I would never condone rape in any way, shape, or form. For argument's sake, however, assume that the same situation Ben has been involved in was a situation you were involved in. Assume as well that you were never even charged, but you were all over the news. Do you believe your employer would not fire you? If you answer that your employer couldn't or wouldn't, you probably pump gas for a living. That, or you are clueless about the real world. You always reflect your employer at all times.
This is grounds for a suspension. This is grounds for a suspension. This is grounds for a suspension. If this were the case the league would be well aware of it and he would not have been suspended. In her letter to the DA though, she specifically said he still stands by her charge, but does not wish to push the case. This is not a suspendible offense so far as I know. The League office certainly know a lot more than we do, given that they have conducted their own investigation into the matter. Again, you fail to recognize that this isn't some subjective, reactionary decision by the NFL. They are a multi-billion dollar coporation that thoroughly researched the issue on their own dime and time. They even did something that the DA's office did not do, which is bring Roethlisberger in and speak to him directly for an extended period of time. Saying this creates a bad precendent is, and there's no other way to put this, unendingly ignorant because it completely ignores what the NFL has done here. The League has spent weeks on end looking into this matter, involving lawyers, investigators, etc, and in ways that we don't even know about. This was not a decision made by Roger Goodell after he surfed ESPN.com for 48 hours loking for infromation on the case. The only precedent this decision sets is that if you get in trouble you may be able to lawyer up and/or use your status to preserve your societal rights, but the NFL still has access to your rights as an employee in the league, and they will conduct an investigation on their own time to determine whether or not you will retain them. That's a GREAT precedent, if you ask me.
I would never suggest that "the NFL CAN NOT have any standards of behavior at all absent of criminal charges". However, I do think that the NFL SHOULD NOT have standards of behavior absent of criminal charges that are punishable in an arbitrary manner. I have made it abundantly clear why I think this is a dangerous precedent to set as it pertains to future instances of accusations aimed at NFL players. Remember, this was nothing more than an investigated accusation. Without charges even being filed, it is very hard to know exactly where to draw the line and exactly how 'thick' the line should be. In a case of he-said/she-said, where the accusing party isn't even willing to fully commit to the charge, where there aren't even charges filed, I think a suspension is a remarkably imprudent punishment for the NFL to implement. (By the way, I'm quite confident that my opinion has plenty of "logical value" but thanks for the concern )
You completey missed the point of what I was saying. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHY SHE REFUSED NOT TO PURSUE THE RAPES CHARGES. So all of your cute "this is grounds for a suspension" sentences are meaningless and a complete digression and/or distraction from the issue at hand. And, by the way, if you want MY SPECULATION on the issue, I think it's very hard to believe that someone who was honestly raped would suddenly have a change of heart about pursuing the issue legally. I can tell you that, personally, if I were raped, I wouldn't stop pursuing justice until the end of time.
"Do not trust the cheering, for those persons would shout as much if you or I were going to be hanged" -Oliver Cromwell. One of my all-time favorite quotes and I think it applies here. I think, due to a 24-7 media presence on cable tv, Americans have an inherent mob-mentality pertaining to public figures. . . In short, I just sincerely believe that a lot of people are missing the boat on this issue.
considering you have yet to explain how it is arbitrary, probably because you can't, your argument is clearly illogical since that is what is dependent on.
and you completely miss the point that the rape may not even be an issue in the suspension and the suspension would still be justified.
The arbitrary nature of the punishment should be self-explanatory and overwhelmingly obvious to you. Since it's not, let me ask you a set of simple questions (rhetorical in nature, of course, but you should respond if it helps you think clearly about my point): How many games did you expect Big Ben to get? How many games would be fair considering what he "did"? What, exactly, IS HE BEING PUNISHED FOR???? Notice, that the longer you think about it, the more you realize that A) You're not sure PRECISELY what the commissioner is punishing Big Ben for B) You're not sure what punishment would be fair. Why?? Because it depends on what you THINK he did!!!! Also, it depends on how serverely you have punished others in the past for similar "indiscretions".But exactly HOW did he violate the personal conduct policy, anyway?? Have, you ever suspended anyone before for an OFF THE FIELD INCIDENT, IN WHICH, NO CHARGES WERE EVEN FILED??? I could go on . . .
