PDA

View Full Version : The Media Lynching of Ben Roethlisberger



SteelCrazy
06-22-2010, 06:39 PM
When the media received the investigation file in the Ben Roethlisberger case, it acted irresponsibly. It selectively reported allegations for which no probable cause to arrest existed. It gave the public a skewed understanding of the facts. There are plenty reasons to criticize Roethlisberger, but not for "rape." Here are the documented facts:
CHRONOLOGY:
1. The DA indicated that both parties were exchanging sexual comments toward each other (that he would not repeat in public, because of their graphic nature). He said, "it was a two-way street ... -- him to her, her to him -- [it was] of a sexual nature." (DA press conference, PART-4, at 7:35, http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apBOClZNRzY]).
2. The accuser and her sorority sisters were wearing stickers that "had 'DTF' written on the bottom of the name tag ... [which] stood for 'down to bad word.'" (See Page 4 of 6 of police report, exhibit 16. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... ger15.html)
3. The accuser also said to Willie Colon, "You know my nickname?" -- and then answered by saying "DTF." When Colon asked what that meant, the accuser replied , "Down to bad word." (See Colon's police statement here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... llie2.html)
4. The accuser "repeatedly attempted to get Roethlisberger's attention, including pinching him" ... and pestering Willie Colon to talk to Ben for them. (See Colon's police statement: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... llie2.html)
5. The accuser was heavily intoxicated. [numerous sources].
6. The accuser was led down a hall toward a bathroom. (DA News Conference, PART-1, at 3:10. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liHs6C7ajzg]).
7. There was a stool outside the bathroom. The club manager, Duncan, told police that he saw "a young lady sitting outside of the stool, talking to Ben." (Duncan's Statement is quoted by CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/16/roe ... index.html)
8. The accuser was sitting on the stool talking with Ben for a little while. Duncan says, "... at last glance the [accuser] was still sitting outside the bathroom talking to Ben. That was the last I noticed of the situation." (Duncan's Statement is quoted by CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/16/roe ... index.html)
9. The bathroom had cramped quarters -- less than 5 foot wide single-commode bathroom. (DA News Conference, PART-1 http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liHs6C7ajzg])
10. According to a police statement: "Roethlisberger explained to Aurila that nothing had happened and that Roethlisberger was in the back with a girl and they were "messing around." Roethlsberger then explained that the girl slipped and he helped her up and then came back out. Aurila stated that he took "messing around" to mean" kissing, whatever. ... Roethlisberger indicated to Aurila that the girl had slipped and that he had helped her up and once Roethlisberger had helped her up he told the girl that they were not going to continue. ... During the conversation, Aurila described Roethlisberger's demeanor as angry and shocked that this [the accusation] was happening." (Police report, pg. 5 of 7, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... ger19.html)

11. The accuser had a "superficial laceration" in the genital area, described by DA [and medical authorities] as consistent with having sex. (Or slipping while having it?). (DA press conference, PART-1 at 3:50. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liHs6C7ajzg]).

12. THE SORORITY SISTERS STARTED THE INITIAL COMMOTION. They felt the accuser was too drunk to be fraternizing with Roethlisberger. So they acted based upon that judgment. The facts are:

(A) The sorority sisters complained to the club manager that Ben and accuser were together in the locked bathroom. (citation forthcoming)

(B) The sorority sisters are the ones who complained to police and said it was a "rape." From the DA conference: "The Sorority Sisters were doing the talking [making the accusation]." (See DA press conference, PART-2, starts 2:42 and key part at about 3:10 and 4:00: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaRGdYizw7g]) (See also, DA interview, PART-3, 10:20 http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PsdE_KudoY]).

(C) The officer at the scene was perturbed by the fact that the sisters were doing the talking. Post-Gazette: "The victim's friends got on Blash's Nerves because he kept asking them were they back there with her, and they said no. The victim's friends were trying to tell what was going on more than the victim was, and the victim could not answer Blash's questions."

13. THE ACCUSER HERSELF WAS UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE MATTER. When the officer on the spot said "I need to talk to the alleged victim, not [the sorority sisters]," he asked the accuser if Roethlisberger had raped her. She said:

(A). "No." (DA news conference; PART 2, starts 2:42, key point: about 4:10: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaRGdYizw7g])

(B) When asked if the two had sex, she said "well, I'm not sure." (DA interview, PART 2, starts 2:42, key point: about 4:20: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaRGdYizw7g]).


(Blash also said she seemed inebriated, incoherent, "nonchalant," and at times seemed to to want to tell someone that "y'all did whatever.")

[The above was Officer Blash's account when interviewed by a special officer on March 15th.. His earlier account when interviewed by a special officer on March 5th, one day after the incident, is quoted below. He says that: (a) Roethlisberger didn’t force himself on her, but kept asking; (b) she said she wasn’t raped, but kept saying “I don’t know if we should be doing this here.” See below:]


(C) “While Mr. Blash wasn't around, Officer Lopez interviewed the woman in a squad room at the station. … She told him something that officers found perplexing: the woman claimed that she and the 6-foot-5 Mr. Roethlisberger had sex while she was sitting on the toilet. He also said that, during the entire episode -- which the accuser alleged took 3 minutes (see below) -- that she never said "no." (She never even said, "I was scared to say no" or "I wanted to tell him to stop"). The quote is as follows:


(D) According to Officer Davidson, the accuser said back at the station house that "I don't think this is ok," (indicating equivocation) and "I should not have done this," (indicating regret after the fact). The officer's statement is below:


(E) The accuser gave a statement that night to police that said, "They met us at the Brick and called us a 'tease.' .... His body guards took him back to the rooms in 1 bathroom. I said, 'I don't know if this is a good idea,' and he said, "it's ok.' He had sex with me ... ." (See Police report: March 4th. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... rger3.html)

(F) At the hospital that night, she said "a boy kinda raped me." (DA press conference, PART-2 at 6:00. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaRGdYizw7g]).

13. THE ACCUSER'S NEXT-DAY STATEMENT OFFERED A CHANGED STORY. The next day, this is what the accuser said:

(A). "His bodyguard came and took my arm and said come with me, he escorted me into a side door/hallway, and sat me on a stool. He left and Ben came back with his penis out of his pants. I told him it wasn't OK, no, we don't need to do this and I proceeded to get up and try to leave. I went to the first door I saw, which happened to be a bathroom. He followed me into the bathroom and shut the door behind him. I still said no, this is not OK, and he then had sex with me. He said it was OK. He then left without saying anything." (See DA press conference, PART-2 5:25. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaRGdYizw7g]).(See also, CNN account of accuser's statement: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/16/roe ... /?hpt=Sbin).

SteelCrazy
06-22-2010, 06:40 PM
continued:



[Note several things. 1. This latest version of events suggested that Ben is commencing activities OUTSIDE the bathroom. This contradicts the eyewitness claims that: (a) she was seen talking with Ben at the stool outside the bathroom for a period of time (See bar manager's statement); and (b) that no evidence of sex outside the bathroom exists. No one in the VIP area of any entourage or any body guard saw anything like that. (See: DA CONFERENCE, PART-3, starting at 8:30. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PsdE_KudoY]).
Finally, note that this new version of events selectively fixes the accuser's earlier statements. It fixes the rape-denial and equivocation she expressed about the encounter while retaining other things as accurate (e.g., "he said it was okay."). In other words, what helps her is retained, and what doesn't is not.

