Report: Joshua Primo allegedly exposed himself to women

[Dirk]

Lol what do they mean "Allow the legal process to play out." Note to the Spurs organization, it's not up to you whether the legal process plays out or not.

I think they just meant they won't be making their case through the media, but rather in civil court when that time comes.

What prevents them from describing their timeline and version of the facts?

[CIN-C-STAR]

That statement from Primo’s attorney is just making me upset. It’s so bad and doesn’t help the situation at all.

I understand advocating for your client, but nobody is their right mind is going to believe multiple wardrobe malfunctions at different times.

Good reminder that Primos attorney gives a s… if he did it or not. Did it on purpose or not. All he cares is what the other side can proof. Or not. That’s why he threw all this crap in the statement

Particularly w the prospect of a criminal trial otw.
Even if he looks guilty if he can avoid jail time that's a huge win from an attorney's perspective.

[Homerclease]

Lol what do they mean "Allow the legal process to play out." Note to the Spurs organization, it's not up to you whether the legal process plays out or not.

I think they just meant they won't be making their case through the media, but rather in civil court when that time comes.

What prevents them from describing their timeline and version of the facts?

Their guilt.

[gottamakeit]

Lol what do they mean "Allow the legal process to play out." Note to the Spurs organization, it's not up to you whether the legal process plays out or not.

It is prudent to remain tight lipped. They know they effed up so they aren't going to dig themselves any deeper.

[G R E Y]

Lol what do they mean "Allow the legal process to play out." Note to the Spurs organization, it's not up to you whether the legal process plays out or not.

I think they just meant they won't be making their case through the media, but rather in civil court when that time comes.

What prevents them from describing their timeline and version of the facts?

Not litigating in court of press conferences but in proper settings.

[CIN-C-STAR]

Lol what do they mean "Allow the legal process to play out." Note to the Spurs organization, it's not up to you whether the legal process plays out or not.

I think they just meant they won't be making their case through the media, but rather in civil court when that time comes.

What prevents them from describing their timeline and version of the facts?

Nothing is literally stopping them from doing so, but it's rarely in your interest to litigate matters through the media when you are on the defense.
It just creates a drawn out he said-she said media story and contradicting an alleged victim doesn't generally play well with the public.
For the (alleged) victim, of course, going public is in their interest because it puts a lot of pressure on the allegedly offending party to settle the lawsuit before it goes to trial.

[dhsilv2]

This past year has proved its time for Silver to earn his money as commissioner because this year has been a PR disaster with multiple things. The problem when you put yourself and your league on a pedestal is you become a target when the slightest things happen and the "got cha" police come out in droves. Pop has a lot of haters outside the league who've been waiting for a reason to jump on him(Kerr too) so they're probably licking their chops cause this happened under his watch and his organization.

So because trolls are a thing the league has a problem? Doesn't make any sense. If the complaining is from a bunch of nothing trolls, the league should ignore it as everyone else will. If it's a real issue then they address it.

The power of trolls nowadays are strong unfortunately especially if they have a big enough platform(or network) and the league and its players sometimes acknowledge them. The league and the players could've ignored the trolls when it came to the Morey/China situation and their relationship with China at the time but they were forced to acknowledge it and address it.

That wasn't trolling though. That was a REAL financial impact to the league. The lebron and china stuff...that's trolling.

[Dirk]

I think they just meant they won't be making their case through the media, but rather in civil court when that time comes.

What prevents them from describing their timeline and version of the facts?

Not litigating in court of press conferences but in proper settings.

On Oct. 10, the Spurs picked up Primo's option for the 2023-24 season. Then they waived him last week.

Are they going to explain more thoroughly why they waived him, what happened since October 10?

Are they going to tell when they first heard about Primo's issues?

[zshawn10]

Read on Twitter

[Dirk]

I think they just meant they won't be making their case through the media, but rather in civil court when that time comes.

What prevents them from describing their timeline and version of the facts?

