innocence in the American Constitution, it’s actually expressly written into Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So it’s a bit puzzling to see a Canadian team take a much stronger tack against its own player than American teams in similar circumstances.
For reference, compare the Jays’ statement on Osuna to what the Twins said about Sano, and the Rockies’ statement on Jose Reyes:

Once again, we find that word, allegations. The Atlanta Braves’ statement regarding Hector Olivera is quite similar, as well.

I think you get the idea.
The Jays have lawyers. As such, it’s unlikely that the omission of the word “allegations” was either accidental or a product merely of Canadian law given how thoroughly that law protects the accused. And it’s not like Canada doesn’t have defamation torts — they do.
Given all this, there are three reasons I can see why the Blue Jays aren’t tempering their statement about Osuna. The first is that they know something — something that makes the allegations credible enough that they don’t want to soften them. The second is that they are doing it for PR purposes. Although, if that’s true, throwing their closer under the bus is an odd move for a contending team. And third, it’s an error. That I find unlikely; even Gibbons never used the word “allegations.”
And that’s troubling. It’s troubling because the Blue Jays evidently believe these allegations to be sufficiently credible that they are willing to ignore possible damage to Osuna’s reputation if they’re wrong. After all, the language “conduct associated with this incident” pretty much takes for granted that the incident happened. And that means that the allegations against Osuna are likely pretty serious. Whatever Osuna is alleged to have done — and, as I write this, we don’t know exactly what it is — it’s pretty serious. Canada, like the U.S., follows the British common law, so their assault laws are fairly similar to what you might expect in the States. And that covers such a broad range of behaviors that it’s impossible at this point to know what type of conduct we’re talking about.
But as troubling as it is, there is a more notable development here. The Blue Jays are a team that is in contention and has better than a 20% chance of making the playoffs. They’re a team that is projected to win 84 games, enough to keep them in the Wild Card race all year. There’s something at stake.
Despite that, the Blue Jays appear to have made a decision to presume that Osuna’s alleged victim is telling the truth. Objectively, there’s some logic to that decision: studies have shown that between 2% and 6% of rape allegations are false, which means that as many as 98% are true. False domestic-abuse allegations are equally rare. Statistically, it’s just more likely that Osuna’s accuser is telling the truth, and the Blue Jays have evidently decided to take her allegations at face value. Legally, there’s no reason they can’t. And in the court of public opinion, there are probably reasons they should.
However logical Toronto’s decision, it’s one that few (if any) clubs have embraced before this moment. The Blue Jays, with this one move, appear to have taken a real, if subtle, stand on behalf of women’s safety. It’s a position which, if I might editorialize briefly, is overdue.
When we discussed Sano, we talked about the punishments available under the Domestic Violence Policy. And while Sano wasn’t suspended, he also wasn’t arrested. A review of penalties for players who were arrested isn’t heartening for the Blue Jays’ on-field prospects. Aroldis Chapman got a 30-game suspension, Reyes landed a 52-game suspension, and Olivera received an 82-game suspension. Given the Jays’ precarious place in the standings and Osuna’s importance to the team — Osuna has already racked up 0.5 WAR and is sixth in MLB with nine saves for a 19-17 Toronto team — a loss of that length for Toronto could be brutal. There’s also the fact that Osuna, who plays in Canada, could have visa problems if he is, in fact, convicted; Jung Ho Kang is proof of that. This is a saga which could last long beyond the commissioner’s investigation.
There is one last thing to consider. The Blue Jays rank 13th in the majors with 0.9 relief pitcher WAR, and Osuna accounts for more than half of that by himself. If the Blue Jays do, in fact, miss the playoffs, Osuna — or, more likely, Osuna’s absence — will likely be a not-insignificant factor. It’s important to remember what the Blue Jays might be giving up. It’s also worth noting what they might have gained, though. The organization’s message is distinct from those sent by other clubs faced with similar situations.
Sheryl Ring is a litigation attorney and General Counsel at Open Communities, a non-profit legal aid agency in the Chicago suburbs. You can reach her on twitter at @Ring_Sheryl. The opinions expressed here are solely the author's. This post is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.
I might be more inclined to chalk up the lack of the word “allegation” to the statement being rushed. What I found somewhat odd was that the full statement by the team referred to him as “Roberto” rather than his full name or even “Mr. Osuna,” as we sometimes see from clubs when they’re dealing with sensitive legal matters. Could just be me, but I’d find that very familial way of addressing him to be somewhat incongruous with a deliberate attempt to distance themselves from him.
Can you find one example of a statement like this from a team/company/government/whatever that does not include “allegation”?
Yeah, if they were rushing out a statement, you’d expect it to hew pretty close to the standard language. Notice how the Reyes and Olivera statements are almost identical. The easiest thing for the Jays would have been to follow the template. That they threw it out seems telling.
Except that they also cancelled his booblehead night and pulled his jersey from their stores.
I’m a Jays fan. What’s more worrisome to me is that their swift action following the arrest could indicate that they knew something was going on but were waiting for official action to address it.
They also had pictures up on IG of the replacement solarte T-shirts for the giveaway hours later.
I have friends who work for the team and I can confirm that this was NOT planned in advance. They didn’t find out until we did. It sounds like it was an awfully hectic day in the marketing department, but good on them for doing the right thing.
I would think that would be standard – its the moral high ground. You have to create distance from the situation ASAP.
