Big Ben going to get banned?

cooker3

It seems according to Adam Shefter anyway. The league and or the Steelers are likely to ban him for multiple games. 8-10 is the figure floating around.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5098503&categoryid=2459789

Peyton Manning

Rumours going around that they are looking to trade him too.

frostie500

Archimedes wrote: »

Rumours going around that they are looking to trade him too.

If I'm in the Raiders war room I'm offering the second rounder to try and see just how interested the Steelers are in trading away Ben. I know it seems quite low but the Rooney's need to show their fans/city/players that they will not tolerate players poor attitudes and bad judgement any longer

steelcityblues

Bradshaw criticising Ben:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/04/terry-bradshaw-says-ben-roethlisberger-ruining-his-career-hall-of-famer-offers-help/1

The Sparrow

A couple of interesting articles about the rape investigation here and the possibility of the Steelers cutting Roethlisberger here

Obviously it is almost impossible to say whether he is guilty of rape, but at the very least he is guilty of amazing stupidity. He dodged a bullet like this before and to put yourself in a position with a drunk underage girl like this is crazy for a high profile player. There is certainly a sense that there is no smoke without fire.

The other aspect that I find interesting is the difference between how this is being dealt with by the NFL/ Steelers and how it would be dealt with in the Premier League. You really have to applaud their moral stance. It looks like even though there is no evidence that the law was broken, Ben will be at the very least be suspended by the NFL and perhaps cut by the Steelers altogether. I wonder what would happen if it was Rooney or Gerard? I would guess that nothing would happen if the same events took place with a high profile footballer in most European leagues.

Max Power1

The Sparrow wrote: »

A couple of interesting articles about the rape investigation here and the possibility of the Steelers cutting Roethlisberger here

Obviously it is almost impossible to say whether he is guilty of rape, but at the very least he is guilty of amazing stupidity. He dodged a bullet like this before and to put yourself in a position with a drunk underage girl like this is crazy for a high profile player. There is certainly a sense that there is no smoke without fire.

The other aspect that I find interesting is the difference between how this is being dealt with by the NFL/ Steelers and how it would be dealt with in the Premier League. You really have to applaud their moral stance. It looks like even though there is no evidence that the law was broken, Ben will be at the very least be suspended by the NFL and perhaps cut by the Steelers altogether. I wonder what would happen if it was Rooney or Gerard? I would guess that nothing would happen if the same events took place with a high profile footballer in most European leagues.

Exactly - as there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Evidently the same concept exists in reverse in the USA.

steelcityblues

Max Power1 wrote: »

Exactly - as there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Evidently the same concept exists in reverse in the USA.

True, and not to mention a salicious media who get a kick out of any top star being taken off their peril and talking about it before a fair trial

Pittsburgh Steelers aren't really one of the fashionable big city teams, so that won't help either.

The Sparrow

Max Power1 wrote: »

Exactly - as there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Evidently the same concept exists in reverse in the USA.

Yeah but that is too simplistic. He is going to be punished for bringing the game into disrepute and banned for that not the alleged rape. The idea being that NFL athletes get paid a lot of money and they must realise that they are role models and are held up to a higher standard than other people.

I don't think anyone can argue that Roethlisberger's actions have at the very least brought negative publicity on the NFL and therefore he is going to be punished for that. I think that is fair enough.

And from the Steelers point of view, this is not the first problem of this nature with their QB and they may take the view that they don't want their franchise player to be getting himself involved in these situations. Again, fair enough if you ask me.

Max Power1

The Sparrow wrote: »

Yeah but that is too simplistic. He is going to be punished for bringing the game into disrepute and banned for that not the alleged rape. The idea being that NFL athletes get paid a lot of money and they must realise that they are role models and are held up to a higher standard than other people.

I don't think anyone can argue that Roethlisberger's actions have at the very least brought negative publicity on the NFL and therefore he is going to be punished for that. I think that is fair enough.

And from the Steelers point of view, this is not the first problem of this nature with their QB and they may take the view that they don't want their franchise player to be getting himself involved in these situations. Again, fair enough if you ask me.

point me to what HE has actually done though?
All that has happened is two publicity seeking girls alleged that he raped them. Nothing proven, and didnt at least one of the girls sell her story then drop the charges? Not exactly typical "innocent victim" actions imho

The Sparrow

Max Power1 wrote: »

point me to what HE has actually done though?
All that has happened is two publicity seeking girls alleged that he raped them. Nothing proven, and didnt at least one of the girls sell her story then drop the charges? Not exactly typical "innocent victim" actions imho

He was in the bathroom of a nightclub with an girl under the legal alcohol limit that was seemingly drunk out of her head. He admitted that they did have "contact" but it was not "consumated", whatever that means. The girl had some injuries and Ben said she fell over and hit her head but the medical examiners said that was not consistent with her injuries. Medical examiners also noted that she had "superficial laceration and bruising" in the genital area.