14. THE ACCUSER BACKED OFF SOON AFTERWARD. Soon after giving the next-day statement, the accuser began frustrating police. She did the following:

(A) From the Post Gazette: The Georgia Bureau of Investigation had trouble contacting "both the accuser and her lawyer, who did not return numerous calls from the agency" ... "Special Agent Monica Ling, the lead investigator, tried to reach the accuser 'numerous times' over the weekend of the alleged assault without success. Lee Parks, the woman's lawyer, finally called on the evening of March 7. Agent Ling said she wanted to take swabs from inside the woman's cheeks. Agent Ling reported having trouble reaching Mr. Parks the next week," and was eventually told the accuser could not help at this time.

(B) On March 17th, through her attorney's letter, the accuser says she doesn't want to go forward with it.

(C) When investigators had met with the woman, they were told unequivocally that the accuser did not want to go forward with the case. (soruce: Post Gazette)

[One should note that the vast majority of civil plaintiffs would want criminal cases going on concurrently. Any lawyer will tell you that a civil plaintiff is helped by a criminal case going first. One must assume that the accuser's reluctance here indicates one of two things: (a) the civil matter was already on a quick course of settlement; or (b) depositions and other matters may have rendered the next-day's position problematic. It is true that media frenzy and privacy are good reasons not to pursue things. But is this true if you have been wronged and can receive a major damage award? Or is it true if you have a drunken encounter and regret it? How many people get raped by millionaires and don't want to pursue even a civil case? And how many want to pursue one without pursuing a criminal case (the former helps the latter)?].

13. Both the DA and the police believe not only that there was not enough proof to win their case, but that THERE WAS NOT EVEN PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST. Think about that. Law enforcement officials think that the sorority-girls version of events isn't even worthy of an arrest. (See DA News Conference, PART-1 12:00. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html [also at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liHs6C7ajzg]).

Conclusion

Will anyone out there listen? People have every right to be disgusted with Roethlisberger for things like buying shots for girls, behaving like a "meathead," wanting a gigolo lifestyle and engaging in drunken, callous and risky encounters with strangers. But they DON'T have ANY right to be disgusted with body guards dragging people back to rooms, with sex against a person's will, with "she reported it quickly," and that, "he exposed himself and she ran away, accidentally to a bathroom."

The press is smearing Roethlisberger. Can we please make sure that, if we abuse him, it is for the FACTUAL THINGS and not a public lynching?

Some people have argued that drunken sex is, by definition, "rape." This isn't true. This confuses "consent" in law with "capacity." Consent is merely an act of volition (will); it doesn't require an intelligent choice. Having a drunken escapade that you later regret doesn't mean that you "didn't consent." If drunken sex was outlawed, both parties to the escapade could claim to be "raped," because any of the touchings that either person performed could be said to be "not consented to" (because of alcohol). So the issue is not that drunk people are forbidden from having sex; the issue is whether one of the drunken parties is being forced to have it, against his or her wishes AT THAT TIME.

Also, we can't be too patriarchal here. We can't apply what academics call a "gender construction." You have two people here being sexual with each other throughout the night and both are impairing their judgments with alcohol. The night ends with an encounter that appears to have been ambiguous and was regretted. That's what a prudent look at the facts shows. And it is perfectly permissible to criticize either Roethlisberger or anyone else for having an ambiguous encounter with a stranger when both he and the stranger were suffering from impaired judgments after a night of sexual flirting. But what is NOT okay is to lynch Roethlisberger and call him a "rapist," when the facts supporting that allegation are not even worthy enough for an accusation under the law (probable cause).

And what may be worse is the media showing only the accuser's day-after (second) accusation, and not its surrounding difficulties. I wonder how many in America know right now that the accusation began with sorority sisters who objected to a drunken encounter, not with the accuser herself? Or that, even in the hospital, the accuser could not say the matter was clearly against her wishes at the time. How many today on the A.M. talk radio take the accuser's second-day version as "the accusation" rather than as a significant derogation of what all the evidence that night suggested?

Here's my point. I have no problem with criticizing Roethlisberger for numerous things. I have no problem if the league goes after him just for having drunken, callous and reckless encounters with strangers. My only concern is that they go after him on the FACTS -- not on this yellow journalism stuff. Stop the witch hunt, please.


Regards and thanks.

Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.

http://ludwig.squarespace.com/politics-journal/2010/4/15/the-media-lynching-of-ben-roethlisberger.html

Butch
06-22-2010, 07:34 PM
Yellow belly Journalism of the highest order.

Hey what do you hear on the Vince Young case? You know the one with the video backup. Yeah it is awfully quiet isn't it!!!

I look at it like this if Ben played for most any other team except for the raiders or cowboys this would be a wait and see approach. Fans who hate the Steelers and Ben made out like the 1st allogation was a cover up so when this one came along they blasted away and didn't even bother to ask questions later.

I am just happy that Ben is still a Steeler after all that and I can only hope it puts a great big chip on his shoulder for the rest of his career as a Steeler.

HometownGal
06-22-2010, 07:35 PM
Another Ben story? Say it aint so!

I know this is newsworthy, but if we keep cluttering up the Steelers forum with stories on this never-ending saga, I think we're going to lump all of the Ben threads together.

stillers4me
06-22-2010, 07:37 PM
This is an old story and I actually linked to it a couple of weeks ago when chidi asked about it.

Chidi29
06-22-2010, 07:42 PM
Another Ben story? Say it aint so!

I know this is newsworthy, but if we keep cluttering up the Steelers forum with stories on this never-ending saga, I think we're going to lump all of the Ben threads together.

To be fair, this is probably the best and most accurate report of the incident.

zulater
06-22-2010, 08:29 PM
To be fair, this is probably the best and most accurate report of the incident.

Agreed.

If I were to add anything it would be to address this thought the writer expressed.

People have every right to be disgusted with Roethlisberger for things like buying shots for girls, behaving like a "meathead," wanting a gigolo lifestyle and engaging in drunken, callous and risky encounters with strangers.

While I understand his overall point, and realize he's not saying that he himself is neccessarily disgusted with Ben's behaviour in this regard, I strongly disagree, or at least feel that very few have the right to be disgusted with Ben's behaviour in this sense.

To wit any man who ever got a lap dance or leered after a girl that may have been under 21 should consider himself a hypocrite if he's making the case against a 28 year old Ben trying to have consentual sex with a girl who showed a mutal attraction to him throughout the night.

Same goes for anyone who ever bought a copy of Barely Legal, or Girls Gone Wild.

86WARD
06-22-2010, 08:31 PM
*yawn.*

silver & black
06-22-2010, 09:46 PM
As an outsider, can I ask you a question? Why the hell do you even care what the media says?

Maybe, as a Raiders fan, I've learned to just let the media's bullshit roll off, like water off a duck's back. You guys should do the same. It's over... Ben is still the QB of the Steelers... and one of the best in the league. Who wins in the long run?

steeldawg
06-22-2010, 10:38 PM
As an outsider, can I ask you a question? Why the hell do you even care what the media says?