Having a t-shirt giveaway days after he’s been arrested for assault is obviously a non-starter from a PR perspective. As is selling his jersey while the situation shakes out. But if we’re going to try to parse the language of the statement to divine the team’s ultimate intent, you can’t overlook the way they chose to address him.
You know it’s serious when they cancel the bobblehead night.
That’s the team style. They routinely refer to their players by first name only.
That this statement conforms to the team style suggests it was crafted intentionally to read the way it does.
ut I’d find that very familial way of addressing him to be somewhat incongruous with a deliberate attempt to distance themselves from him.
I think I’d be cautious about inferring too much from the Blue Jay’s statement, although it’s reasonable to assume they know more detail than has been made public. Perhaps the real tipoff will be to watch what the Blue Jays do on replacing him–is it just another arm for a couple of weeks (a call-up from the Minors or an unsigned free-agent), or are they looking for something more permanent?
But if there is something really serious when all the facts come to light, a strong stance by the Jays might carry weight in public opinion.
The Blue Jays are also owned by a monstrous media conglomerate that is publicly traded. In today’s environment I’m not surprised in the least that a corporate owned team is acting this strongly. They want to be out in front of this.
Rogers can also be financially affected in many ways that other teams can’t. Not many teams are worried about people cancelling their cable, phone, magazine subscriptions, or internet.
I think the fact that they’re a giant corporation would actually mean they would lean toward language that couldn’t leave them open to liability for defamation rather than meaning they would release a statement that can be read as them saying Osuna did something bad.
Let’s be real though.
Do you really think there is 1% possibility that Osuna will sue the Jays over “We are taking the matter extremely seriously, as the type of conduct associated with this incident is not reflective of our values as an organisation”?
I’m no lawyer, but I imagine that this will be a non-starter.
You’re right, I wouldn’t really expect that, but I just think there’s a reason that teams are so cautious in their statements.
Presuming the allegations are true, as a Jays fan, I would be perfectly okay with the team missing the playoffs by the margin of Osuna’s contribution (for whatever time he misses).
As much as I dislike many of Rogers’ business decisions as owners, I appreciate that they haven’t attempted to sweep this under the rug or deny very serious and very plausible allegations, as virtually every other sports franchise has.
This sucks for the Blue Jays’ season, but the Blue Jays’ season isn’t the most important thing here.
I think the era of sweeping things under the rug was a few decades ago, but then the Internet came along. I am hesitant to give the org too much credit for taking the only course of action available to them.
As a jays fan, and an Osuna fan in particular from when he was 17, I’m glad the Jays aren’t using any type of corporate weasel words at all. It’s refreshing.
I only hope that Osuna accepts all the accountability and handles this humbly and maturely. Though even that might not matter depending on what he actually did.
So yes, that particular day was pretty bad for the Jays as a whole. Diaz went on the DL, top pitching prospect Pearson broke his forearm, the Jays got no-hit, and this Osuna incident occurred all at once. You’re right, it was a bad day, and it’s also right that the Jays response was sort of different – I noticed the same thing.
But, one thing that I also noticed was when Gibbons was speaking, he didn’t say a thing that is VERY typical of how Gibbons talks; that is, he didn’t say, “Well, we just have to follow the process and the situation will be resolved.” This is really a very Gibbons-like thing, and I was actually surprised to NOT hear it.
So let’s look at what Gibbons actually did say. He sent what was to me a very mixed message. From one angle, there’s support for Osuna’s character. He opened with that. His next statement was support of zero tolerance towards violence towards those that cannot protect themselves (he did not specifically say women here, which is good of him). Lastly, he indicated that the team looks forward to getting him back in a way that to me, felt like he felt like it wasn’t going to be that long. It was a very laid-back approach for Gibbons, which is true to his character, but it didn’t seem like the sort of situation where that type of mannerism was called for. It was very strange.
Now, what wasn’t mentioned in this article was that Gibbons also said that he and Osuna had spoken. Osuna had come to the clubhouse to get his things, and during that time, he sat down with Gibbons and talked. Gibbons obviously wouldn’t reveal what was said, he flat out told reporters it was private, but this knowledge and also Gibbons own.. type of conversation and reaction he gave when he made that public statement you quoted above sort of led me to believe that Osuna was basically up front about it all with the team.
This is all interesting. I hope for the best result and fear for the worst, because as a fan, I don’t want to be forced to hope for the success of someone that I sort of wish wasn’t pitching for the team I like or maybe even pitching at all because of what he’d done. Then I wonder why I would take such a selfish point of view on it all when what we should be asking is the victim of this event alright, but really, as a fan, what do you do? Does I’m sorry cut it? Is there a viable excuse?
I don’t know those answers. I guess we’ll find out what the answer is in the future. Unfortunately, it’s not a subject I’d hoped I’d ever have to have answer for.
Being a mets fan I had similar questions for myself in 2016 with Jose Reyes coming back to the team. I decided to donate $1 to a local charity which helped people who had experienced domestic abuse for each Reyes base, run, rbi, sb, while I cheered for the Mets and watched him for the rest of the year. It didn’t make me feel better, but hopefully regardless of the catalyst for the donation, some help was done.
That’s a good idea. You should do the same thing for each Osuna save and strikeout! I would, but I’m poor and unemployed.
Seriously though, good for you.
Gibbons is also managing 24 other players. Even if Osuna did a very bad thing and is a goner, the REST of the club has to listen to Gibbons and hear some echos of support for them, should they end up in the news for something unfortunate that maybe they didn’t actually do.
Props to knowing enough about Canadian law on top of the great stuff you’ve given regarding mostly American legal issues. Props to the Blue Jays as well.