My point is that as a NFL player and the main man for the Steelers he is incredibly stupid to put himself in such a position even if he is 100% innocent. And it is not the first time. After the first sexual assault allegation (which, in fairness, looks pretty flimsy) Ben promised the League and the Steelers franchise that he would never put himself in a position like that again. And yet, less than a year later, here we are again.

If nothing else he should be punished for stupidity and if he is innocent, hopefully he will cop on. And the Steelers have every right to get rid of a QB that whilst talented, may be more trouble than he is worth.

bruschi

I'm with max here too, I dont see what the big fuss is about. sure Tom Brady was being called a ladies man before Moynahan, they are young men out looking for women, whats wrong, immoral or stupid about that? the fact that he twice has ended up with 2 that have tried sued him cant be fairly attributed to being his fault. is he just supposed to remain a hermit and not try find a partner until after his playing days? granted, I doubt he actually saw either of those women (or the countless more I have no doubt he has seen to) as being wife material, but seriously, neither of those stories would be anywhere other than because he is a wealthy sportstar, and there's nothing the Americans like more than taking a big name sportstar down a peg or ten.

tallaghtoutlaws

The Sparrow wrote: »

He was in the bathroom of a nightclub with an girl under the legal alcohol limit that was seemingly drunk out of her head

What has the Drinking age got to do with this. You do realise that will look badly on her and not him at trial right? His lawyers have already stated that she is a 20 year old adult who only by law is underage to drink. She still had the ability to say no according to witnesses. In fact Ben's lawyers question the legality of her being in there in the first place.

Now Im not defending Ben as to be honest with you there is something about this whole thing that just doesn't add up and thats on both sides of the fence. But I will say she is 20 years of age and hardly a child. To be honest with you I dont believe it was actual rape but I can believe that sure maybe Ben did maybe feel her up. But I dont believe for one second there was some sort of consent there to begin with. She seemed to be sober enough to involve her friends into this as it was them who accused Big Ben and none of them were in the bathroom when it happened. So if she had the frame of mind to be able to tell them why couldnt she say no or scream?

For me there are too many holes in the story. But you are right in one sense Ben should have known better and acted accordingly.

steelcityblues

As much as I hate to say it, I can almost see something like the 'Kordell Stewart Years Part II' coming back to Pittsburgh soon!

The Rooneys, as owners, don't even run on a three strikes and your out policy and are fiercely protective of the Steelers name.

Hazys

bruschi wrote: »

I'm with max here too, I dont see what the big fuss is about. sure Tom Brady was being called a ladies man before Moynahan, they are young men out looking for women, whats wrong, immoral or stupid about that? the fact that he twice has ended up with 2 that have tried sued him cant be fairly attributed to being his fault. is he just supposed to remain a hermit and not try find a partner until after his playing days? granted, I doubt he actually saw either of those women (or the countless more I have no doubt he has seen to) as being wife material, but seriously, neither of those stories would be anywhere other than because he is a wealthy sportstar, and there's nothing the Americans like more than taking a big name sportstar down a peg or ten.

Eeemmm i think Brady would be a slightly more classy ladies man in comparison to Big Ben. Taking out actresses and supermodels to dinner Vs taking drunk, 20yr old, college chicks to the back room of a bar.

There is nothing wrong with people sleeping around and not necesscarily looking for a wife and this is not the issue. He showed no class or common sense in what happenned, if it was consentual.


My take is, Big Ben deserves to be suspended.

Could the girl be lying, yes she could. But the issue is how he put himself into a situation like that less than a year after his last sexual harassment case.

If it was consentual, why did he bring the girl to the back room of a bar, didnt he have the cop on to bring her back to the safety of his own home? Surely he is leaving himself open to many things by doing it in a public place. People with camera phones could be taping him going in and out of a room with a hammered girl and have it up on youtube the next day, could get arrested for indecnet exposure, etc. He showed extermely bad judgement even if it was consentual.

If it wasn't consentual, which i have a slight belief it wasnt, given the situation of where it happened. If it was consentual, why didnt he just bring her back to his place?


As for being suspended when innocent till proven guilty, i agree with it. The NFL has an image to uphold, imagine a kid with a Ben Roethlisberger jersey, reading about taking drunk girls to the back room of bars even if its consentual and thinking thats the cool superstar lifestyle and its acceptable, thats just wrong.

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

If it was consentual, why did he bring the girl to the back room of a bar, didnt he have the cop on to bring her back to the safety of his own home?

Ah now come on. Firstly it wasn't a back room it was the women's toilets. and your statement makes many men look like rapists including myself. Sorry Hazy's but moments of madness play into this. But having s3x in a bathroom doesn't make you a rapist or make it any less consensual. Sure its not the classiest thing in the world but you cannot outright make a generalised statement like that.