Nothing is literally stopping them from doing so, but it's rarely in your interest to litigate matters through the media when you are on the defense.
It just creates a drawn out he said-she said media story and contradicting an alleged victim doesn't generally play well with the public.
For the (alleged) victim, of course, going public is in their interest because it puts a lot of pressure on the allegedly offending party to settle the lawsuit before it goes to trial.

A highly credible former employee says the General Manager did nothing and played her along after she reported this Primo issue. Assistant general counsel and HR head as well were aware.

They let the psychologist go in August.

They guaranteed money to Primo October 10 and then they waived him October 28.

So you think the Spurs can act like this will just be handled via "litigation"? Meaning, their General Manager will not be providing an explanation or stepping down?

[CIN-C-STAR]

What prevents them from describing their timeline and version of the facts?

Nothing is literally stopping them from doing so, but it's rarely in your interest to litigate matters through the media when you are on the defense.
It just creates a drawn out he said-she said media story and contradicting an alleged victim doesn't generally play well with the public.
For the (alleged) victim, of course, going public is in their interest because it puts a lot of pressure on the allegedly offending party to settle the lawsuit before it goes to trial.

A highly credible former employee says the General Manager did nothing and played her along after she reported this Primo issue. Assistant general counsel and HR head as well were aware.

They let the psychologist go in August.

They guaranteed money to Primo October 10 and then they waived him October 28.

So you think the Spurs can act like this will just be handled via "litigation"? Meaning, their General Manager will not be providing an explanation or stepping down?

Believe me, I'd like to hear their side as well, and, barring an extraordinary and compelling counter to what we've learned so far, I think it's past time for their GM Brian Wright to go.
However, these things are rarely adjudicated via the media. That just wouldn't be in the Spurs' legal interests.

[Mavrelous]

What prevents them from describing their timeline and version of the facts?

Nothing is literally stopping them from doing so, but it's rarely in your interest to litigate matters through the media when you are on the defense.
It just creates a drawn out he said-she said media story and contradicting an alleged victim doesn't generally play well with the public.
For the (alleged) victim, of course, going public is in their interest because it puts a lot of pressure on the allegedly offending party to settle the lawsuit before it goes to trial.

A highly credible former employee says the General Manager did nothing and played her along after she reported this Primo issue. Assistant general counsel and HR head as well were aware.

They let the psychologist go in August.

They guaranteed money to Primo October 10 and then they waived him October 28.

So you think the Spurs can act like this will just be handled via "litigation"? Meaning, their General Manager will not be providing an explanation or stepping down?

The timeline is extremely weird, and if it wasn't for the Spurs waiving him, I would have thought she's making it up or widely exaggerating it.

[anotherhomer]

Nothing is literally stopping them from doing so, but it's rarely in your interest to litigate matters through the media when you are on the defense.
It just creates a drawn out he said-she said media story and contradicting an alleged victim doesn't generally play well with the public.
For the (alleged) victim, of course, going public is in their interest because it puts a lot of pressure on the allegedly offending party to settle the lawsuit before it goes to trial.

A highly credible former employee says the General Manager did nothing and played her along after she reported this Primo issue. Assistant general counsel and HR head as well were aware.

They let the psychologist go in August.

They guaranteed money to Primo October 10 and then they waived him October 28.

So you think the Spurs can act like this will just be handled via "litigation"? Meaning, their General Manager will not be providing an explanation or stepping down?

Believe me, I'd like to hear their side as well, and, barring an extraordinary and compelling counter to what we've learned so far, I think it's past time for their GM Brian Wright to go.
However, these things are rarely adjudicated via the media. That just wouldn't be in the Spurs' legal interests.

i'm interested in seeing how this plays out....

interesting that they strung her along this time

[G R E Y]

What prevents them from describing their timeline and version of the facts?

Not litigating in court of press conferences but in proper settings.

On Oct. 10, the Spurs picked up Primo's option for the 2023-24 season. Then they waived him last week.