Sheryl – would be interested in your take on the news item that Maricopa COunty has agreed to let the DBacks out of their lease 5 years early in exchange for dropping their lawsuit against the county.
That piece is in the pipeline. Should be ready next week!
Sheryl, in your article, you state “the Blue Jays have evidently decided to take her allegations at face value” – can you elaborate exactly on what allegations you’re referring to? All that has been reported on is that the concierge called police, and the girlfriend provided a video statement to the officers. I am not aware of any publications revealing any allegations she has made in that statement.
So glad you’re writing for fangraphs!
“the type of conduct associated with this incident”
Maybe we’re reading this differently, but I don’t see that as an unequivocal statement, particularly because ‘associated with this incident’ does not assume fact or culpability. I don’t see too meaningful a difference between this statement and “the type of conduct alleged”.
I think there’s a bright line crossed when you’ve entered a criminal legal process (charged, arrested, indicted), and when you’ve simply been accused of something by another individual. If what Sano was accused of was true, it’s a despicable act, but if it never goes to court it never is adjudicated and, while you can make up your own mind about it, you can’t legitimately (legally or in good conscience) use it as a basis for repercussions. This was why the Ezekiel Elliot thing was so worrying – no one wanted to charge the guy, from all accounts they had little to no credible evidence, but they were so eager to show they were on the right side of the #metoo movement that they suspended him anyway (and unfortunately the CBA allowed them to do so). Contrast that with Patrick Kane – if the NHL or Blackhawks had jumped the gun on suspending the guy, like the pitchfork and torches crowd on the internet wanted, they would have been in the wrong both morally and legally, as those accusations turned out to be totally baseless.
Osuna, on the other hand, has been charged with a crime – totally justifiable to say ‘you’re not playing with us until this gets sorted out’.
I agree with most of this, but to make a blanket statement that you can’t punish someone unless it goes to court is ridiculous. The reason the Elliot case was perhaps wrongly decided by the NFL was not simply because there were no charges, but rather because their was hard evidence it was a fraudulent charge.
A business like the Twins and/or MLB can in good conscience punish Sano if they honestly believe, based on evidence, he assaulted a woman (and did so in the context of his job, which to me is reason for a harsher punishment).
What was the “hard evidence” that it was fraud?
There were screenshots of texts or something where she is discussing framing him, or at least they could be read that way.
But this stuff is opening the door for exactly what we saw with Elliott…if you believe the accounts, his girlfriend was using the low bar for a suspension against him as a threat. I simply don’t see why society is well served by having a system where a simple allegation can produce concrete punishments, I also don’t think we should encourage parallel systems of justice where, if there’s not enough evidence for the justice system, we just set a lower bar for ruining people’s private or professional lives through administrative punishments. I was a huge fan of Sano, his jersey is the only one I’ve ever purchased, and now it’s boxed up because I came to my own conclusions about his situation. But that’s different from encouraging real, potentially career ending, penalties for these guys based upon evidence that is deemed insufficient in court. We in particular need to be careful about this now, in the heyday of outrage media, where the twitterverse is happy to call for heads now and ask questions later (if ever).
Are there probably exceptions? Sure – easy example would be uncontrovertible evidence of a crime where the statute of limitations has run out. Also, some behavior doesn’t rise to the level of a crime, but is despicable nonetheless, and particularly where that behavior implicates the office environment companies need to make up their own minds. But if the ball is in the court of the justice system I do think it needs to be left there.
Again, I largely agree with that. But let’s not get carried away like being suspended a few weeks or even months is going to ruin careers (ruining careers is saved for people who kneel during a song). At the end of the day, it is really a business decision. MLB is weighing the pros and cons, and the con side has been tilted a ton in the past couple years. Reasonable people can disagree about if things have tilted too far. I tend to think that the right balance is somewhere between the way things were 3-4 years ago and the way they are now.
Lucky Whitehead pretty much had his career ended by mistaken identity – he didn’t do anything wrong. There needs to be due process for these things. I know that there isn’t and they are private corporations, but these are also people with basic human rights… most of which are legally required to be respected. I can’t imagine a future where at some point there isn’t some intervention in regard to teams abilities to destroy the livelihood of people as they see fit. Almost every other aspect of an employee’s live/values/ideals are protected.
Great article, Sheryl!
One thing–and I want to disclaim that I’m not an expert, and US immigration is so unpredictable that I wouldn’t want to make predictions about it even if I were–is that Osuna might be less likely to have visa problems than Kang did. The Customs and Border Patrol website states that entry to the US may be denied for multiple DUI convictions or for crimes involving moral turpitude: https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/402/~/entering-the-u.s.-and-canada-with-dui-offenses
The Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual has guidelines for crimes involving moral turpitude, which include various kinds of assault but do not list domestic violence as one of the kinds: http://www.cba.org/cba/cle/pdf/imm06_chang_app1.pdf
Kang had multiple DUI convictions which accounted for his visa issues (there was also some speculation that he may have incorrectly answered questions about past DUIs on his original visa application). Osuna doesn’t fall into that category, and it looks like he might not fall into the crimes of “moral turpitude” category either. So he may actually have an easier case than Kang in the US. I’m not sure about his situation in Canada, or his residency status in Canada either.
That’s just intended as a description of the US immigration system as I understand it–thanks to the Bucs Dugout commenters who looked into this extensively. To editorialize, even aside from my massive problems with the US immigration system this doesn’t make sense on its own terms. Not only is domestic violence truly a crime of moral turpitude (the manual I listed still has sodomy on it for crying out loud!), it’s one of the best predictors of terrorism. If the immigration system really was about keeping Americans safe it would take domestic violence seriously.