Hazys

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Ah now come on. Firstly it wasn't a back room it was the women's toilets. and your statement makes many men look like rapists including myself. Sorry Hazy's but moments of madness play into this. But having s3x in a bathroom doesn't make you a rapist or make it any less consensual. Sure its not the classiest thing in the world but you cannot outright make a generalised statement like that.

If it was consensual where you have sex doesnt matter, but when there is somebody saying it wasnt, in a public bathroom doesn't really help the situation.

Odds of sex being consentual if Ben brought the girl home and then the woman says she was raped, reasonably high Vs odds of sex being consentual in the women's toilets with the women saying she was raped, a hell of a lot lower.

I didnt make a generalisation, I'm taking about odds with each situation.

There are a lot more reasons why rape is a lot more likely since its was in the women's toilets of a bar and not in his home.


Again, im not saying Ben raped her but the fact that the incident occured in the ladies toilets doesnt help his case.

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

If it was consensual where you have sex doesnt matter, but when there is somebody saying it wasnt, in a public bathroom doesn't really help the situation.

Odds of sex being consentual if Ben brought the girl home and then the woman says she was raped, reasonably high Vs odds of sex being consentual in the women's toilets with the women saying she was raped, a hell of a lot lower.

I didnt make a generalisation, I'm taking about odds with each situation.

There are a lot more reasons why rape is a lot more likely since its was in the women's toilets of a bar and not in his home.


Again, im not saying Ben raped her but the fact that the incident occured in the ladies toilets doesnt help his case.

But in the same boat its easier for someone to cry rape when it happens in a public place because look at it this way who will believe them if it happened in the other persons apartment or home.

For me I don't believe her the fact she was able to give full details to her friends of what happened but is unable to scream out loud or tell Ben no suggests to me both parties are at fault in this. Ask yourself why she dropped the charge in the end. Both the Girl and Ben are to blame for this situation.

Im not saying Ben did or didn't do it none of us will never know but what I'm saying is there is just not enough clarity as to what actually happened and too many holes in both their stories.

Hazys

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

But in the same boat its easier for someone to cry rape when it happens in a public place because look at it this way who will believe them if it happened in the other persons apartment or home.

For me I don't believe her the fact she was able to give full details to her friends of what happened but is unable to scream out loud or tell Ben no suggests to me both parties are at fault in this. Ask yourself why she dropped the charge in the end. Both the Girl and Ben are to blame for this situation.

Im not saying Ben did or didn't do it none of us will never know but what I'm saying is there is just not enough clarity as to what actually happened and too many holes in both their stories.

Same here, im not saying who's telling the truth or not but it does make the girl's side of the story stronger whether she is telling the truth or not.

jdivision

I think he's a scumbag and the DA would have liked to press charges but Georgia's statute book reads like something out of the stone age.

frostie500

I can't believe that so many people are excusing Ben here. It's all well and good saying that he probably didn't rape her but the fact that he consistently shows incredibly bad judgement shouldn't be forgotten. The man is a great QB but he walks around thinking he is bigger than his team and the league. The two rape allegations, the bike crash, his caviler attitude. They all point to a man that doesn't give a fcuk about anyone but himself.

He has a $102 million contract. He is the face of a storied franchise and the face of a city. He is paid massive money to be a good example and to show proper judgement which he regularly fails to do. Maybe he didn't rape this girl but lads what the hell is he doing in (yet) another college bar after last year?

He needs to get a decent suspension(4 games minimum) to actually think about the choices he makes and sit back and learn from them. He has been contiously coddled by the Rooney's because he is a great QB but now they need to stand firm and teach him about being a responsible person

DonkeyPokerTour

This thread is exactly the reason why the NFL will suspend him. The NFL does not want people talking about the players personal lives. It wants them talking about what they do on the field. Thats the whole point of the Personal Conduct Policy.

The Sparrow

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

What has the Drinking age got to do with this. You do realise that will look badly on her and not him at trial right? His lawyers have already stated that she is a 20 year old adult who only by law is underage to drink. She still had the ability to say no according to witnesses. In fact Ben's lawyers question the legality of her being in there in the first place.

Only that it makes Roethlisberger look worse. From reports he was buying her and her friends shots and then whatever happened, took place in the staff bathroom. As far as I know, it was a staff bathroom and not the ladies.

It doesn't really matter what would happen in a trial as that is not going to happen now and therefore it is not relevant to the personal conduct policy. As DonkeyPokerTour said, all the NFL care about is negative headlines and the league being discussed in negative terms because of one players actions. And in that respect it looks worse that she was not legally allowed drink and he allegedly filled her with shots and brought her to a private staff bathroom. Also her friends allege that some of the off duty police officers that he was with stopped them from getting to the bathroom.