Maybe, as a Raiders fan, I've learned to just let the media's bullshit roll off, like water off a duck's back. You guys should do the same. It's over... Ben is still the QB of the Steelers... and one of the best in the league. Who wins in the long run?

We care because we believe that the media made such a stink about his alleged behavior that it got him a 6 game suspension. So now we are minus are starting qb for the first 4-6 games.

silver & black
06-23-2010, 06:03 AM
We care because we believe that the media made such a stink about his alleged behavior that it got him a 6 game suspension. So now we are minus are starting qb for the first 4-6 games.

Do you honestly think it was the media that got Ben suspended? The media sucks, believe me... I know, but, the media didn't have anything to do with getting him suspended. You can blame that on the megalomaniac we have for a commissioner, and Ben himself. I'm not taking sides at all... just looking at it from a nothing to gain or lose viewpoint.

Chidi29
06-23-2010, 12:55 PM
Do you honestly think it was the media that got Ben suspended? The media sucks, believe me... I know, but, the media didn't have anything to do with getting him suspended. You can blame that on the megalomaniac we have for a commissioner, and Ben himself. I'm not taking sides at all... just looking at it from a nothing to gain or lose viewpoint.

The media had everything to do with it. Goodell's hands were tied. If he doesn't suspend him, he gets called a racist for suspending black players but not Ben. That claim would be totally off the mark, but it did and would have happened.

If this girl doesn't claim rape, the media doesn't care nearly as much, and this story goes away.

fansince'76
06-23-2010, 01:01 PM
Is it September yet? Wait, never mind, because this shit is just going to get rehashed all over again when the season starts. :doh:

stillers4me
06-23-2010, 01:13 PM
Is it September yet? Wait, never mind, because this shit is just going to get rehashed all over again when the season starts. :doh:

The worst is yet to come.......the civil trial in Nevada. I pray to God that Ben wins that countersuit.

silver & black
06-23-2010, 09:32 PM
I'm sure some of you will take this the wrong way, but... a lot of you sound like crybaby Raiders fans that want to blame the media for something that isn't their fault. The media is doing what the media does... spin a sensational story that people want to read/hear about... it's what they get paid to do. The media didn't put Ben in that situation... for the second time. Ben did that on his own.

Shea
06-23-2010, 10:04 PM
I'm sure some of you will take this the wrong way, but... a lot of you sound like crybaby Raiders fans that want to blame the media for something that isn't their fault. The media is doing what the media does... spin a sensational story that people want to read/hear about... it's what they get paid to do. The media didn't put Ben in that situation... for the second time. Ben did that on his own.

Exactly! Sad that a fan of another team seems to be the only one to get what is going on here.

The members of this forum are condemning the media and Goodell, instead of seeing what is right in front of their faces as the true problem, and therefore where their anger should be appropriately placed..

It's BEN you guys.

BEN BEN BEN BEN.

When are you guys going to see it??

Quit blaming the media and the Commish, and quit being homers, this is all because of Roethlisberger's transgressions, even beyond those that pertained to alleged sexual assaults.

Please WAKE UP!

Devilsdancefloor
06-23-2010, 10:11 PM
I'm sure some of you will take this the wrong way, but... a lot of you sound like crybaby Raiders fans that want to blame the media for something that isn't their fault. The media is doing what the media does... spin a sensational story that people want to read/hear about... it's what they get paid to do. The media didn't put Ben in that situation... for the second time. Ben did that on his own.


i have to agree wth you it isnt the media it was ben. the media was doing "their job" for the most part they got a bunch of crap because they "ignored' the nevada case. Who cares at this point only 2 people in this world know what really happened in that skanky bathroom. we all need to suck it up and move on that is what the ben, the team and the FO is doing.

steeldevil
06-23-2010, 10:32 PM
I'm sure some of you will take this the wrong way, but... a lot of you sound like crybaby Raiders fans that want to blame the media for something that isn't their fault. The media is doing what the media does... spin a sensational story that people want to read/hear about... it's what they get paid to do. The media didn't put Ben in that situation... for the second time. Ben did that on his own.

agree 100%... The media exist to report stories and make them seem more important or out of control than what they really are. The media was doing their job... Ben Roethlisberger was not

Chidi29
06-23-2010, 10:51 PM
I'm sure some of you will take this the wrong way, but... a lot of you sound like crybaby Raiders fans that want to blame the media for something that isn't their fault. The media is doing what the media does... spin a sensational story that people want to read/hear about... it's what they get paid to do. The media didn't put Ben in that situation... for the second time. Ben did that on his own.

If this girl doesn't alledge rape, the media probably never picks up on the story.

If the media doesn't pick up on the story, no one knows and no one cares.

I always ask this: If Goodell found out, not through the media, but through the grapevine of people in the NFL that Ben had an incident (Not a rape claim, just a sexual encounter because Ben can't be suspended by the rape claim but the action of being in the bathroom with this girl) does he get a six game suspension?

I haven't heard one person say yes.

You can bet that there'd be a lot more heat on Goodell to take action if the media actually cared about Brandon Underwood or Eric Foster.

I'm not defending what Ben did that night. Being in the bathroom with this girl, rape or not, is completely dumb.

And I'm not saying the media reporting the story is wrong. I understand what they do. You're assuming I'm putting a negative conatation on it. I'm not. I'm simply stating a fact. The vast media exposure was the biggest factor in the suspension.

tony hipchest
06-23-2010, 11:27 PM
I'm sure some of you will take this the wrong way, but... a lot of you sound like crybaby Raiders fans that want to blame the media for something that isn't their fault. The media is doing what the media does... spin a sensational story that people want to read/hear about... it's what they get paid to do. The media didn't put Ben in that situation... for the second time. Ben did that on his own.unfortunately we live in the culture where there is the myth of the evil leftist media. people eat that shit up. just look at the political spectrum.

HughC
06-24-2010, 12:04 AM
Enough with this conspiracy BS. Take the tin foil hats off people, there are no black helicopters filled with the media, Goodell, and the refs out to get Ben and the Steelers. The media made a big story out of it because Ben is one of the most famous players in not just the NFL, but all of sports.

The media's purpose is to make a profit by selling newspapers or driving ratings, so they can make more money off the ads they sell. They're not an altruistic non-profit group trying to better society. Look no further than Tiger Woods, another figure the media the media lapped up to for years but with the snap of a finger went the other way, and continue to beat a dead horse.

I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is. And it all goes back to the fact that Ben should have realized his fame and the way the media works, and never have put himself in a place that would create this kind of scrutiny, especially after Nevada.

zulater
06-26-2010, 05:54 AM
Exactly! Sad that a fan of another team seems to be the only one to get what is going on here.

The members of this forum are condemning the media and Goodell, instead of seeing what is right in front of their faces as the true problem, and therefore where their anger should be appropriately placed..

It's BEN you guys.e

BEN BEN BEN BEN.

When are you guys going to see it??

Quit blaming the media and the Commish, and quit being homers, this is all because of Roethlisberger's transgressions, even beyond those that pertained to alleged sexual assaults.

Please WAKE UP!

Bullshit! Ben is guilty of nothing more than being a jerk on multiple occasions when out in public. The team had a right to disicpline him, the league did not.

