Yes, I realize there is a personal conduct clause in his contract, and as I have repeatedly written, the NFL has every right to suspend the guy. What I am saying is, in my opinion, it's a terrible idea to do so in this case because it sets a very dangerous precedent for the future. It opens up the proverbial pandora's box as far as false accusers and extortionists are concerned.
You know it's your continued judgement and analysis of my personal character attributes (based on a few posts on an internet forum) that really rounds yours. :wink:
Your busting your ass to go to community college cus your retarded. Hes a world class athelete so hes making millions. Maybe if you studied as hard as he practiced football you would get somewhere.
Your missing the "erased video" the resignation of a police officer associated with the case, the bleeding and bruising that go along with rape, the pulling little Ben out in the bar, the purchasing of alcohol for a minor, the state of PA possibly investigating his body guard who is also a PA state trooper, the fact that he has been accused of this of this already and possibly a 3rd time.
Slim fails to see what your facts have to do with his rampant paranoia that every NFL player is going to be suspended by the commish due to wild, unfounded accusations.
I'm fully aware of all of these things. I've already stated, quite specifically, why I don't think the NFL SHOULD HAVE (again, they had every right to) suspended Ben.
I'm not going to pretend to know where you work, but I'd venture to guess that if you were publicly arrested, investigated, and only avoided prosecution due to a cover up, your job might not care that you're not a convicted felon. Especially if you have a position of visibility in the organization. What amazes me most about the people who think this suspension isn't a good idea is that even the players' union isn't speaking out about this. If the union isn't coming to his defense, I'm pretty sure there's a very good reason for that. Wouldn't it be in the NFLPA's best interests to fight this if it set a bad precedent?
You seem to think that the league office is only concerned with football and has a passive role when it comes to investigatory work or discipline - that they don't have enough inolvement or accumen to dole out a suspension that isn't crafted from an emotional and reactionary position. The league has it's own investagory group, they have their own security, and they have enough lawyers working for them to take on Big Tobacco. There was almost nothing arbitrary about this. They weren't just waiting on scraps of information to fall to them in the media like we were, they were proactively conducting their own investigation as a means of making an objective decision about whether or not an emplyee had violated company policy. The league has thoroughly researched this through professional and experienced channels. The state's final decision didn't have, and shouldn't have had, any influence on an objective interpretation of an individual employer's corporate policy. There's no slippery slope here at all because at it's core the NFL's decision, by definition, should not directly correlate with what a state court does.
then you completely misunderstand the suspension. if Ben had been convicted of rape, do you honestly believe he'd only been suspended for 6 months? of course not. the fact that is is only a 6 month suspension clearly indicates it isn't about the rape charge it is about his behavior in the situation regardless of the rape accusation, behavior he probably admitted to which is why Ben isn't even disputing in an appeal. the dependence on the legal elements of not being charged are simply irrelevant and reveal you are either attempting to confuse the issue because you have an agenda or are confused by the issue. neither of which paint you in a favorable light. secondly, if Ben was innocent of all the accusations in the complaint, why wouldn't he fight the suspension? he does have the option to appeal it and has said he is okay with the suspension. why? clearly there is truth to some of what he is accused of and probably admitted such to the commissioner, even if he denies the actual rape, and that is what he is being suspended for. so, where does that leave the situation? there is an accusation that includes behavior more than rape, and that totality of behavior is what he is being suspended for, so your attempt to reduce it just to the rape and the lack of criminal charges for it reveals either you don't grasp the complexity of the situation and thus need to simplify it to address it, or are simply dishonestly representing it and leaving out many of the other elements. Ben could appeal the suspension and be forced to publicly address the charges and all the elements of the accusation. if he was completely innocent of all of them why would he not do it and save his name? because he isn't innocent of them all, even if he didn't rape her. do you honestly think Ben wants to hold a hearing where he addresses the accusations that he employs bodyguards to get women drunk and lock them in bathrooms where he is hiding in wait for them as he is ALSO accused of doing (see, there is more than just rape)? maybe that isn't illegal, but it certainly justifies a six game suspension, which, wait, he was suspended for. shocking, there is actually more to the accusations than simply the rape that can warrant a suspension under the detrimental conduct policy?!? how you could either miss that or ignore that is completely astounding, but you can only come to your ridiculous conclusion by doing so. Ben doesn't want to address that, he probably already admitted it to the commissioner in private, and that is why he is okay with the suspension and why the suspension is completely valid and has zero dependency on legal charges to be validated. to argue otherwise is not only ignorant but fucking stupid.