DUI (or at least a recent one) is actually a de facto automatic disqualifier for entry into a lot of countries, from what I understand.
The United States isn’t the only country a convicted Osuna might have trouble entering. Canada tends to turn away anyone with a felony conviction, and Osuna is (I believe) a citizen of Mexico but not of Canada. When and if he is reinstated he might be able to get into the US for away games and then be unable to return to Toronto.
the speculation is that it happened over the weekend, which if true means the Jays probably had a couple days to ascertain what happened and they’re pretty sure that something bad did. there’s also the possibility that this fits a pattern of behaviour, as it so often does, and the Jays just aren’t surprised.
Great article, Sheryl. Loving the legal perspective you bring to FG.
The Gregg Zaun incident(s) and firing along with Kevin Pillar’s use of a homophobic slur last year were probably factors here as well. The Blue Jays and Rogers are developing an image problem. They couldn’t possibly tip-toe around something as serious as this.
This is long, LONG overdue.
In what way? And what is THIS? You are tired of Osuna’s assault allegations? This is the first one I am aware of.
* Offer not valid in Québec.
Nice, you even turned on the FR keyboard setting on your phone!
*Or Louisiana
Outstanding work, Sheryl!!
I have to assume they have some more information than the public does. The author seems to be suggesting that we should actively discard the presumption of innocence and replace it with a presumption of guilt (outside the legal system), because she believes that false accusations are rare.
Under this logic, as soon as someone is accused of a crime they lose their jobs, friends, etc. I find this to be a troubling suggestion, and more so the assertion that such an opinion is a pro-female position. I see nothing inherently pro-female about it. Or is the author suggesting that ONLY crimes against women lead to a presumption of guilt? If so, why?
And if someone is your friend, your brother, your father, your son, is it good enough for you that some studies say they have only a 5% chance of being not guilty? Or would you take into account your opinion of that persons’s character?
Well said!
No, I don’t think the author is suggesting that. The team’s statement doesn’t explicitly mention women, it says “the vulnerable and those who can’t protect themselves”.
There’s no need to go on a men’s rights crusade here.
The team’s statement may not explicitly mention women, but this article does.
On a widely off-topic note, I think this notion that women are fragile and weak creatures who have to be protected and cradled is as chauvinist a position as you can possibly take. It’s systematic oppression that tries to indoctrinate women to stay helpless and ask men for help, rather than empower them to help themselves. The phrase “Ladies first” is not exactly a product of the women’s rights movement.
Bring on the downvotes!
I disagree. I don’t think we’re asking anyone to protect and cradle women, or that women ask for protection. We’re just asking people not to attack other people, regardless of gender. That seems reasonable, right?
And if we’re going to deal seriously with violence, we have to recognize the particular dynamics of violence between men and women and of domestic violence. Talking in airy generalities about how it’s chauvinistic to treat women as though they need special protection ignores the reality of a world where many men think that they have the right to assault the women in their lives, and do assault and even murder them.
The systematic oppression here isn’t the idea that women need protection from domestic violence, it’s the domestic violence itself. By minimizing the severity and the gendered aspect of domestic violence, you are helping to perpetuate that systematic oppression.
…like, we’re talking about a team based in a city that just suffered a horrible terrorist attack inspired by the ideology of “I’m a man who can’t get dates from women, so I’m going to be very violently angry at women.” There haven’t been any horrible terrorist attacks inspired by the ideology of “I’m a woman who can’t get dates from men, so I’m going to be very violently angry at men.” There aren’t even subreddits devoted to this.
This is why it’s not chauvinistic to recognize that women need special protection from domestic violence. Because women aren’t swimming around in an ideology that says they should be able to get whatever they want from men, and be violent if they don’t get it.
How is Osuna’s girlfriend more “vulnerable and those who can’t protect themselves” than the average Canadian?
My point was that it does NOT seem like it should be a men’s/women’s rights issue. The author states as follows: “The Blue Jays, with this one move, appear to have taken a real, if subtle, stand on behalf of women’s safety. It’s a position which, if I might editorialize briefly, is overdue.”
I have to question that characterization, if you are not assuming the team has good reason to believe the allegations are true. Why would a crime against a woman be different than a crime against a man? If this were a case of Osuna assaulting a man in a bar, would that change anything? And if so, why? The author never makes that case.
I agree with you that those two crimes should be treated equally, but in this case the victim was a women. Indeed, in most cases involving domestic violence, the victim is a woman. Had Osuna assaulted a man, I would expect it to be treated with equal seriousness.
Maybe I misread the article, but I believe the author was suggesting that the team likely DOES have good reason to believe the allegations are true.
I know this is only a part of your comment, but your opinion of someone’s character doesn’t necessarily matter to whether they are capable of domestic assault. I don’t want to get too personal, but people you know and love can turn out to be people that also hit their partners.
I think the real point is not a presumption of guilt. It’s that if your brother’s wife comes to you and says he hit her, you better not tell her you have to presume your brother is innocent.
If your brother comes to you and says his wife hit him, how many people won’t call him a pathetic wimp and laugh him out of the room?
Oh wow, we’ve got a tough guy here everyone. (Also that’s not what my comment said)
If that tough guy mentality is not prevalent in US society, we won’t even be talking about protecting women.