Ben has been poorly advised by his handlers since the day it was announced that charges wouldn't be filed. I believe he had an agreement with the team that he would accept whatever punishement Goodell meted out for the betterment of all, to get things behind him. But as soon as Goodell came down as hard as he did Ben should have appealed and fuck the Rooney's and whatever agreement he had with them! He was thrown under the bus by the team in the worst way. If he had appealed and taken it to appelate court after Goodell rubber stamped his punishment he could have had the suspension rescinded or at least stayed until a imparial arbiter heard the case. Don't beleive me, tell me when those guys in Minnesota are going to serve their suspesnion for P.E.D.'s? :coffee:

And before you accuse me of me of being a Ben jock sniffer, it has nothing to do with that. Having familiarized myself with the case as much as anyone can it's plainly obvious the man was raliroaded for a basic non happening in Georgia due to a false public perception of the facts of the case, and the fear of minority opinion if he allowed Ben to go unpunished. Were he a Raider, A Cowboy, a Brown etc... I would have had the exact same opinion.

None of us know what really happened that night. The girl refused to further cooperate with authorities after making wildly inconsistent statements previously. Goodell has repeatedly stated that his punishement was based stricly on the events in Georgia, the entire investigation has been made an open book for the public to examine. There' no hidden bombshells to further indict Ben as you and many repeatedly state as fact. The punishment was based 100 percent on Goodell's perception of the events that took place in Georgia that night. He overstepped his authroity in the worst way. He was neither fair or imparital in his dealings with Ben. I continue to believe he bought into the accusers accusations completely because he put on his daddy with daughters hat instead of his commisioners hat that day.

Nadroj 20
06-26-2010, 07:59 AM
Exactly! Sad that a fan of another team seems to be the only one to get what is going on here.

The members of this forum are condemning the media and Goodell, instead of seeing what is right in front of their faces as the true problem, and therefore where their anger should be appropriately placed..

It's BEN you guys.

BEN BEN BEN BEN.

When are you guys going to see it??

Quit blaming the media and the Commish, and quit being homers, this is all because of Roethlisberger's transgressions, even beyond those that pertained to alleged sexual assaults.

Please WAKE UP!

Homers????

You can not honestly tell me that a player who has never been convicted of doing ANYTHING wrong can be suspended 4-6 games!! He deserves some kind of punishement for being an idiot and a jerk, and putting himself in numerous situations that has damaged his image. This punishement should be taken almost like a favor, in other words the NFL telling Ben to wake the hell up and quit making himself look like an ass. That could have been done with 2 games, 3 MAX.

The media is what it is, I expect nothing less from them, but IMO the Commish deserves to be critized for his choice to suspend a player without being convicted. There are MANY people who agree with that, not just Steeler fans.

Ben got himself in this position no doubt, we are not arguing that fact. But he did not deserve the suspension he got.

steeldawg
06-26-2010, 10:10 AM
Why dont you tell us exactly what Ben did to warrant a 6 game suspension. Answer! Nothing! It is garbage without the media picking and choosing what parts of the case they were going to report and throwing the race card into the mix Ben does not even get suspended. Ben was not suspended for being in a bar and drinking, he was suspended for the negative attention that was brought to the NFL. The negative attention was created by the media and even after a team of investigators investigated the case for a month they still could not find any evidence to prove the girls changing story he is still treated by the media as if he is guilty. There are alot of players in this league hit with assualt charges every season, but how many 6 game suspensions have you seen , 0 , and that is because there is no media attention. Vince young is a perfect example, attacked a guy on video was charged with a crime 2am in a strip club, an no suspension and well if you watched the report on it the media was impressed because he said he was sorry. Guy attacks someone, guy beats his wife, guy kills someone drunk driving and we are all so forgiving. Guy in a bar drinking and we are outraged. I think the people who went through and read the case ben are AWAKE! and they are pretty aware of what the media did.

HughC
06-26-2010, 10:55 AM
Regarding the comparison of Ben's suspension to the Viking players who went to court:

It's two completely different set of circumstances that lead to suspensions. The NFL drug tests include a very specific list of banned substances. That item in question was not listed in the ingredients in the substance they took. Ben's suspension was for violation of the Personal Conduct Policy. That policy expressly states that you do not have to be convicted or even charged with a crime. Initially it was limited to violent an/or criminal activity, but later it was expanded, specifically referring to conduct detrimental to reputation of the league and irresponsible conduct, etc. The fact Ben was never charged or convicted of a crime is irrelevant in regards to violating the Personal Conduct Policy, so I don't see how he would have a winnable case if he were to go to court to have the suspension overturned. There is no parallel with the Vikings starcaps case.

zulater
06-26-2010, 12:09 PM
Regarding the comparison of Ben's suspension to the Viking players who went to court:

It's two completely different set of circumstances that lead to suspensions. The NFL drug tests include a very specific list of banned substances. That item in question was not listed in the ingredients in the substance they took. Ben's suspension was for violation of the Personal Conduct Policy. That policy expressly states that you do not have to be convicted or even charged with a crime. Initially it was limited to violent an/or criminal activity, but later it was expanded, specifically referring to conduct detrimental to reputation of the league and irresponsible conduct, etc. The fact Ben was never charged or convicted of a crime is irrelevant in regards to violating the Personal Conduct Policy, so I don't see how he would have a winnable case if he were to go to court to have the suspension overturned. There is no parallel with the Vikings starcaps case.

There was absolutely no precedent under the Personal conduct policy for Goodell to wield as big as stick as he did. Goodell's ruling wouldn't stand the test of a legal challenge in my opinion.

siss
06-26-2010, 12:28 PM
I truly believe that the Rooney's told the commish he needs a wake up call. This has to hurt him a lot and I also think thats why its a conditional suspension. Rooney said he had talked to Ben about his dedication to the team. What better way then to make him prove it, but telling him that his suspension will be 4 games instead of 6. Is 4 games fair? No, not at all. I also thik this is an intervention of sorts as well. But at the same time IF this causes Ben to truly look with in himself and make changes (which I think we are already seeing) then in the long run I don't see this as being such a horrible thing.

zulater
06-26-2010, 01:27 PM
I truly believe that the Rooney's told the commish he needs a wake up call. This has to hurt him a lot and I also think thats why its a conditional suspension. Rooney said he had talked to Ben about his dedication to the team. What better way then to make him prove it, but telling him that his suspension will be 4 games instead of 6. Is 4 games fair? No, not at all. I also thik this is an intervention of sorts as well. But at the same time IF this causes Ben to truly look with in himself and make changes (which I think we are already seeing) then in the long run I don't see this as being such a horrible thing.

I never said Ben shouldn't be punished. I just don't think the league had the right to impose punishment, I think it should have been up to the team.

Shea
06-26-2010, 04:27 PM
Zu, you're stuck on that night in Georgia, his punishment was handed out for alot more than that.

And Gordon don't you dare sass me again!

I truly believe that the Rooney's told the commish he needs a wake up call. This has to hurt him a lot and I also think thats why its a conditional suspension. Rooney said he had talked to Ben about his dedication to the team. What better way then to make him prove it, but telling him that his suspension will be 4 games instead of 6. Is 4 games fair? No, not at all. I also thik this is an intervention of sorts as well. But at the same time IF this causes Ben to truly look with in himself and make changes (which I think we are already seeing) then in the long run I don't see this as being such a horrible thing.