Guys, I think this thread is officially run it's course... There will be no convincing the league conspiracy theorist. Why on earth would they be out to destroy (throw away) a perfectly good white boy is beyond me ... (still one of my all time favorite movies and quotes)
A) I think the statement that Ben "only avoided prosecution due to a cover-up" is irresponsible at best and probably more likely unfounded. The guy wasn't even charged with a crime, and the issues pertaining to his police officer buddy aside, we don't exactly know what it would have taken for him to be charged. B) I agree that it is very interesting that the players union is not speaking out about Ben's suspension. However, I tend to think this is a socially complicated case with a lot of mitigating and contributing factors. For one thing, I think race subconsciously plays a small role in this case. I personally think the players union might have been more likely to speak out against this if Ben were black (I happen to be mixed black and hispanic, so don't get the wrong idea). Also, the NFLPA has a lot going on with the labor talks coming up at the end of the season, and it very well may be in their best interest to limit the public quarrels with the commissioner (Especially quarrels that the public disagrees with them on)
The major reason they didn't go forward was because the accused elected not too. Something happened for her to stop wanting to forward, I wonder if Ben has a bank acount in the Cayman Islands? The other thing you are not accepting is that as his employer they should have the ability to make a decision based on his conduct. Think about this... Steeler fans are some of the most hardcore of all NFL fans. The fact that there is outrage not only by the media and fans but his teammates should tell you something. The fact that a high percentage of Steeler fans are willing to say bye bye to him should send a message that possibly the NFL was right. If there was no evidence against him then certainly I'd agree with you but 99% of these he said she said things will end in no suspension because if it truly is he said she said there will be no evidence against them. It's hard to get a conviction if the vistim isn't willing to proceed.
Right, because it makes far more sense to speculate away any reasonable assumptions rather than just accept what everyone else has already accepted. Yup. Makes perfect sense. His bodyguard prevented the girl's friends from entering to help her. If you've never been around a friend who needed help making decisions when intoxicated you've probably never been out drinking with your friends. A police officer quit his job over this. Why would a police officer quit his job if there were nothing there? The DA made sure he emphasized that he was dropping the case due to doubt he could record a conviction. Not because there was doubt about wrongdoing. DAs get to where they are by winning cases and continuing to do so. As for your whole business of trying to explain away the NFLPAs utter silence on the issue, either you're feigning ignorance to play Devil's Advocate, or you're just not that knowledgable about the world. I have a feeling you're not that naive. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. I get your point, and under most circumstances I'd be fighting the same fight as yourself (the Duke boys, for example were a case where I knew all along it was BS.) This time, the evidence is damning, and no one, including the accused and his representation, is saying otherwise. Ben's lucky he wasn't banned for life. I'm sure he knows that, hence his silence.
1) You either haven't taken the time to read and comprehend what I have written in a careful manner OR you are just incapable of doing so. Most of what you have written here is completely and utterly irrelevant to why I think the suspension was a bad idea. 2) I'm fully aware that the suspension wasn't about the rape charge. I have repeatedly highlighted this point in several of my posts. In point of fact, this is PRECISELY WHY I have a problem with the suspension. I consider the suspension an unfortunate example of the comissioner arbitrarily legislating morality and I believe it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. (I thought Michael Wilbon was particularly eloquent in his harsh criticism of the suspension) 3) I find it rather comical how the arrogant and self-righteous masses on this message board (and many just like it) pretend to know what happened in that bathroom. None of us know what happened or whether or not things were consensual or not and I think it would be conducive to sanity if people acknowledged and fully appreciated that reality.
no, the ignorant and the sensational believe that having standards of behavior that have to be upheld equates to arbitrarily legislating morality. if you believe that, you are inherently saying that the NFL can not have any standards of behavior at all absent of criminal charges, or are you going to commit the logical flaw of having to make specific and narrow allowances where you see fit so it suits your purposes but deny it where it does not. you really are going to have to define your position on this matter if you want what you are saying to have any logical value whatsoever. we don't have to know what happened specifically to take the information at hand, both by the accusation and the behavior of the commissioner and Ben Roethlisberger and use intelligence to deduce a conclusion. you want to seem to claim that can't be done without a criminal trial. sorry, that isn't so. the only thing comical is how anyone who may do so is then criticized as arrogant and self-righteous because they aren't afraid to weigh the entire situation and come to a conclusion that judges another person.
1) "Something happened for her to sop wanting to go forward" - Maybe Ben payed her off??? Maybe Ben Payed someone to threaten and that scared her into dropping it?? Maybe she developed a conscience and decided not to wrongfully accuse an innocent man of a phony rape charge and implicate him in something that could potentially ruin his life??? Maybe Ben used a Jedi-mind trick on her??? Who the hell knows??? 2) "The other thing you are not accepting is that as his employer they should have the ability to make a decision based on his conduct" - NO. I have REPEATEDLY acknowledged and ACCEPTED this reality. Again, for the fourth or fifth time, the NFL has EVERY RIGHT in the world to implement and inforce any personal conduct policy they wish as long as it does not violate any discriminatory and/or labor laws. My only point has been that I do not think the suspension SHOULD have been carried out. As I have repeatedly written, I think it was a mistake and sets a dangerous precedent for future instances of public controversy surrounding NFL players.
What slippery slope are u talking about? The last few players that have gotten long suspensions have been Pacman Jones, Michael Vick and Holmes. No one will actually argue for Pacman and Vick. Holmes is a Jet, but he deserves to be suspended. Any job in America would automatically terminate u if random drug tests came up positive, period. Ben should be fortunate he got his 6-game wake up call before he's actually found convicted of raping a minor and spends YEARS in prison. Another player that I see joining Ben and Vick status of suspension is Brandon Marshall. That guy is walking around thinking nothing is wrong since he hasn't been found guilty of anything. And I guarantee u, as soon as he slips, he's gonna be gone for a long time. And for good reason. Hopefully, he doesn't hurt his wife/girlfriend too bad in the process.