If there are indeed many men who think they have a right to assault women, then there are at least as many who would denigrate men being victimized by others, whether the aggressor is man or woman. Those two demographics overlap completely.
As many non-terrible people as there are in the room.
If you were trying to make a rhetorical point, you failed.
So you’re saying, not many?
A lot of people talk a good talk on paper. Put them in that actual situation, very few will act nearly as virtuously as they say they would.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. It sounds like you’re currently pointing out that toxic masculinity both leads to men assaulting women and people disparaging the idea that a man could be assaulted by a woman, on the occasion when it happens, which I suppose is not implausible.
But this seems irrelevant to the post of maggie25’s that you were responding to, which is that “people you know and love can turn out to be people that also hit their partners.”
LHPSU, if that’s how the other men you know behave, maybe you should consider finding new friends?
Edit: and yeah, formerly matt w is right. An additional facet of toxic masculinity is that it ridicules men who don’t live up to the “standard”. Don’t be one of them.
I never imagined garbage like “toxic masculinity” would appear on Fangraphs, but here we are.
The same “masculinity” that drives little boys to run into walls, jump blindly off of couches, when harnessed created civilization and almost everything since good or bad. Anyway, men do not have a monopoly on domestic violence or misogyny.
Excerpt from the Advocate, by JD Glass, Sep 4, 2014
“The National Violence Against Women survey found that 21.5 percent of men and 35.4 percent of women living with a same-sex partner experienced intimate-partner physical violence in their lifetimes, compared with 7.1 percent and 20.4 percent for men and women, respectively, with a history of only opposite-sex cohabitation. Transgender respondents had an incidence of 34.6 percent over a lifetime according to a Massachusetts survey.
The CDC’s 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, released again in 2013 with new analysis, reports in its first-ever study focusing on victimization by sexual orientation that the lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner was 43.8 percent for lesbians, 61.1 percent for bisexual women, and 35 percent for heterosexual women, while it was 26 percent for gay men, 37.3 percent for bisexual men, and 29 percent for heterosexual men (this study did not include gender identity or expression).”
Then there is the Demos study from a couple of years ago.
“The study builds on Demos’ previous research in 2014, which found that ‘slut’ and ‘whore’ dominate misogynistic language on Twitter, and that both male and female users are responsible for the abuse. In this 2016 research, 50 per cent of the propagators were found to be women.”
Great post Anthony. I was about to leave the site because I was reading the pure anti-male garbage that a mindless term like “toxic masculinity” infers, here at a site that I hoped was a safe space (kidding) from the daily assaults from the Left we are exposed to.
An interesting, excellent observation by the author with a balanced view between legal and moral, still has to spiral into another liberal attack. On a baseball site.
Disheartening.
I think you guys misunderstand what “toxic masculinity” actually refers to. It’s not about masculinity itself being toxic. Rather, it points out how the arbitrary set of rules that society imposes on what it means to “be a man” is bullshit and harmful to men too because it limits their freedom to be themselves (among other reasons). Very much a case of something that needs a better name, though…
Thank you, exactly. I will warn against eating poisonous mushrooms, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like mushrooms on my pizza. By the same token, when I talk about “toxic masculinity” I don’t mean that all masculinity is toxic, and all y’all who are taking it that way are frankly telling on yourselves.
In particular, LHPSU was talking about “men who think they have a right to assault women” and “who would denigrate men being victimized by others.” If that’s not toxic, what is?
I’m not even going to get into that horsedroppings about the sources of civilization.
I don’t agree with you but I think you’ve articulated a legitimate concern that deserves a serious response, and not mass downvoting.
In a way, due process is easy in the criminal context. Innocent until proven guilty is simple. It doesn’t always accurately describe how people are treated in practice, but the concept is a clean one.
We don’t really have a great corollary for how employers (and the public, and people in our personal lives) should respond to unproven allegations. It’s all ad hoc, and subject to all kinds of pressures, some good faith, some cynical.
As a general matter, I tend to think employers should err on the side of letting criminal accusations play out in the criminal system. But that’s complicated by professional athletes’ status as public figures and entertainers. I don’t have a great answer but I don’t think it’s crazy to feel a little uncomfortable about Osuna’s team kinda throwing him under the bus here — even if it later turns out that he did exactly what he’s accused of.
One of the points Sheryl seemed to be making is that allegations of Rape/Domestic assault are true about 95% of the time. It seems like “erring on the side of caution” is to believe the accuser since that would lead you to be right about 95% of the time.
You use the phrase “throwing him under the bus” but I feel that “holding him accountable” could just as easily be used.
On the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” that cuts both ways. If you want to assume Osuna didn’t hit her until a court can prove otherwise, why wouldn’t you assume she’s not filing false police reports/committing perjury/etc until a court proves otherwise? If we want to get all Occum’s razor on the situation, the most likely explanation is that Osuna did something, likely illegal, bad to his girlfriend.
Could you let me know where the 95% comes from, I’d be interested in reading?
I couldn’t help but notice that three times, the author of this article claims it was Osuna’s girlfriend that made the allegations or called the police:
“the Blue Jays appear to have made a decision to presume that Osuna’s alleged victim is telling the truth”
“False domestic-abuse allegations are equally rare.”
“the Blue Jays have evidently decided to take her allegations at face value”
But she never made any allegations. She didn’t call the police. And she hasn’t made any public statements on the matter whatsoever. It has been reported that it was the concierge who called the police after seeing bruises on her in the main lobby.
That seems like a pretty big journalistic error to make, three times.