Amen girl!

Siss seems to be the biggest Ben fan on the board, and yet even she sees it.

zulater
06-26-2010, 04:52 PM
http://jayreisinger.blogspot.com/2010/04/goodells-folly.html

Yesterday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced that he had suspended Pittsburgh Steelers’ quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for 6 games for violations of the NFL Personal Conduct Policy. The suspension can be reduced to 4 games (at Mr. Goodell’s discretion) if Roethisberger successfully completes behavioral counseling. It’s an almost certainty that Roethlisberger will complete his counseling, and thus, in my opinion, this is really a 4 game suspension. However, even at 4 games, the length of the suspension is unjust, and an abuse of Mr. Goodell’s discretion.

Goodell has suspended a number of NFL players for violation of the Personal Conduct Policy, however, the vast majority of these players were either found guilty or pled guilty to a criminal offense. My research indicates that no players were suspended for 4 games or more without an underlying criminal conviction. There are also a significant number of players that have been convicted of crimes (even felonies – see Michael Vick - 2 games) who received less than 4 game suspensions. So why does Roethlisberger get 4 games?

The analysis begins with Goodell’s unbridled discretion under the Personal Conduct Policy. All punishment meted out by Goodell is at Goodell’s sole discretion. Any appeals are heard by, yes, you guessed it, Roger Goodell. There is no meaningful standard by which to determine the severity of discipline under the Policy. Paula Duffy of the Huffington Post captured the essence of Goodell’s discretion quite succinctly in quoting former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. Justice Stewart, in struggling to define “hard core pornography” wrote:

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced with that shorthand description [“hard core pornography”]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture in this case is not that.”

Contrast the “I know it when I see it” standard with Major League Baseball’s policy, which requires “just cause” to impose discipline. Even worse, there are no meaningful appellate rights under the NFL Policy. In MLB, a player can appeal any discipline to an independent arbitrator. In the NFL, you appeal to the person who made the decision in the first place. So much for checks and balances! This is a bargaining failure by the NFLPA that must be corrected in the next round of CBA negotiations.

Let’s be clear: Ben Roethlisberger engaged in abhorrent behavior on March 5, 2010. Whatever the real story is, Roethlisberger placed himself in a situation that endangered himself, his career, and most importantly, the young women.

{ this is speculative imo} Additionally, the situation in Georgia is eerily similar to the allegations made against him in a civil suit filed in Nevada. ( strongly disagree)At the minimum, Roethlisberger has exhibited extremely poor judgment. At the most, he has engaged in aberrant sexual behavior. Regardless of where the truth lies, Roethlisberger has not been charged with a crime in either situation. Both women reported their respective matters to the authorities. The authorities, who actually have something more than an “I know it when I see it” standard, determined that no criminal conduct occurred.

While every professional sports league should have some discretion to impose discipline when a player engages in serious misconduct, there must be some meaningful standard by which to determine such discipline. Under any meaningful standard, and using prior suspensions imposed by Goodell (also rendered under the “I know it when I see it” standard), Roethlisberger should not have been suspended for 4 games. Not to be repetitive, but emphasis is necessary: there have been no criminal charges filed against him, much less any convictions. There hasn’t even been sworn testimony produced regarding these incidents. Roethlisberger’s penalty is the result of a statement to police given by an admittedly highly intoxicated individual, and a civil complaint (by a woman seeking significant monetary damages). This is not evidence that leads a reasonable person to a certain conclusion of wrongdoing that would rise to the level of a 4 game suspension.

Roethlisberger’s suspension is clearly the result of Goodell’s public relations antennae twitching uncontrollably. Goodell is concerned that any suspension of less than 4 games would result in serious public backlash (his PR concern is highlighted by the fact that it was announced as a 6 game suspension, when in reality, it is a 4 game suspension). However, while the NFL certainly has the right to be concerned with respect to public relations issues, a player’s rights, and the integrity of the disciplinary system (as flawed as it is) cannot be thrown to the wind for public relations reasons. Players have rights, even when they engage in misconduct. Roger Goodell has an obligation to respect those rights. In this case, he didn’t.

Given his position in the Roethlisberger matter, I wonder what type of suspension Mr. Goodell would have imposed upon Tiger Woods were he an NFL player?

Shea
06-26-2010, 05:16 PM
Sorry Zu, I'm not interested in reading that article.

Can you briefly summarize it for me - that's where it will probably become interesting.

Nadroj 20
06-26-2010, 05:23 PM
Zu, you're stuck on that night in Georgia, his punishment was handed out for alot more than that.

And Gordon don't you dare sass me again!


Amen girl!

Siss seems to be the biggest Ben fan on the board, and yet even she sees it.

Now Shea you know im not "sassin" you, Im stating my opinion just like you. Ben did nothing illegal. Nothing. A strong enough message would have been a suspension from the Rooney's if they are the ones that think he needs a wake up call. Why tell the commish to do that?

2-3 games would have been the best suspension. Its multiple games that may wake him up yet it isnt way out of line either.

He needed to be suspended, just not 6 games.

X-Terminator
06-26-2010, 05:26 PM
Zu, you're stuck on that night in Georgia, his punishment was handed out for alot more than that.

And Gordon don't you dare sass me again!


Amen girl!

Siss seems to be the biggest Ben fan on the board, and yet even she sees it.

Sees what? I don't think there is a single person here who believes Ben didn't put himself in a bad situation or make a bad decision. Not one. What we have been arguing is whether or not a 4-6 game suspension by the league was warranted based on the outcome of the investigation. We have highly questionable statements from a drunken girl who was wearing a "Down To Fuck" pin on her shirt. This girl was also following Ben around like a lost puppy and then WILLINGLY engaged in sexual talk/flirting with him at that bar. We have an investigation that did not produce any charges because of lack of evidence. We also have another case where a woman claimed sexual assault and waited a YEAR to sue him, and has a case so full of holes it's not even funny. How does ANY of that warrant ANY kind of suspension, much less a 4-6 game suspension? It does not. I still don't believe he should have been suspended by the league at all, but I would have accepted 2 games. If the team wanted to suspend Ben, I would have had no issue with that as well - it's their franchise, and they have their own standards that every player must abide by. 4-6 games is unreasonable, period, and not at all fitting of the "offense" committed. By doing this, he has set a precedent, and now any time a player is simply accused of a crime, he should be subject to the same punishment. Plain and simple. Anything less is hypocrisy.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-26-2010, 05:34 PM
Summary really is:

1. When the McNulty incident happened in Reno, Ben came out publicly and flatly denied any wrongdoing and then also countersued for defamation.

2. When the Georgia incident happened, he got Ray Lewis' defense attorney, said nothing, was admonished by the District Attourney for acting immorally, then suspended by Roger Goodell and entered a treatment program. He was also given up for trade bait before the NFL draft.

#2 is what happens to guilty people with money. Guilty people without money normally goto prison. Be thankful that Ben is only gonna serve a 4 game suspension and try to forget it as much as Ben is trying to forget it. If you are truly fans of Ben, stop brining up the incident to try and defend him.