Are they going to explain more thoroughly why they waived him, what happened since October 10?

Are they going to tell when they first heard about Primo's issues?

And not litigating on a sm forum.

Of course that's something all Spurs fans and non fans would like to know.

Guess the details and timelines are for the legal process to reveal.

[CS707]

what happened since October 10?

Most likely becoming aware that this was going public.

[SNPA]

I guess I'd want to know who she told and who was responsible to inform Primo. Was this all communicated to him? Why was there a breakdown in communication?

Something here is BS. She is a Dr. It’s understandable if the first time she didn’t feel comfortable alone in a room addressing it with a much larger male. But…after that she has the ability to control the situation. She can refuse to have sessions alone with him if the Spurs aren’t putting the right steps in place, or refuse to see him at all. She can refer him to a specialist. She has lots of options and a professional duty.

Nine times is key.

This is victim blaming. Same as blaming the victim when someone is raped by someone they know, doesn't report it to the cops, then it happens again by that same person.

Now in this situation the crime is of a much lower grade than that, but consider a scenario like this:

- You need this job, you may have personal life money stresses/difficulties that may make switching jobs difficult
- Primo may have not worn underwear intentionally and his dong kept slipping out of the shorts rather than a "whipping out" type moment
- The psychologist may have assessed him as a sexual exhibitionist, not a rapist, and felt it would not escalate. This doesn't mean his sexual exhibitionism isn't about power, but the psychologist may have felt she was safe from further harm than what we've heard of

So say you're this lady, you need this job and you don't feel physically threatened, you have this kid whose junk keeps being exposed during your sessions with him. You might feel that professionally you could *help* him and stop it, she may feel that is part of her purpose as a psychologist. If she physically felt safe, she may have been willing to mentally deal with it due to her needing the job and feeling like she might be able to help him. But she won't be able to actually help at all if the Spurs aren't issuing any consequences or helping her deal with the situation.

One thing that's also important to point out is that when someone becomes a victim, they often may try to lower the level of the incident in their mind to protect themselves mentally. I hate speculating too much about what was going on in her mind, but try to have some compassion here. She may have actually been trying to help this kid not ruin his life (and keep hers intact).

Wut?

She is a medical doctor seeing him in a medical setting for mental health support. She has professional obligations. It’s nothing at all like your example, it’s not even close.

Her courses of action are clear: go to HR. Get a plan in place to address it she is comfortable with and allows her to keep treating him (if she thinks she’s qualified). If they don’t put a plan in place then stop treatment and refer him to a specialist. Or just flat out refer him to a specialist immediately. The Spurs can’t make her change a diagnosis or medical recommendation or continue treatment, that’s not how it works. If the Spurs fire her for doing what is medically and professionally proper then she’s going to be rich.

Here is what a medical Dr would not do…hold at least 8 more sessions under circumstances they deem inappropriate.

This isn’t hard stuff here people. She isn’t some powerless underling. She’s the freaking Dr. He is the patient. He is demonstrating mental health behaviors that need addressing. It’s literally her job to try help him or refer him to someone who can get him help.

[Chinook]

what happened since October 10?

Most likely becoming aware that this was going public.

That's contradicted by what Buzbee said. He suggested Primo getting released is what compelled them to escalated and file suit. Otherwise, Primo would have met with the Spurs' attorneys and Buzbee on 11/10.

[DonaldSanders]

Something here is BS. She is a Dr. It’s understandable if the first time she didn’t feel comfortable alone in a room addressing it with a much larger male. But…after that she has the ability to control the situation. She can refuse to have sessions alone with him if the Spurs aren’t putting the right steps in place, or refuse to see him at all. She can refer him to a specialist. She has lots of options and a professional duty.

Nine times is key.

This is victim blaming. Same as blaming the victim when someone is raped by someone they know, doesn't report it to the cops, then it happens again by that same person.