Also, from my reading it seems like the girl in question never wanted to get the police involved and it was only because her friends alerted police that they got involved. So it is no real surprise that she decided not to withdraw herself from the investigation. Also, remember that the police failed to seal off the alleged crime scene and it was cleaned and therefore possible forensic evidence was lost.

No matter how you look at the facts, it doesn't look good for Big Bad Ben.

tallaghtoutlaws

frostie500 wrote: »

I can't believe that so many people are excusing Ben here.

Excusing him from what exactly? Allegations have been made and he hasn't been found guilty of anything. I don't like Big Ben can't stand him in fact but I'm not about to call him a rapist just because there is allegations against him all unproven. To be fair I live by the rule Innocent until proven guilty. There is no denying he has made poor choices in his life but only 2 posters have said he should be let away with those poor choices so I wouldn't exactly say "many" posters excusing him.

bruschi

the point I think is that everyone is quick to judge and say he is a bad role model and 'wont people think of the children'. he did what thousands of people do every night accross the world, he went out and got drunk and got off with a young one. granted, it was extremely stupid to be in the situation given he is on a thin wedge, but unless he is found guilty of any wrong doing in court, has he morally done anything wrong?

I dont think the league should be suspending him, if it did what is to stop any person anywhere making a bogus or otherwise claim about any player and people taking the guilty stance before hearing any facts. If people are going to sling mud, and it sticks no matter what, then that is not right. The players are people first and foremost, then sports stars and role models. They do have a duty to uphold a responsability, and especially quarterbacks given they are the face of franchises, but I would find it extremely hard to start vilifying a player for doing exactly the same kind of things I'd have been doing (again, like I said, as long as it was all legal and consentual!)

The only thing that should be done is that the steelers internally talk to him about it, and either have a contract re working explicitly telling him to stay away from bars like that and tell him it will affect his salary if he keeps messing up. If the steelers penalised him for the motorbike thing, they'd be within their rights IMO (cant remember if they did or not) as he was stupid enough to be putting himself in harms way, and thats a cardinal sin for sports players to do. but to suspend a player for 4 games because he got off with a woman in a bar?

again, if he is found guilty of any misappropriate behaviour, I'll be the first on here saying he should be jailed, let alone suspended, but he hasnt been charged or found guilty so I cant see why the knives are already out.

Max Power1

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8179a78b&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Just saw this and rememebered this thread.

Ridiculous. A man makes one or two errors of judgement. Some girl accuses him of rape with very little proof, and (as mentioned by tallaghtoutlaws on thread earlier) in dodgy circumstances. Next thing, when he has been convicted of no crime, the chap could be suspended.

I think the less said of jdivision's comments above, the better. If it werent for reading his other posts I would consider that one above as trolling in the highest order

The Sparrow

Max Power1 wrote: »

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8179a78b&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Just saw this and rememebered this thread.

Ridiculous. A man makes one or two errors of judgement. Some girl accuses him of rape with very little proof, and (as mentioned by tallaghtoutlaws on thread earlier) in dodgy circumstances. Next thing, when he has been convicted of no crime, the chap could be suspended.

I think the less said of jdivision's comments above, the better. If it werent for reading his other posts I would consider that one above as trolling in the highest order

So Roethlisberger is a man who has made one or two errors of judgement and the alleged victim is "some girl who accuses him of rape". Nice.

Sounds suspiciously like the attitude of the first officer who was informed about the allegations and said something along the lines of "This bitch is drunk off her ass accusing Ben of assaulting her."

It's exactly that attitude that causes so many rape cases to go unreported. Innocent until proven guilty is all very well but you have to afford the same principle to the alleged victim. You can't infer that she is just "some girl" out to make a buck by making up assault allegations without that being proved. Or does the principle of innocent until proven guilty not apply because she is just "some girl"?

As for jdivision's comments, I fail to see the problem. He gave his opinion that he has a negative opinion of the player in question and it seems to me that any police force that allows a potential crime scene evidence to be destroyed and treats a potential victim one so poorly, must have a statute book out of the stone age.

frostie500

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Excusing him from what exactly? Allegations have been made and he hasn't been found guilty of anything. I don't like Big Ben can't stand him in fact but I'm not about to call him a rapist just because there is allegations against him all unproven. To be fair I live by the rule Innocent until proven guilty. There is no denying he has made poor choices in his life but only 2 posters have said he should be let away with those poor choices so I wouldn't exactly say "many" posters excusing him.

The small segment that you quoted from me doesn't really portray the point I was making, I actually agree with much of what you are saying:

I can't believe that so many people are excusing Ben here. It's all well and good saying that he probably didn't rape her but the fact that he consistently shows incredibly bad judgement shouldn't be forgotten.

I didnt call him a rapist I basically called him an idiot. Ben has done nothing since getting drafted though to make people give him the benefit of the doubt. As I said at the end of my earlier post why does he keeps putting himself into bad situations? I've no problem with a lad chasing after some tail but surely he should have learned to stay out of college bars after last year?

