This is a really difficult one because, the defence was, pretty much, that she was a bit of a goer and she was drunk and couldn't remember all the details of the night. I can't remember the full details but I did fol.low this one at the time and the way she was treated in the hearing was pretty horrific, with the defence focusing on how she was phrasing things and suggesting they showed she was making it up. There was a bit where he said she was on top and the defence then used that as evidence that she can't have been raped because of the position. To sum up the whole thing was dodgy as hell and a statement afterwards saying that he never intended to upset her (to paraphrase it) doesn't do much to counter a lot of the shit that came out earlier.
On that basis I think it's perfectly fair for a sponsor to decide they're uncomfortable with maintaining the relationship. I understand the counter argument that he was found not guilty and should be treated as such but for me the whole thing left a bad taste and I'm not surprised that holds true for marketing execs at diageo as well.