Now in this situation the crime is of a much lower grade than that, but consider a scenario like this:

- You need this job, you may have personal life money stresses/difficulties that may make switching jobs difficult
- Primo may have not worn underwear intentionally and his dong kept slipping out of the shorts rather than a "whipping out" type moment
- The psychologist may have assessed him as a sexual exhibitionist, not a rapist, and felt it would not escalate. This doesn't mean his sexual exhibitionism isn't about power, but the psychologist may have felt she was safe from further harm than what we've heard of

So say you're this lady, you need this job and you don't feel physically threatened, you have this kid whose junk keeps being exposed during your sessions with him. You might feel that professionally you could *help* him and stop it, she may feel that is part of her purpose as a psychologist. If she physically felt safe, she may have been willing to mentally deal with it due to her needing the job and feeling like she might be able to help him. But she won't be able to actually help at all if the Spurs aren't issuing any consequences or helping her deal with the situation.

One thing that's also important to point out is that when someone becomes a victim, they often may try to lower the level of the incident in their mind to protect themselves mentally. I hate speculating too much about what was going on in her mind, but try to have some compassion here. She may have actually been trying to help this kid not ruin his life (and keep hers intact).

Wut?

She is a medical doctor seeing him in a medical setting for mental health support. She has professional obligations. It’s nothing at all like your example, it’s not even close.

Her courses of action are clear: go to HR. Get a plan in place to address it she is comfortable with and allows her to keep treating him (if she thinks she’s qualified). If they don’t put a plan in place then stop treatment and refer him to a specialist. Or just flat out refer him to a specialist immediately. The Spurs can’t make her change a diagnosis or medical recommendation or continue treatment, that’s not how it works. If the Spurs fire her for doing what is medically and professionally proper then she’s going to be rich.

Here is what a medical Dr would not do…hold at least 8 more sessions under circumstances they deem inappropriate.

This isn’t hard stuff here people. She isn’t some powerless underling. She’s the freaking Dr. He is the patient. He is demonstrating mental health behaviors that need addressing. It’s literally her job to try help him or refer him to someone who can get him help.

Ah OK more victim blaming. She did tell the higher ups in the org, they did nothing. She probably needs the job like others need their job, what do you assume she has to quit?

[BK_2020]

Something here is BS. She is a Dr. It’s understandable if the first time she didn’t feel comfortable alone in a room addressing it with a much larger male. But…after that she has the ability to control the situation. She can refuse to have sessions alone with him if the Spurs aren’t putting the right steps in place, or refuse to see him at all. She can refer him to a specialist. She has lots of options and a professional duty.

Nine times is key.

This is victim blaming. Same as blaming the victim when someone is raped by someone they know, doesn't report it to the cops, then it happens again by that same person.

Now in this situation the crime is of a much lower grade than that, but consider a scenario like this:

- You need this job, you may have personal life money stresses/difficulties that may make switching jobs difficult
- Primo may have not worn underwear intentionally and his dong kept slipping out of the shorts rather than a "whipping out" type moment
- The psychologist may have assessed him as a sexual exhibitionist, not a rapist, and felt it would not escalate. This doesn't mean his sexual exhibitionism isn't about power, but the psychologist may have felt she was safe from further harm than what we've heard of

So say you're this lady, you need this job and you don't feel physically threatened, you have this kid whose junk keeps being exposed during your sessions with him. You might feel that professionally you could *help* him and stop it, she may feel that is part of her purpose as a psychologist. If she physically felt safe, she may have been willing to mentally deal with it due to her needing the job and feeling like she might be able to help him. But she won't be able to actually help at all if the Spurs aren't issuing any consequences or helping her deal with the situation.

One thing that's also important to point out is that when someone becomes a victim, they often may try to lower the level of the incident in their mind to protect themselves mentally. I hate speculating too much about what was going on in her mind, but try to have some compassion here. She may have actually been trying to help this kid not ruin his life (and keep hers intact).

Wut?