Max Power1

The Sparrow wrote: »

So Roethlisberger is a man who has made one or two errors of judgement and the alleged victim is "some girl who accuses him of rape". Nice.

Sounds suspiciously like the attitude of the first officer who was informed about the allegations and said something along the lines of "This bitch is drunk off her ass accusing Ben of assaulting her."

It's exactly that attitude that causes so many rape cases to go unreported. Innocent until proven guilty is all very well but you have to afford the same principle to the alleged victim. You can't infer that she is just "some girl" out to make a buck by making up assault allegations without that being proved. Or does the principle of innocent until proven guilty not apply because she is just "some girl"?

As for jdivision's comments, I fail to see the problem. He gave his opinion that he has a negative opinion of the player in question and it seems to me that any police force that allows a potential crime scene evidence to be destroyed and treats a potential victim one so poorly, must have a statute book out of the stone age.

First of all, calling someone a scumbag is not a "negative opinion".

Anyway, Roethlisberger has not been convicted of anything and as such should not be suspended for anything. Id like to see, if he did get suspended, him take a case for restriction of trade or something along those lines.

Or does the principle of innocent until proven guilty not apply because she is just "some girl"?

So do we do the converse, and accept what she says as true until proven otherwise?

The Sparrow

Max Power1 wrote: »

First of all, calling someone a scumbag is not a "negative opinion".

Anyway, Roethlisberger has not been convicted of anything and as such should not be suspended for anything. Id like to see, if he did get suspended, him take a case for restriction of trade or something along those lines.


So do we do the converse, and accept what she says as true until proven otherwise?

No but at the same time we should not dismiss her as "some girl" making rape allegations. Or "some bitch accusing Ben of assaulting her" as the police officer did without knowing any facts. It is difficult enough for girls to come forward because when they have been raped and dismissing them as "some girl" perpetuates that imo.

BTW I assume that when you said some girl you probably did not mean to dismiss her but it was just a poor choice of words so I am not attacking you per se but the attitude that seems to prevail where rape allegations are dismissed.

Leslie91

Whatever happened, Ben is an idiot for getting into this situation again. A suspension is warranted, maybe he might learn from that. None of us were there ofcourse but No means No.

The Sparrow

Interesting take from Peter King in his MMQB column yesterday that I'm going to quote as I pretty much agree with everything he says

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/04/18/mmqb/index.html?eref=sihp#ixzz0leG5XqfD

The Ben Roethlisberger saga, and what the Rooney family plans to do about it.

I spoke to Art Rooney II, the Steelers president and franchise caretaker since owner Dan Rooney is at work as Ambassador to Ireland, and wanted to get one thing straight: "My read of what you said in your news conference, and to the New York Times, is that you're moving forward with Ben as a Steeler.''

"That's a fair reading, yup,'' Rooney said.

So unless Roethlisberger screws up again -- unlikely because of how scared he is right now, I'm told -- he'll be the quarterback of the Steelers this year. That is after he's suspended by commissioner Roger Goodell for some period, which I now think has to be at least four games at the start of the season, for violating the league's personal conduct policy.

I feel confident this is going to be league discipline, not Steeler-imposed discipline, even though Rooney made it clear he'd rather the team punish Roethlisberger. The league handles hot-button discipline issues like this from 280 Park Avenue consistently, and I just don't think Goodell wants to cede authority to the team on such a hot-button issue. This also allows the league to rap Roethlisberger longer; the max sanction a team can mete out is four games. The league has no such limit.

On Sunday night, Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported Goodell is expected to suspend Roethlisberger either Monday or Tuesday. I'd been told last week that the league would still be gathering information on the incident for several more days, but then the 572-page police investigation was released, a damning lot of evidence against Roethlisberger. Whether he's suspended this week or after the draft, there's little doubt Goodell will act swiftly on a Roethlisberger sanction once he feels he has all the pertinent information.

So Roethlisberger stays a Steeler. And the league, not the team, is likely to handle the punishment. Those are the two headlines here, but there's so much more. First, I'm not sure the Steelers giving Roethlisberger another chance is going to mollify Steeler fans. I think the anger of the fans is not going to be soothed very soon, and rightfully so. If a quarter of the accusations from that night in Georgia are true, he deserves the wrath he'll feel. There could be picketing in bucolic Latrobe this summer, at training camp. He'll get booed in his own stadium. He'll have to have cotton in his ears in every road stadium. He'll be a huge distraction to his own team. The Steelers are counting on time healing the wounds of the Steeler public. I'm not sure they're right about that. We'll see.

I know Steeler fans well. I married a Pittsburgh girl. The tenor of the fans I've spoken with goes something like this: I'll always love the Steelers, but I'll never cheer for that bum Roethlisberger again.