Nadroj 20
06-26-2010, 05:38 PM
Summary really is:

1. When the McNulty incident happened in Reno, Ben came out publicly and flatly denied any wrongdoing and then also countersued for defamation.

2. When the Georgia incident happened, he got Ray Lewis' defense attorney, said nothing, was admonished by the District Attourney for acting immorally, then suspended by Roger Goodell and entered a treatment program. He was also given up for trade bait before the NFL draft.

#2 is what happens to guilty people with money. Guilty people without money normally goto prison. Be thankful that Ben is only gonna serve a 4 game suspension and try to forget it as much as Ben is trying to forget it. If you are truly fans of Ben, stop brining up the incident to try and defend him.

the difference is #1 was filed a year later, and in case #2 charges were being brought immediately oh yea RAPE charges, not some civil case.

IMO its apples to oranges between the two

X-Terminator
06-26-2010, 05:40 PM
Summary really is:

1. When the McNulty incident happened in Reno, Ben came out publicly and flatly denied any wrongdoing and then also countersued for defamation.

2. When the Georgia incident happened, he got Ray Lewis' defense attorney, said nothing, was admonished by the District Attourney for acting immorally, then suspended by Roger Goodell and entered a treatment program. He was also given up for trade bait before the NFL draft.

#2 is what happens to guilty people with money. Guilty people without money normally goto prison. Be thankful that Ben is only gonna serve a 4 game suspension and try to forget it as much as Ben is trying to forget it. If you are truly fans of Ben, stop brining up the incident to try and defend him.

So then, we'll be expecting Vince Young's suspension announcement soon?

Hard to believe there are so many people who absolutely refuse to consider anything else about this case. It's "he's guilty, and that's that."

Shea
06-26-2010, 05:50 PM
Now Shea you know im not "sassin" you, Im stating my opinion just like you.
He needed to be suspended, just not 6 games.

I know Gordon. I'm just playing with ya. And he won't be suspended for 6 games, he'll be back after four.


Sees what? I don't think there is a single person here who believes Ben didn't put himself in a bad situation or make a bad decision. Not one. What we have been arguing is whether or not a 4-6 game suspension by the league was warranted based on the outcome of the investigation. We have highly questionable statements from a drunken girl who was wearing a "Down To Fuck" pin on her shirt. This girl was also following Ben around like a lost puppy and then WILLINGLY engaged in sexual talk/flirting with him at that bar. We have an investigation that did not produce any charges because of lack of evidence. We also have another case where a woman claimed sexual assault and waited a YEAR to sue him, and has a case so full of holes it's not even funny. How does ANY of that warrant ANY kind of suspension, much less a 4-6 game suspension? It does not. I still don't believe he should have been suspended by the league at all, but I would have accepted 2 games. If the team wanted to suspend Ben, I would have had no issue with that as well - it's their franchise, and they have their own standards that every player must abide by. 4-6 games is unreasonable, period, and not at all fitting of the "offense" committed. By doing this, he has set a precedent, and now any time a player is simply accused of a crime, he should be subject to the same punishment. Plain and simple. Anything less is hypocrisy.

Jesus Christ, calm down.

The Rooney's were in contact with Goodell well before Ben went to NY to have his little sit down with Goodell and I believe there is a reason for that. And as a side note, ever wonder how Ben came across in that meeting?? Hmmmm .....

Sure the team could have punished Ben themselves, but that probably would have backfired.

Ben is a sulky immature, inflated ego. Take it out of the Rooney's hands and you dodge not only a bullet of resentment but put it within a man's hands that therefore wouldn't sacrifice relationships within the franchise.

I don't care about the number of games he's been suspended - which will only be four - I'm more concerned about our future and that hopefully what the Rooney's in compliance with Goodell did will result in many years of Ben being our quarterback. Win for Ben and win for us Steelers fans.

See that?

Nadroj 20
06-26-2010, 05:52 PM
I know Gordon. I'm just playing with ya. And he won't be suspended for 6 games, he'll be back after four.

Yes but the suspension is techinally 6 that could be reduced to 4...so as of right now its still 6, which isnt right.

I agree it will be reduced to 4, but thats not the point.

X-Terminator
06-26-2010, 06:08 PM
Jesus Christ, calm down.

The Rooney's were in contact with Goodell well before Ben went to NY to have his little sit down with Goodell and I believe there is a reason for that. And as a side note, ever wonder how Ben came across in that meeting?? Hmmmm .....

Sure the team could have punished Ben themselves, but that probably would have backfired.

Ben is a sulky immature, inflated ego. Take it out of the Rooney's hands and you dodge not only a bullet of resentment but put it within a man's hands that therefore wouldn't sacrifice relationships within the franchise.

I don't care about the number of games he's been suspended - which will only be four - I'm more concerned about our future and that hopefully what the Rooney's in compliance with Goodell did will result in many years of Ben being our quarterback. Win for Ben and win for us Steelers fans.

See that?

Well, last I remember, Ben showed up to that meeting with Goodell in a suit and a haircut. Which means he knew he had to put forth a much better image than he did for his first "apology" after the incident, when he showed up in a polo shirt, a mullet and an attitude. Whether that was his call or the Rooney's call, it was still the correct decision and it likely helped Ben's case during his meeting. And it is pure speculation on how he came across in that meeting - nobody knows, and nobody will ever know other than Ben and Der Kommissar.

How do you know the team punishing Ben would have backfired? Especially if that punishment involved games and the clear threat of being cut or traded? The league's punishment could backfire too, so that's not really a good argument.

Yes, Ben has/had an overinflated ego. Yes, he needed to be brought down several notches. No argument there. I just preferred that the TEAM handle it, and not the league, especially considering the precedent has now been set. In some ways, I guess you can say the team did handle it, because they were the ones who got Goodell to only suspend him for 4-6 games, because he was prepared to suspend him indefinitely. Now had he done that, would you still have agreed with it? Would you believe that punishment fit the "offense" committed?

We can argue this until we're both blue, but I will never agree that this was a fair suspension. It's bullshit. And now considering what else has happened since then and all of the incidents that have pretty much been swept under the rug...it's even more bullshit.

Shea
06-26-2010, 06:30 PM
Yes, even without the haircut, nobody knows what went on in that meeting with Goodell, therefore it's something to consider that it probably went bad and added to Ben's punishment. Just a guess here ....

How do I know if the Steelers themselves punishing Ben would have backfired? Well, let's look at Ben's past history.

His relationship with Bradshaw for telling him to get rid of the motorcycle that then cemented their relationship as shit, even though Terry was right - years later still the resentment.

Cowher - looks like they've finally made amends, but ever see the footage of XL where Ben pretty much shits on him with his verbal and body languange. Again years later after the fact - but desperate times sometimes have good results.

Ummmm - Whiz. Not gonna shake his hand when playing in Arizona. Years .... still can't let it go Ben.

God there's a trillion examples. Ben's forum was the first I ever came across, and read it and participated within in for awhile and seen so many bad aspects of Ben within it that I lost count.

He's immature. And maybe he's now changed after all this that has happened to him. But to think he wouldn't hold a grudge against the Rooney's if they had solely been the ones to hand down a punishment is naive.

Even I know this, and they know so much more about him than I or anyone on this board - hence their reaching out to the Commish for help.