Okay, but it also says in the articles that the victim provided a video statement to the police. First, she wouldn’t be obligated to do so. Second, if her statement was an explanation for her injuries that didn’t involve an assault, charges probably wouldn’t have been laid.
Yes, she provided a statement to police. At no point did any of the articles say *what* was in that statement, or that she made any allegations against Osuna.
You don’t think it is hugely irresponsible of this publication to claim, THREE TIMES, that she has made allegations against Osuna, as if it were a statement of fact?
I mean let me just repeat this line from the article:
“the Blue Jays have evidently decided to take her allegations at face value”
What allegations? What allegations of hers are the Blue Jays taking at face value? If Sheryl can’t answer that, she’s screwed up here.
Even disregarding that Sheryl never claimed the alleged victim called the police, it seems you’re assuming at least as much as the author when you assert the alleged victim “never made any allegations” simply because no allegations have been made public. We don’t know yet what allegations, if any, she’s made. And contrary to your counter claim, it’s been reported by Global News that the alleged victim gave a video statement to police. Albeit, per an anonymous “police source”, so take it for what it’s worth.
Also, I’ve seen it reported that it was the concierge who called the police, but not because of seeing bruises in the lobby. Do you have a reference for that? (I’d like to learn more.)
“Even disregarding that Sheryl never claimed the alleged victim called the police,”
No, I quoted exactly what Sheryl said, right there. 3 statements. All invented out of thin air.
“We don’t know yet what allegations, if any, she’s made. ”
That is exactly my point! So when you write a sentence like
“the Blue Jays have evidently decided to take her allegations at face value”, when you have no idea if any allegations have been made, that’s pretty bad journalism, don’t you think? Do you not understand how incredibly irresponsible it is to claim that she has made allegations, three times, when you’re just pulling that out of your ass?
“And contrary to your counter claim, it’s been reported by Global News that the alleged victim gave a video statement to police. ”
Contrary to what counter claim? I never said she didn’t give a video statement to police.
I am on the side of victims of domestic violence. But I am not on the side of people who invent things and then report on them as if they were fact.
None of your quotes mention calling the police. I was pointing out the leap you were making (not too unlike the one you’re calling out Sheryl for making) to equate making allegations with calling the police. The “counter claim” was a reference to your statement (as I quoted), “But she never made any allegations.” Admittedly, I may have misinterpreted your meaning, but this read to me like your were claiming the alleged victim definitively made no allegations, which we agree we can’t know yet.
I do think you’re making a fair point about irresponsible reporting and one that still holds if allegations do come out, even if I personally don’t feel bothered by it in this article. I’m glad we’re both on the side of victims of domestic violence.
I am uncertain what your concern is here.
But let’s leave aside motivations for a moment, that can get hairy. On the facts as we know them, your criticisms are misplaced.
Here is what we know: Toronto police have arrested Roberto Osuna for assault, he is being charged, his initial court appearance is scheduled for June 8, and the incident involves a women.
Everything beyond that remains unconfirmed by the police. It has been reported that this the alleged victim is his girlfriend, but that is unconfirmed by the police. I have found no credible news story which mentions a concierge, nor have I read anywhere that the girlfriend either did or did not call the police. Where you get your information is unknown to me.
That said, we do know that Toronto has a “must arrest” policy for domestic assault, a policy which is unaffected by (1) an alleged victim’s decision to cooperate (or not) with the police investigation, (2) whether the alleged victim wants to press charges, or (3) whether they want to appear in court. We also know that the Toronto Police referred to an alleged victim in their statement, as in they are declining to provide any further information in order to protect the victim’s identity.
So, and from here on I will presume that Osuna’s girlfriend is the alleged victim here, we know that Osuna’s girlfriend has provided evidence to the police. We do not know whether that evidence was given voluntarily, as in the result of her own decision to call the police. But she provided evidence sufficient for the police to arrest and charge Roberto Osuna.
That evidence, if given in the form of a statement, would be described as an allegation. Osuna’s girlfriend need not have actively sought police intervention in order for evidence against Osuna to be described as an allegation. Anything she told the police which describes illegal activity is an allegation.
So, return to the three statements you identify:
(1) “the Blue Jays…presume that Osuna’s alleged victim is telling the truth.” This statement assumes one thing only: that there is an alleged victim, and that this person has provided evidence to the police. Whether Osuna’s girlfriend contacted the police or otherwise voluntarily cooperated with the investigation is irrelevant here.
(2) “false domestic-abuse allegations are equally rare”. Again, this assumes only that there is an alleged victim who has made statements alleging abuse to the police. The alleged victim’s level of cooperation need not be assumed for this statement to be accurate.
(3) “take her allegations at face value”. Same thing, this is becoming tedious.
Again, I am not certain what motivates your concern here. My assumption is that you have some vaguely concocted idea that if the alleged victim did not call the police, then perhaps the alleged victim did not view the behavior as an assault, and perhaps that the victim’s mindset is dispositive of whether an assault actually occurred. That is conjecture on my part, I admit, and it is inflammatory as well. But really, what is your concern here?
The first two statements are accurate on their face: the Crown is alleging that she’s a victim. The third would only be false if she refuses to corroborate the Crown allegations.
I don’t understand why the Charter is relevant here. The Charter constrains governments, not private individuals or organizations.
Because that’s where the presumption of innocence comes from. What?
The concern here would be a defamation suit, as Ms Ring indicates. She did not flesh it out in the article, but I think the idea would be that any statement from the team which indicates that Osuna did commit the crime alleged, if proven false, could form the basis for a defamation suit. In other words, presuming Osuna’s guilt in the team statement could later be used as proof of defamation.