"I understand what's out there,'' Rooney said. "It's a difficult situation. I know our fans feel strongly about it. I'm hearing from them in large measure. I've gotten e-mails, been on some message boards and on Facebook. I've read the anger, and I understand it. Ben is embarrassed by it.''

But I'm also left thinking Roethlisberger's image might have been less sullied had he been charged with a crime. We've heard a fairly one-sided portrayal of events of the evening. An underage college girl and some friends are plied with alcohol, and Roethlisberger disappears with a totally intoxicated one, and the totally intoxicated one, who hit her head at one point, told police she remembers saying no to Roethlisberger's advances twice.

I'm not sure how reliable those statements should be, but it's likely the Roethlisberger side will try to let the story die and not refute anything. I believe the night probably happened close to the way the victim and her friends say it did, and that Roethlisberger is a lout. But in this job, I'm always uncomfortable hearing one side of a story, and the damning statements of the victim and her friends will likely be all we hear on this one. Maybe ever.

As for Roethlisberger, he's lucky the Steelers have a different morality standard for their star quarterback than for their Super Bowl MVP receiver. They could have traded Roethlisberger to Oakland, and if you think I'm kidding, you don't know Al Davis. But as angry as they obviously are with him, they're going to back him, assuming he turns his life around.

We could argue all day about the relative fairness of dumping a guy, Santonio Holmes, who is one strike from being banned for a year and entering the last year of a contract the Steelers probably were not going to extend, and keeping the marquee quarterback with two Super Bowl rings and a problem with how he treats women. The fact is, the quarterback's far more important to the team than the receiver, and he's going to get a little more rope. But there's no doubt he's reached the end of it with the Rooney family.

"When I met with Ben, he said he's going to be changing his life,'' Rooney said. Then he paused for two or three seconds.

"Words are the easy part,'' he said. "We have to make sure Ben puts himself on a path to do better. It's a tall order, but it's something he has to do.''

He has no choice if he wants to stay a Steeler. And if he wants to stay a free man.

One last point: However it happened, and finger-pointing aside, at least two women have come forward in the last nine months and accused Roethlisberger of taking advantage of them -- in graphic, sordid detail. That's why Goodell's punishment can't just be four, six or eight games. It has to include some mandatory counseling. If Roethlisberger's serious about changing his life, there's some evidence there that he needs to change how he treats women, and that should include figuring out why he keeps ending up in this spot

Max Power1

The Sparrow wrote: »

No but at the same time we should not dismiss her as "some girl" making rape allegations. Or "some bitch accusing Ben of assaulting her" as the police officer did without knowing any facts. It is difficult enough for girls to come forward because when they have been raped and dismissing them as "some girl" perpetuates that imo. .

So, when nothing has been proven, and the allegations were deemed untrue/unsubtatiated by a court of law, we should have pity for the alleged victim, and ban the formerly accused. Seems like no due process to me.

The Sparrow wrote: »

BTW I assume that when you said some girl you probably did not mean to dismiss her but it was just a poor choice of words so I am not attacking you per se but the attitude that seems to prevail where rape allegations are dismissed.

On another note, that piece you quoted from Peter King is an interesting read - seems to make out there will be suspensions.

Possibly a wrong choice of words, but I would hold false claims of rape in a very low regard, due to the stigma automatically attached to the accused (as is plainly happening in this case) regardless of whether the crime actually occurred or not

Leslie91 wrote: »

Whatever happened, Ben is an idiot for getting into this situation again. A suspension is warranted, maybe he might learn from that. None of us were there ofcourse but No means No.

+1 to the highlighted part, a definite contrast to the unhighlighted section to which I am most definitly not agreed to.

Hazys

As for Ben being innocent until proven gulity and he shouldnt be punished...Roger Goodell was on the Dan Patrick show yesterday and he said Ben was gulity of violating the NFL's personal conduct policy and will be punished, we'll know the details of how and why in the coming days when the punishment is handed out.

So Ben maybe not guilty in a court of law but according to the NFL his is guilty of breaking the NFL's personal conduct policy and will be punished.

Max Power1

Hazys wrote: »

As for Ben being innocent until proven gulity and he shouldnt be punished...Roger Goodell was on the Dan Patrick show yesterday and he said Ben was gulity of violating the NFL's personal conduct policy and will be punished, we'll know the details of how and why in the coming days when the punishment is handed out.

So Ben maybe not guilty in a court of law but according to the NFL his is guilty of breaking the NFL's personal conduct policy and will be punished.

Has he specified why? IE what ben has done thats against the policy?

If the only thing he's done is be falsly accused of rape (as in he was not found guilty) then its harsh IMO

Hazys

Max Power1 wrote: »

Has he specified why? IE what ben has done thats against the policy?