Butch
06-26-2010, 07:43 PM
Summary really is:

1. When the McNulty incident happened in Reno, Ben came out publicly and flatly denied any wrongdoing and then also countersued for defamation.

2. When the Georgia incident happened, he got Ray Lewis' defense attorney, said nothing, was admonished by the District Attourney for acting immorally, then suspended by Roger Goodell and entered a treatment program. He was also given up for trade bait before the NFL draft.

#2 is what happens to guilty people with money. Guilty people without money normally goto prison. Be thankful that Ben is only gonna serve a 4 game suspension and try to forget it as much as Ben is trying to forget it. If you are truly fans of Ben, stop brining up the incident to try and defend him.

So only guilty people need lawyers??? Say it aint so!!!

I have seen it first hand a guy who was hung out to dry in a court martial because he spoke without having a lawyer present. He got completely raked over the coals and his wife who was the one smoking pot in base housing walked away scott free. This is the very short story and getting a lawyer doesn't make you guilty just smart to protect yourself.

zulater
06-26-2010, 07:55 PM
Sorry Zu, I'm not interested in reading that article.

Can you briefly summarize it for me - that's where it will probably become interesting.

While every professional sports league should have some discretion to impose discipline when a player engages in serious misconduct, there must be some meaningful standard by which to determine such discipline. Under any meaningful standard, and using prior suspensions imposed by Goodell (also rendered under the “I know it when I see it” standard), Roethlisberger should not have been suspended for 4 games. Not to be repetitive, but emphasis is necessary: there have been no criminal charges filed against him, much less any convictions. There hasn’t even been sworn testimony produced regarding these incidents. Roethlisberger’s penalty is the result of a statement to police given by an admittedly highly intoxicated individual, and a civil complaint (by a woman seeking significant monetary damages). This is not evidence that leads a reasonable person to a certain conclusion of wrongdoing that would rise to the level of a 4 game suspension.

Roethlisberger’s suspension is clearly the result of Goodell’s public relations antennae twitching uncontrollably. Goodell is concerned that any suspension of less than 4 games would result in serious public backlash (his PR concern is highlighted by the fact that it was announced as a 6 game suspension, when in reality, it is a 4 game suspension). However, while the NFL certainly has the right to be concerned with respect to public relations issues, a player’s rights, and the integrity of the disciplinary system (as flawed as it is) cannot be thrown to the wind for public relations reasons. Players have rights, even when they engage in misconduct. Roger Goodell has an obligation to respect those rights. In this case, he didn’t.

siss
06-26-2010, 07:57 PM
If the Rooney's had suspended Ben, he very easily could have appealed it to the NFLPA. Instead they gave it to a higher up and let them deal with it. And as I have said, if it causes him to re-examine his life then so what. He had to have more then a slap on the wrist, it had to hurt him and it sounds like that is exactly what has happened. I believe his agent has said that Ben wants to make this a positive turning point in his life.
If you have a child who gets in trouble they will have two consequences. 1. is the natural consequence (i.e for Ben the embarrassment and the fans reaction) 2. is the one you hand out (for Ben its the suspension). And no matter what happens you have to make them learn their lesson no matter how hard it is to watch, other wise it has no meaning or baring on their decision making in the future. Ben HAS to make a decision. Is he going to clean up his life or is he going to continue? There is a lot at stack if he doesn't, but at least by having the suspension so harsh, NO ONE can say they didn't try to reach him.
It does not matter to me what the commish does with other players. I care about my franchise QB and his ability to be on the field. And if it has to hurt us for the first few games of one season then so be it. I want Ben to be on the field in black and gold a whole lot longer then one season.
The thing about Ben is that I have heard some really great stories and some really awful stories. I think that some are exaggerated greatly. If you listen to some he has slept with half of the ladies of Pittsburgh. But he also seems to have a heart of gold when it comes to children. And I don't know him or pretend to know him, but he seems to be a decent guy.
Now for Ben's part he has been contrite. I mean he admitted that he got caught up in what was happening to him. I don't think any one of us can pretend to understand what that is like. Or know that the same thing wouldn't happen to us if we were in that same situation. Only time will really tell. And if it doesn't then Ben won't be a steeler anymore. But I think we are all rooting for him to get his life straight so it doesn't effect his ability to play anymore.
And for the record I do not believe that Ben is guilty of anything but bad decisions.

HometownGal
06-26-2010, 08:08 PM
And for the record I do not believe that Ben is guilty of anything but bad decisions.

A-fucking-MEN. :thumbsup:

Which is NOT punishable with a 4-6 game suspension by a kangaroo court Commish with little man complex who is as inconsistent with his disciplines as the day is long.

zulater
06-26-2010, 08:09 PM
Siss, Ben could have appealed this suspension. If he had been my son he would have taken it to appelate court after Goodell rubber stamped his intitial findings and sought a stay of sentence from the court. Having talked to several lawyers I think he quite likely could have prevented Goodell from imposing sentence for the entirety of the season if Goodell was unwilling to reduce the suspension. That he didn't exercise his reasonable right to appeal was in my opinion due to an agreement he made with the Rooney's to accept the league's punishment without complaint if he wanted to remain a Steeler.

zulater
06-26-2010, 08:12 PM
A-fucking-MEN. :thumbsup:

Which is NOT punishable with a 4-6 game suspension by a kangaroo court Commish with little man complex who is as inconsistent with his disciplines as the day is long.

Good summation. :high5:

siss
06-26-2010, 08:18 PM
I don't care if he is consistent. I care about my team. And my franchise players ability to be on the field. Ben is our best chance at winning Super Bowls. end of story.
If he was my son I would tell him that he brought it on himself and he needs to look deep with in himself and figure out why this is happening. I would hold my son accountable for what happened and make sure he looked within himself to make changes.

zulater
06-26-2010, 08:49 PM
Here's my question. What happens if sometime in the not too distant future the young lady who accused Ben of sexual assualt in Georgia comes foward and admits that no non consentual contact occured between her and Ben? Were she also to admit that the accusation came about as a result of a personal sense of shame and that it was further fueled by suggestion and peer pressure from her sorority sisters, who while not encouraging her to lie spoon fed her what at the time seemed to be a plausible face saving story.

In my opinion this is the most likely scenario of what really happened. So say this truth eventually comes out, how many games should Ben have been suspened then? :coffee:

HometownGal
06-26-2010, 08:55 PM
I don't care if he is consistent. I care about my team. And my franchise players ability to be on the field. Ben is our best chance at winning Super Bowls. end of story.
If he was my son I would tell him that he brought it on himself and he needs to look deep with in himself and figure out why this is happening. I would hold my son accountable for what happened and make sure he looked within himself to make changes.

Let me ask you something, siss. If your son acted like a pickle head and made some bad judgments in his life but wasn't convicted of a crime and/or tried and convicted in a court of law, was suspended from his job without pay for 4-6 weeks and unfairly condemned to hell and back while his co-workers get off scott free for behaviors far worse and are actually charged with crimes - would you, as his Mother, be able to just idly stand by? Sure - if it was my son - I would most definitely hold him accountable for his own poor decisions and strongly insist he get professional counseling to help him turn his life around (this occuring after beating his ass with a baseball bat :heh:) but you bet your sweet bippy I would feel he was unjustly villified and discriminated against, as I feel Ben is in the matter at hand. Imho - it was not up to Goodell to hold his own kangaroo court and impose a sanction against Ben. It was up to the Rooneys - as his employer - to take whatever actions they deemed appropriate and I highly doubt it would have been a 4-6 game suspension.