Teams might usually be protecting themselves from lawsuits by inserting the word “alleged” into their statements. The point of discussing Canada’s Charter is likely to emphasize how important this presumption of guilt is in Canadian law, versus US law, where basically a charge is announced and plenty in media drop the word “alleged” so that they can ramp up the moral outrage to 11. I think it was that simple: a suggestion that Canadian teams might have extra incentive to be cautious with their language.
I think this was pretty well explained in the article, by the way.
The criminal presumption (even then, the Charter is not where it comes from, but is its Constitutional codification), not the civil presumption, which the author is referring to with respect to the Blue Jays and their defamation liability
Can someone clarify Canadian law on assault vs. battery? I always understood assault was intent without inflicting harm and battery was assault + injury.
If you’re asking if it’s strange that from what we know so far there were both “significant injuries” and only a “simple assault” charge, then yes, it’s strange, and doesn’t add up.
so we’ll have to wait and see the details.
Aggravated assault requires a much higher degree of harm; perhaps they are still deciding if they can proceed with that charge.
That’s not the way it is in Canada. In Canada there is no criminal code offence of battery. Assault is basically any physical contact without consent (obviously nobody is getting arrested for just putting their hands on someone’s shoulder or something though), and also includes attempts and threats.
Battery in Canada is the tort equivalent of assault.
Thanks for clearing this up.
No problem. It gets so confusing talking about U.S. and Canadian law because they’re so similar but with enough small differences to throw everything off.
We also have a tort of assault. It’s just usually combined with a battery and then usually the offence of “assault” from the CC, so you never hear about it.
Good point. I completely forgot there was a tort of assault.
Canadian criminal law codified “assault” to include common law assault and battery
https://imgur.com/YnBUPzd
As I’m rereading the statement from the Jays, my initial takeaway is that the “incident” referred to is the arrest itself, and not the allegations that the arrest is based on.
In that case, I think they’re generally soft-toeing around that…which I think changes the intent that this piece is commenting on. Or maybe not – I’m not a lawyer.
Sheryl, I appreciate your willingness to write about this and wait for the comments to roll in. I don’t know that I’d have the guts. And then I appreciate the comments not being a total shitshow. Thanks all.
My first reading of the Blue Jays’ statement was that it is not making any judgement about Osuna, in spite of its lacking the word ‘alleged’. I read the word ‘type’ in the ‘the type of conduct associated with this incident’ as essentially making the statement a generic way of saying that the Blue Jays don’t support assault. After re-reading I can see the other interpretation but it does make me wonder how much one can really read into it.
The author of this article screwed up. She is reporting on it as if the woman herself called the police on Osuna:
“the Blue Jays have evidently decided to take her allegations at face value”
When all that has been reported on is that the concierge called the police, and she provided a statement to police officers. It would be hugely irresponsible of this publication to claim that she has already made allegations against Osuna, and could land them in legal trouble for defamation, seeing as how it isn’t true.
For the record, the percentage of rape allegations that are false is a number very much in dispute. I have seen estimates as high as low as 2% and as high as 40%. The only thing that does appear to be clear is the 2% number is garbage and has no basis whatsoever, unless some new study has come out in the past couple of years. You can find more information on this dispute in this article:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false
To summarize, all the numbers out there are somewhere between educated guess and wild guess, other than the 2% which is just nonsense.
Which should lead one to immediately question whether the same is true for the stats on false domestic abuse accusations.
Do you have a link for that? That article seems to be behind a paywall, and also is by Megan McArdle who has a pretty long track record of being wrong about things–I don’t mean from a perspective of disagreeing about opinions, but from a perspective of making statements and speculations about facts that turn out to be, well, nonsense.
https://splinternews.com/megan-mcardle-is-taking-her-ill-informed-technocratic-n-1822969895
I see some people being puzzled that Gibbons would speak favorably about his character.
This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of people, their violence and relationships.
If all assaults, rapes or molestations were committed by people who are dripping evil and despised those crimes wouldn’t happen.
The fact is a decent, friendly person who is a model co-worker can also punch his wife in the face. A charismatic pillar of the community investment banker can also sexually assault somebody. And, of course, people change.
I spent my teens and twenties beating anybody who looked at me wrong in a bar at night and spent my afternoons reading poetry.
People are complex. Their interpersonal relationships are varied and unique. It is entirely possible Osuna is a good guy who wouldn’t hurt a soul outside of the brief moments when he is hurting somebody.
Laws must be enforced. But good people do bad things. Bad people turn good and violence can grow out of seemingly benign places in ourselves.
Tldr. Hold people accountable for actions that hurt others. Try to demand that people know themselves and actively try to become better.
But don’t think only bad people do bad things. Life would be quite easy if all bad people wore black hats at all times but it just isn’t so.
I don’t have the same take on the wording. The safest way to word it would be to explicitly include the word “allegations,” whereas the strongest way to say “there’s more to it” would be something like “we don’t condone Roberto’s behaviour during that incident.”
Obviously, we’re not talking about the latter, we’re talking about “behaviour associated with that incident.” “Associated,” i.e., “connected to.” Being arrested on a charge of assault is being connected to unacceptable and violent behaviour, in this case by the arresting party. The Jays, in my opinion, are saying they don’t condone that kind of behaviour, but are not making a statement on whether or not Osuna is guilty of such behaviour. Because a reasonable person would understand that only two people (as far as we know) were witness to the incident, and the charges have not been proven.