If the only thing he's done is be falsly accused of rape (as in he was not found guilty) then its harsh IMO

Like i said not yet, we'll find out in the next couple of days when the suspension is handed out.

jdivision

Max Power1 wrote: »

I think the less said of jdivision's comments above, the better. If it werent for reading his other posts I would consider that one above as trolling in the highest order

I'm entitled to express an opinion on the case. See I've read a lot of the facts about it, I've read why the DA couldn't pursue it and I know why it's almost impossible to get a sexual assault conviction in Georgia when alcohol comes into it.
I know the cop who first got involved in the investigation resigned because he made derogatory remarks towards the girl who made the allegations - ie it was skewed from the very beginning - and I know the nightclub (accidentally:rolleyes:) deleted the video coverage of the club after it was requested by cops.
But apparently the superstar QB's got nothing to answer for and I can't express my opinion on him anymore because some people who barely posted here decided that we needed more mods and more rules even though nothing that bad had ever really been posted in here. So apparently I can't say what I think anymore here, because I got a mod warning. Thanks for that. as for those who think it's okay to get a girl drunk before she's legally allowed to drink and then follow her - without being invited to do so - into a jacks and mess around with her, well I'm sorry but I'd be banned under the new regime for telling you what i think of you.

*** edit*** actually, i'll say it, anybody who thinks that it's okay to do that to somebody is a scumbag

Frisbee

jdivision wrote: »

But apparently the superstar QB's got nothing to answer for and I can't express my opinion on him anymore because some people who barely posted here decided that we needed more mods and more rules even though nothing that bad had ever really been posted in here. So apparently I can't say what I think anymore here, because I got a mod warning. Thanks for that. as for those who think it's okay to get a girl drunk before she's legally allowed to drink and then follow her - without being invited to do so - into a jacks and mess around with her, well I'm sorry but I'd be banned under the new regime for telling you what i think of you.

*** edit*** actually, i'll say it, anybody who thinks that it's okay to do that to somebody is a scumbag

Mate, I gave you a yellow on thread when I could have given you a red.

I then explained to you through PM that if that it's your opinion then more power to you. I merely asked you not to call him a scumbag on thread gain.

I felt I did so politely and concisely.

Your getting a warning now. If you continue to act like this on the thread you'll be taking a few days off the forum.

jdivision

Frisbee, I don't have a problem with the way you dealt with it but it's something that I think needed to be said. i know you've a job to do but I think a lot of the people posting here in support of him are just reading a few pieces here and there and assuming certain things.

Frisbee

jdivision wrote: »

Frisbee, I don't have a problem with the way you dealt with it but it's something that I think needed to be said. i know you've a job to do but I think a lot of the people posting here in support of him are just reading a few pieces here and there and assuming certain things.

I'm not going to debate this on thread.

Drop me a PM if you want to discuss it further.

Just don't refer to him as a scumbag again

tallaghtoutlaws

jdivision wrote: »

Frisbee, I don't have a problem with the way you dealt with it but it's something that I think needed to be said. i know you've a job to do but I think a lot of the people posting here in support of him are just reading a few pieces here and there and assuming certain things.

Bullsh1t to be honest you like the rest of us are reading all the crap in the media. So unless you have a direct link to what actually happened that night we are entitled to our opinion on the situation. There is so much sh1te about what happened that night there is no way to tell what actually went on. There are fair few pieces written that squashed half the crap you just rabbled on about so it leaves us all to take what we want from it and form our own opinions. It seems you have already made up your mind on his guilt. If you read many of our posts on here you will see a lot of us have said innocent until proven guilty.

We all know Big Ben has an attitude and makes poor decisions but with reasonable doubt it is hard to accept one side of the story and throw him under the bus and say he is guilty. I guess none of us will ever know exactly what went on but Im sorry you shooting down our opinions and calling us scumbags is just ridiculous.

On and to be clear reading through it there was maybe only one person who said what he done was ok.

The Sparrow

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

So unless you have a direct link to what actually happened that night we are entitled to our opinion on the situation.

Well there is a 500 odd page police report that has been released that does not portray Roethlisberger or the local police in a very good light. So it is not just hearsay that ppl are going on.

eagle eye

American law is just so ridic.

NFL examples,

Donte Stallworth drives when legally drunk, kills somebody and gets 30 days in Jail.
Plaxico Burress shoots himself accidentally while in possession of an illegal firearm and gets 2 years in jail.

I mean something is not right here.

In another state Roethlisberger would have been charged and very likely found guilty. A lot of crazy stuff has went on including the cop Sgt. Jerry Blash retiring over his comments to the accuser. He had a photo taken with Roethlisberger the night before. Then there is cops from that town that worked as bodyguards while off duty for Big Ben.

tallaghtoutlaws

The Sparrow wrote: »

Well there is a 500 odd page police report that has been released that does not portray Roethlisberger or the local police in a very good light. So it is not just hearsay that ppl are going on.