She is a medical doctor seeing him in a medical setting for mental health support. She has professional obligations. It’s nothing at all like your example, it’s not even close.

Her courses of action are clear: go to HR. Get a plan in place to address it she is comfortable with and allows her to keep treating him (if she thinks she’s qualified). If they don’t put a plan in place then stop treatment and refer him to a specialist. Or just flat out refer him to a specialist immediately. The Spurs can’t make her change a diagnosis or medical recommendation or continue treatment, that’s not how it works. If the Spurs fire her for doing what is medically and professionally proper then she’s going to be rich.

Here is what a medical Dr would not do…hold at least 8 more sessions under circumstances they deem inappropriate.

This isn’t hard stuff here people. She isn’t some powerless underling. She’s the freaking Dr. He is the patient. He is demonstrating mental health behaviors that need addressing. It’s literally her job to try help him or refer him to someone who can get him help.

Let's start with the fact that she's a sports psychologist hired by the Spurs, not a medical doctor who was seeing Primo in her own practice. Her job was to figure out and remove what mental blocks if any are causing performance drops on the court. I don't think you have any understanding of what happened, including and starting with the most basic factual backgrounds. Yet you are so convinced that whatever opinions you formed on these non-facts are infallible. It's baffling.

[alebaba]

Something here is BS. She is a Dr. It’s understandable if the first time she didn’t feel comfortable alone in a room addressing it with a much larger male. But…after that she has the ability to control the situation. She can refuse to have sessions alone with him if the Spurs aren’t putting the right steps in place, or refuse to see him at all. She can refer him to a specialist. She has lots of options and a professional duty.

Nine times is key.

This is victim blaming. Same as blaming the victim when someone is raped by someone they know, doesn't report it to the cops, then it happens again by that same person.

Now in this situation the crime is of a much lower grade than that, but consider a scenario like this:

- You need this job, you may have personal life money stresses/difficulties that may make switching jobs difficult
- Primo may have not worn underwear intentionally and his dong kept slipping out of the shorts rather than a "whipping out" type moment
- The psychologist may have assessed him as a sexual exhibitionist, not a rapist, and felt it would not escalate. This doesn't mean his sexual exhibitionism isn't about power, but the psychologist may have felt she was safe from further harm than what we've heard of

So say you're this lady, you need this job and you don't feel physically threatened, you have this kid whose junk keeps being exposed during your sessions with him. You might feel that professionally you could *help* him and stop it, she may feel that is part of her purpose as a psychologist. If she physically felt safe, she may have been willing to mentally deal with it due to her needing the job and feeling like she might be able to help him. But she won't be able to actually help at all if the Spurs aren't issuing any consequences or helping her deal with the situation.

One thing that's also important to point out is that when someone becomes a victim, they often may try to lower the level of the incident in their mind to protect themselves mentally. I hate speculating too much about what was going on in her mind, but try to have some compassion here. She may have actually been trying to help this kid not ruin his life (and keep hers intact).

Wut?

She is a medical doctor seeing him in a medical setting for mental health support. She has professional obligations. It’s nothing at all like your example, it’s not even close.

Her courses of action are clear: go to HR. Get a plan in place to address it she is comfortable with and allows her to keep treating him (if she thinks she’s qualified). If they don’t put a plan in place then stop treatment and refer him to a specialist. Or just flat out refer him to a specialist immediately. The Spurs can’t make her change a diagnosis or medical recommendation or continue treatment, that’s not how it works. If the Spurs fire her for doing what is medically and professionally proper then she’s going to be rich.

Here is what a medical Dr would not do…hold at least 8 more sessions under circumstances they deem inappropriate.

This isn’t hard stuff here people. She isn’t some powerless underling. She’s the freaking Dr. He is the patient. He is demonstrating mental health behaviors that need addressing. It’s literally her job to try help him or refer him to someone who can get him help.

Bruh, you're literally victim blaming, and it's not his first rodeo, he done it to house keepers too..