I don’t think a keyword (i.e., “allegations”) has to be hit to ensure that there’s no doublespeak going on. It’s just a differently worded statement that says the same thing in a less explicit manner.
Sheryl, I really enjoy your writing on these matters.
It seems at least *possible* that the team’s failure to qualify their statements was mere accident. Consider that your own writing about their tone seems to feature an accidental omission:
“Given all this, there are three reasons I can see why the Blue Jays aren’t tempering their statement about Osuna.”
… Didn’t you mean to say three POSSIBLE reasons, or three reasons why they MIGHT NOT be tempering their statement? Yet everything in that paragraph is phrased in the affirmative.
I’m not trying to play “gotcha,” but it’s an especially interesting oversight under the circumstances. So, while I suspect the Blue Jays really did say just what they meant, we should remember that people don’t always express themselves clearly even when trying their best to do so.
I must say that I do not believe their would be half as much vitriol against the author if this had been a bar fight or even the murder of a man. Some of you make me feel sad in the way you attack this author. It’s sounds like anti female bias to me.
Are we reading the same comments section? I see a few criticisms of certain aspects of the article, but certainly nothing vitriolic.
I think she did a reasonably good job reporting on this, and the general consensus of the comments seems to be along those same lines. Maybe you’re looking for something to be offended about?
I don’t see why Sano is in this discussion. There is a big difference between being arrested and not. If someone is arrested, there is sure to be some fallout. Sano was never found guilty of anything. It doesn’t seem fair to Sano to lump him in with every allegation of abuse and assault – it seems very far from fair.
I agree. The allegations against Sano smelled like dead fish.
Personally I would change the suspension policy to where players were automatically suspended if they are charged with a domestic violence crime (not arrested for one, but charged with one, the latter actually requiring sufficient evidence to do so) , and optionally suspended based on the outcome of an MLB internal hearing where the accused gets to confront the evidence and witnesses against him.
It would be much fairer. Nobody should be tried in the media.
“Nobody should be tried in the media” – couldn’t agree more. Especially when you consider wide-reaching toxic communities like Twitter, Reddit and Facebook and the influence that they can have on the media. I think a lot of media plays off of stoking those fires.
Great write-up. Are there any studies regarding false-report rate for celebrities and/or highly affluent people? Often the knee-jerk response in cases like this is “she’s going after his money.” We can all think, “well, of course not”, in response, but I’d be interested to see if science gave that notion a go.
I can’t fathom what that study would look like. We also live in a new era where many allegations don’t go to trial – so that data would presumably be entirely different. This is a different world than it was a decade ago. There is no way you can collect meaningful data based on social media – you could do something with cases where charges are pressed… but again, all you are really doing is sorting out who has the best lawyers. Its all a very slippery and dangerous slope for everyone involved.
Agreed. To me these have to be done on a case-by-case basis. Of course, those responsible for figuring out the truth of a case may be incompetent, roadblocked, disingenuous. While we on the outside have no visibility into that process.
My response to allegations (and even convictions, sometimes) is “who knows?”
I am familiar with a half dozen of these cases. Only one was legitimate, and even though it was definitely legitimate and worthy of punishment and civil liability it turned out be far less heinous than the original allegations that had been made.
As in all things, automatically distrust anyone with a financial interest in the outcome and require actual evidence. Anyone can be arrested for most anything, but there is an evidentiary standard required for actual criminal charges (i.e., there has to be some kind of proof that a crime has .been committed) and 99% of district attorneys and grand juries will insist that there some actual evidence of a crime having been committed prior to any charges being filed. What does that mean in simple terms? If there was an arrest without any charges being filed then there was no case to be made, so the arrest is essentially irrelevant. People get arrested on false allegations on a regular basis.
Always remember that the great majority of women (and men) do things based on greed and self-interest and an allegation without supporting evidence is nothing but so much wind. As for the “always believe her first” nonsense, be smarter than that: always believe the evidence. If there isn’t any evidence? Then – legally – nothing happened. If you think that it did you may very well be mentally convicting a man based on a lie told by a betrayed wife, an angry girlfriend, or a gold digger. Believe me, it has happened. I’ve seen it.
“Studies have shown”…..oh well, then! 2%, or 6% false rape accusations, which is it? That’s only a 300% difference. Science! Here’s a study that shows 41% of rape accusations to be false https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8135653
Anyone who believes the 2% feminist narrative is a beta orbiting white knight popinjay. If Osuna did in fact haul off and wack his girl friend the odds that she is not an integral part of that dynamic approach zero. Women are every bit as vicious as men, and twice as clever about it.
MLB suspended Stephan Wright for yelling at his wife, but everybody has to be in everybody’s business when one’s own life is so uninteresting, and so unimportant.
Last year Osuna missed some time with what was reported to be “anxiety issues.” At the time, I didn’t think much of a fairly common diagnosis of a condition to which many can cope or adjust. Now I wonder if that was used as a euphemism for something resembling what happened later. This article points out that the Jays were quick and severe in their reaction, maybe that is because there was a conversation between the Jays and Osuna last year that we don’t know about.
Hello I’m against violence against women.
100% “the type of conduct associated” is a qualification. Also, as a survivor of a relationship with someone who is unbalanced, I would not be comfortable with my partner holding my future livelihood in her hands. I’ve been threatened with the possibility of false accusations to try to coerce me into things so the accuser making that up is not a fairy-tale to me. There has to be some kind of burden of proof.