In fairness I have read the articles with part of that police report and to be honest it still doesn't prove his guilt. In fairness the only 2 people who knew what actually happened in that bathroom are Ben and the alleged Victim. Ben's friends went off his word and the girls friends gave statements of what happened on what their friend told them.

Sure the events a slimey leading up to it and there is no doubt he was getting them drunk but if you read it she was 1 of 21 girls in the VIP area. As I said already there is no solid proof he raped that girl not even that police report proves it because none of them saw what went on in the bathroom. They merely saw the events before and after.

For me I dont know what happened in that bathroom. Again I stick to my point He is a tool no doubt and should be banned under the NFL rules for public behaviour but I can't say with conviction he is a rapist. Simple as. Some common sense would tell maybe he did do something wrong but again who knows.

For those interested make your own minds up:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0415101roethlisberger1.html

bruschi

hmmm. hadnt seen the written transcripts of that police report. in fairness, it doesnt make for pleasant reading. I suppose most of the media stuff I had read had played it off as a simple boy and girl fooling around report. whereas walking around with his lad out doesnt sound like someone fooling around. wouldnt want to be making judgements before trial, but I think my opinion is certainly changing on the matter. a lot more to it than it first seems. and ben is a bigger idiot than I gave him credit for.

The Sparrow

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

He is a tool no doubt and should be banned under the NFL rules for public behaviour but I can't say with conviction he is a rapist. Simple as. Some common sense would tell maybe he did do something wrong but again who knows.

Oh I completely agree. I'm not saying he is a rapist either as nothing has been proven and he therefore gets the benefit of doubt. I'm just defending the NFL's or the Steelers right to punish him under the personal conduct policy.

And like many Steelers fans, I want rid of him. Too much hassle. I know that probably means a period in the wilderness but I admire the moral standards of the club. I'll never cheer for Roethlisberger again.

TheHeadhunter

Frisbee wrote: »

I then explained to you through PM that if that it's your opinion then more power to you. I merely asked you not to call him a scumbag on thread gain.
.

What are we censoring free speech around here now?

tallaghtoutlaws

TheHeadhunter wrote: »

What are we censoring free speech around here now?

Have to agree although he called big ben and anyone who defends him a scumbag I have to agree there is no malice in that. I don't agree with his opinion meself hence why I replied but it wasn't ban worthy in my opinion sure heck we have all crossed that line on here before and gotten away with it.

The Sparrow

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Have to agree although he called big ben and anyone who defends him a scumbag I have to agree there is no malice in that. I don't agree with his opinion meself hence why I replied but it wasn't ban worthy in my opinion sure heck we have all crossed that line on here before and gotten away with it.

Yeah I agree too. Plus he didn't technically call anyone that defends him a scumbag. Just anyone that thinks its ok to get a girl drunk and "follow her - without being invited to do so - into a jacks and mess around with her". I would assume that is everybody's definition of a scumbag and I assumed jdivision wasn't talking about people here who are defending Roesthlisberger's right to innocence as he was never found guilty and not defending rape.

Plus jdivision only said that he tconsidered Roethlisberger a scumbag. Surely he is entitled to his opinion? Is scumbag that bad a word?

tallaghtoutlaws

The Sparrow wrote: »

I assumed jdivision wasn't talking about people here who are defending Roesthlisberger's right to innocence as he was never found guilty and not defending rape.

Considering no one was defending rape or the alleged actions I also assumed this.

The Sparrow wrote: »

Plus jdivision only said that he tconsidered Roethlisberger a scumbag. Surely he is entitled to his opinion? Is scumbag that bad a word?

I didn't think scumbag was a bad word either and to be honest if someone called me one I would laugh meself but I suppose to each their own.

Frisbee

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

it wasn't ban worthy in my opinion

Hence why he wasn't banned.

If people think players are scumbags that's fair enough.

But can they not express their opinion on him without calling him a scumbag?

Surely a well structured argument will stand you in better stead than calling him a scumbag?

tallaghtoutlaws

Frisbee wrote: »

Hence why he wasn't banned.

If people think players are scumbags that's fair enough.

But can they not express their opinion on him without calling him a scumbag?

Surely a well structured argument will stand you in better stead than calling him a scumbag?

To me a Ban or an Infraction are the same thing especially when it wasn't called for.

To be honest Frisbee I think Big Ben is a waste of space and I would agree his action whether guilty or not are nothing short of Scum baggery. He is a big boy and supposed to be a model professional. There have been a lot worse things said about players on this forum in the past and I have to say the infraction was unnecessary.

I like most don't see scumbag as a word that is worthy of a infraction or slap on the wrist especially when indirectly said about someone who puts themselves in the situation to deserve the tag. It would be different if none of us knew who big ben was and we based our opinions off one article but in fairness this isnt the first time he has been in the news for his rubber head actions. You put yourself in the publics eye and do something stupid you deserve any tag put on you.