Surely the point is that he isn't being suspended for raping the girl, but for allowing himself to be put in the position where he could have been accused of doing so? The players sign up to a certain set of behaviours in order to play in the NFL, and what is at the very least lewd behaviour in a public place is surely in transgression of those behaviour rules?
If you are the commish, you can't win no matter what you do. If you don't suspend him, people will complain that he's not fair, the NFL is to lenient, etc. By suspending him for 6 games, now people complain that he's too tough. Frankly, I think people would have complained with any number of games he got suspended. The problem is that there is no way to draw a line in the sand on conduct. There is NO solution, so they just do the best they can and deal with the bitching and complaining from one, both, or all sides. Its easy to cast stones at the guy making the decisions from the comfort of your living room, but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. I can't tell you what I'd do either in this case, but I can tell you that Goodell wasn't the only one that had a hand in this decision. His name may be on the approval stamp, but he wasn't the only one that decided the punishment.
I thought OJ was the OJ of the NFL I love Pace, but he should just keep his mouth shut. Nobody likes Goodell except the owners, but Rapelisberger is a scumbag and the various shady factors surrounding the trial make this the last thing anybody needs to defend.
no, you are just confusing the issue. he isn't stepping into the boundaries of the criminal system because he isn't being criminally punished. but the league has a different level of burden of proof to judge their players on, and thus aren't obligated to adhere to the same standards of the criminal system, the same way any employer does -- this isn't unique to the NFL. the criminal system is simply irrelevant in this matter as long as Roethisberger's civil rights aren't being violated if Godel weighed the evidence and made a decision based on the rules of the league, and any insistence that the criminal system is relevant is merely an attempt to confuse the issue or reveals a confusion of the issue.
just because he did'nt get convicted, or even charged, doesnt mean something did'nt happen. i have close steeler friends, and even they know something happened. and dont forget last years acusation.
It didn't happen because it was never proven. He was never convicted of anything, he didn't have to deal with any consequence from an actual law standpoint of any kind. That means he is innocent without a shadow of a doubt. Nothing will change that now, regardless of what the honest to God facts are, that is the way it is. You are always innocent, until proven guilty. He was never proven guilty.
So if Ben isn't being criminally punished, and as far as I know, he's not, the Commish is basing a suspension on what? Heresay? Listen, my opinion is that Ben is guilty as hell. It just hasn't been proven. What I am disagreeing with is Goddell suspending a player for off the field activities that alledgedly happened. From what I hear, Ben has burned lots of bridges and has very few allies in the NFL right now. He's very lucky to not be in jail right now.
I thought I read that if he is on good behavior by the start of the season he may be able to get it knocked down to 4 games.
oh man... this again. JetBlue, do yourself a favor and stop reading this thread.... its gonna drive you mad, man. Calvin, shut the fuck up. playing in the NFL is a right. if you can't conduct yourself in a matter that is worthy of that right, you have to pay a price. Personal conduct policy know it live it, if you can't use your degree instead. rape, alleged rape, whatever... not the crux of the issue here. he was found to be a factor in underage college students getting drunk. not something the face of a franchise should be doing.
so, unless something is proven it didn't happen? that is the most illogical nonsense I have ever heard. whether something occurs or not is absolute, it isn't open to interpretation. whether you know the facts of what happened doesn't mean something didn't happen. if he raped her, it doesn't matter whether you, I or a court know it occurred or not. are you saying if a woman is raped but never calls the police, it never goes to trial and nobody is ever convicted then thus she wasn't raped, and the rape only occurs after a jury rules on it? that's what you said. congratulations for the dumbest statement in this thread. and not being found guilty in a criminal court never equates to being innocent without a shadow of doubt. you really should be embarrassed at how completely asinine and not applicable to the real world your entire post is.
That is the way the law works. It did not happen because he wasn't convicted from the standpoint of the law. I am strictly talking from a legal and punishable standpoint. I never said things don't happen, or that people don't get away with rape, murder, etc... Where do I state that? I'm sorry, I thought most on this board were capable of reading between the lines, my post made sense to me, I'm sorry you did not comprehend my true meaning behind it. I'm not stupid, clearly I understand that just because you are proven innocent, doesn't mean you truly are. It just means that you can't be punished for the crime you commited, if nobody can prove it. Therefor, it never happened in the law's eyes. You should be embarrassed with your reading comprehension. I don't even think you completely read my entire post, I'm pretty sure you read the first line and just assumed the worst. Good work.
Who here who's a dad with a daughter would want Big Ben ringing the doorbell to take their 20-year-old daughter out on a date? "er, don't worry Mr. Pace, I'll 'have her home' by 12:00... That said, hey Calvin: pleeze...put a sock in it. Calvin's probably (needlessly) throwing it out there feeling his oats and thinking that since Goddell's already banned him that the Commish isn't going to have lightning strike twice and slap him with another suspension just for chirping. And at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the Jet's office contacted Goddell's office and said: "we'll speak with Calvin." From a purely Jet-selfish standpoint, what stinks is that the Dolphins get to play the Steelers while Rothlisberger's still serving out his suspension and the Jets get the Steelers after he's returned.
Does anyone here remember when Mike Tyson raped his date?? She went to his room late at night, she was making out with him, and then SHE SAID NO!!! that is as far as she wanted to go. Pull your damn pants up, throw her out (or get your ass out) but that's as far as she wants to go. NO MEANS NO!
"It didn't happen because it was never proven" is pretty absolute and without interpretation. no reading between the lines necessary. my reading comprehension is fine because clearly I grasp what you are saying more than you and why I can see it is ridiculous. and no, that isn't how the law works. the law doesn't see anything or recognize anything beyond its judicial rlings. the law is just a tool for those who use it. it inherently doesn't make a judgment beyond its rulings and doesn't apply where their is none. in this case, he wasn't even charged so the law didn't even address the case. there is no legal ruling until he is charged and tried. if that does not occur, the law has passed zero judgment on him. he has to be tried and found not guilty for that to occur. stop trying to dig your way out of your hole, you are actually only making it deeper.
What hole? Stop trying to act like some kind of saint, that knows all, and is here to save me from my corrupt way of thinking. Are you that thick headed? That first line of my post was a general statement, not an absolute, as you are trying to convience me of. I know what I meant when I posted it because I'm the one that posted it. That line alone is fact. In the eyes of the law, (wheather or not it actually made it to the judicial system) he is an innocent man based on a legalality standpoint. He did not commit a crime because he was never convicted of a crime. So therefor, it is like it never happened. There is nothing linking him to the act, only speculation. Which is my only point in the matter, wheather or not he actually commited the act in question is a whole other story. So please, stop trying to twist my post around in order to try and make yourself feel better about some useless point you are trying to make.
why is there even an argument if I read the description of the incident, which was downright laughable, I don't care what the courts think, If I am the owner or commish hes not getting away for being a damn joke. like it matters how many games it is, it is all a slap on the wrist since you must be straight up retarded to think hes innocent.
Real world to Calvin Pace: in my world, if I did like you and failed a piss test, I wouldn't have a job. And in my world, a code of conduct violation doesn't get you suspended a few games, it gets your ass out the door. Instead, he misses four games, but still gets to be a multimillionaire with no chance of losing future employment. Really, just STFU.