HollywoodSteel
06-26-2010, 08:56 PM
I think whether or not this suspension is ultimately in the best interest of Ben and the Steelers is an interesting discussion, but it is kind of a side thought when it comes to what I believe is the original point of this thread.

What were all the factors that contributed to this particular punishment imposed by the commissioner? Was it motivated by the desire for pure justice, or political expedience and public relations?

A lot of us believe there was a great deal of the latter involved, and for good reason. The NFL is ultimately a private organization and can have arbitrary rules if it so chooses, but we as fans who love the game have the right, and I believe the obligation, to point out what we believe are injustices and hypocrisy that damage the game. Only by shouting out loudly and often is there even the possibility that the backlash can reach the the minds of the general public so that perhaps it will be more damaging to the NFL's PR machine to be unjust and hypocritical in the future.

Imagine if just one really prominent journalist is persuaded by our arguments and decides to put Goodell's picture on the cover of SI with the title "Hypocrite?" next to it. If inside there were an article listing all the various moral and legal infractions committed by NFL players who received less punishment than Ben or no punishment at all, do you think that could maybe, just maybe, shift public opinion enough so that the Grand Inquisitor would have to think twice before handing down his next unjust punishment?

This will most likely not happen, but just the remote chance that it might makes these discussions worthwhile.

So no, I will not move on, and I will not stop discussing it.

zulater
06-26-2010, 09:05 PM
Great post Hollywood Steel!

siss
06-26-2010, 09:42 PM
Let me ask you something, siss. If your son acted like a pickle head and made some bad judgments in his life but wasn't convicted of a crime and/or tried and convicted in a court of law, was suspended from his job without pay for 4-6 weeks and unfairly condemned to hell and back while his co-workers get off scott free for behaviors far worse and are actually charged with crimes - would you, as his Mother, be able to just idly stand by? Sure - if it was my son - I would most definitely hold him accountable for his own poor decisions and strongly insist he get professional counseling to help him turn his life around (this occuring after beating his ass with a baseball bat :heh:) but you bet your sweet bippy I would feel he was unjustly villified and discriminated against, as I feel Ben is in the matter at hand. Imho - it was not up to Goodell to hold his own kangaroo court and impose a sanction against Ben. It was up to the Rooneys - as his employer - to take whatever actions they deemed appropriate and I highly doubt it would have been a 4-6 game suspension.

I don't disagree with you here. However I only care about my son. He is the one I want the best for, not the other mothers sons. If he was unjustly vilified then that is part of the consequence. Would I be in the principals office complaining? You bet, but its the part of the consequence fair or not.

I think that in the future the NFLPA needs to address the issue. There needs to be an arbitrator. It can be called the Ben Clause.

solardave
06-27-2010, 09:28 AM
I agree that Goodell has entirely to much power and has proven he'll use it as HE SEES FIT. Whether it is to cover something up or whatever he feels is in the best interest of his best interest. I honestly think he could give a Rat's ass about player safety or league integrity. As for the integrity,if he cared he'd FIRE HIMSELF!!!

SMR
06-27-2010, 10:57 AM
Great post Hollywood Steel!

I second that. :tt02:

HollywoodSteel
06-27-2010, 04:42 PM
Thanks guys.

I think the main reason that this topic is once again boiling blood amongst Steelers fans is the Vince Young situation. I googled "Vince Young Suspension" and google didn't finish the last word for me. No one's even googling about it. Trying just typing Ben R", see what you get.

So when I did pull up something about a possible Vince Young suspension I get this:

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?sport=NFL&id=3602&line=174937&spln=1

Here's what kills me:

"It's believed that Young is unlikely to face a suspension as a first-time offender under the league's Personal Conduct Policy"

Seriously? I defy you to find just one journalist who said this about Ben. They uniformly spouted out things like, "The commissioner has to suspend Ben. It's just a matter of how many games." But wasn't this Ben's first violation of the vague conduct policy as well?

This is why we suspect that the tail wags the dog. Now if the commissioner goes ahead and suspends Young despite what the press thinks, I will commend him for it.

Just the thought of Vince Young coming out of the tunnel week two against the Steelers while Ben has to watch the game from home makes my skin crawl. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-28-2010, 08:33 AM
So only guilty people need lawyers??? Say it aint so!!!

I have seen it first hand a guy who was hung out to dry in a court martial because he spoke without having a lawyer present. He got completely raked over the coals and his wife who was the one smoking pot in base housing walked away scott free. This is the very short story and getting a lawyer doesn't make you guilty just smart to protect yourself.
No, I think the point that I was making is that when Ben was accused in Nevada, he acted like a man falsely accused of farting in public and didnt go out of his way to hire a high profile lawyer.

In the Millidgeville incident, he hired the Lawyer that defended Ray Lewis in a Murder trial and didnt speak for months. Fact is that Ben was rather casual after what happend in NV. but seems very remorseful and much more serious after what happened in Ga.

I think the kid got away with one in Ga. and is extremely lucky that he is only gonna serve a 4 game suspension and got dropped by his Beef Jerky sponsor. :rofl:

siss
06-28-2010, 08:56 AM
No, I think the point that I was making is that when Ben was accused in Nevada, he acted like a man falsely accused of farting in public and didnt go out of his way to hire a high profile lawyer.

In the Millidgeville incident, he hired the Lawyer that defended Ray Lewis in a Murder trial and didnt speak for months. Fact is that Ben was rather casual after what happend in NV. but seems very remorseful and much more serious after what happened in Ga.

I think the kid got away with one in Ga. and is extremely lucky that he is only gonna serve a 4 game suspension and got dropped by his Beef Jerky sponsor. :rofl:
Ummmm the first one was Civil and the other one was criminal. Huge difference.

JoeCactus
06-28-2010, 01:02 PM
We care because we believe that the media made such a stink about his alleged behavior that it got him a 6 game suspension. So now we are minus are starting qb for the first 4-6 games.

Welcome to the new America where you shoot first and ask questions later......................We are taking our Country Back as is Backward

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-28-2010, 05:17 PM
Ummmm the first one was Civil and the other one was criminal. Huge difference.

Thats right, in NV the alleged sex took place after the accuser had gone up to Ben's hotel room, while in Ga. the alleged sex took place after he followed the accuser into the women's bathroom and she allegedly said "NO".

Damn media!!! They are truly to blame. :doh:

steel striker
07-03-2010, 10:17 AM
It is time to move on and, let's see how Ben acts from here on out. I think he knows that he must keep his nose clean from here on out.

zulater
07-04-2010, 12:14 AM
Thats right, in NV the alleged sex took place after the accuser had gone up to Ben's hotel room, while in Ga. the alleged sex took place after he followed the accuser into the women's bathroom and she allegedly said "NO".

Damn media!!! They are truly to blame. :doh:

Alleged being the key word, and consentual being the other that you left out.

When in time it's shown that there's no credible evidence to support allegations that any non consentual contact occured between Ben and either of his accusers I would hope that public opinion will have started to sway in his favor.