I have covered this COUNTLESS times already in this thread. I am fully aware that the rape accusation probably was not the central issue in deciding to implement the suspension. Go read my earlier posts if you really care.
No, you listed a number of possibilities as a means of proving "anything could have happened, but it backfired when I explained how each would play with the NFL. You gave multiple explanations and they each point to the suspension being doled out objectively and appropriately. Save for the Jedi mind trick, of course. Ah, so it turns out the driving force behind your diligence in this thread is built largely on a subjective opinion. How ironic. Although I do happen to agree with you here. I too still can't figure out why a woman who accused a man that has signed his name to a $102 million contract would suddenly say she didn't want to go forward with the matter. The mind reels.
Just because we don't doesn't mean the league doesn't. They do have a shit-ton of attorneys, private investigators, and former federal agents working security for them. Do you think that possibly the commissioner and his staff might know a little more about the incident than the average fan?
ahh, but there lies a key point. Most of us WOULDN'T be all over the news. The fact of the matter is, for most of us on this board (and I've already written written what I am aboout to write earlier in this thread), if we were ACCUSED of a crime in another state and charges were never even filed, our employers would likely never even find out about it. And certainly, without any public scrutiny in the company in question, none of us would be fired.
so, your argument is that the length of the suspension is arbitrary not the suspension itself? that would mean you aren't opposed to the suspension, you just want an explanation. of course, your argument still refuses to acknowledge the fact that just because you don't know why doesn't mean the decision was arbitrary because the league obviously weighed information you don't know. your lack of knowledge does not dictate whether something is arbitrary, it just appears arbitrary. I agree, without an explanation it does appear the length is arbitrary.
so i'm clear here... if a player does something illegal, but is not charged, they shouldn't face any consequences of the Personal Conduct Policy? edit, i'm not relating this to the current argument, this is a hypothetical.
1)"No, you listed a number of possibilities as a means of proving "anything could have happened, but it backfired when I explained how each would play with the NFL. You gave multiple explanations and they each point to the suspension being doled out objectively and appropriately. Save for the Jedi mind trick, of course." Actually, no. I pointed out that we have no way of knowing why she decided not to pursue the charges at hand. The fact that you are focusing on each possibility I came up with strongly implies that you still don't fully comprehend that we simply don't know why she backed down. The POINT is that she did. It's all speculation on our part from there. Believe me, if I wanted to, I could sit here for an hour and come up with 100 more possible reasons, and I guess you would respond with 100 responses for each one, determining whether or not a suspension would have been appropriate for that specific scenario. 2)"Ah, so it turns out the driving force behind your diligence in this thread is built largely on a subjective opinion. How ironic." Yes, that is my subjective opinion but in no way is it the "driving force" behind anything I have written. (I'm not sure where you got that from) Also, I'm glad you at least consider my speculation reasonable because it sure makes a lot of sense to me . . .
Are you a trained skilled and knowledge police investigator? Just more excuses. Have you ever heard of the terms denial, minimisation and blame that people use to stop facing the despicable and hurtful behaviour they have pulled. Rape is sexual violence however it is not every occasion where cuts bruises etc will show evidence of a rape. Ask yourself the following questions Why is Ben Roethlisberger cruising around in college bars offering women lagre amounts of alcohol and then having a body guard escort one to a quiet place where he follows. Also if you consider that he may not be guilty of rape he clearly acts in a sexually predatory manner. Who considers having sex with a stranger in a restroom to be anyhting other than sleazy, predatory, irresponsible behaviour at best. Spoiled athlete syndrome. Babied and catered to as long as they perform on the field, totally bubbled from the world and infantilised. I see I want I get. For anyone who has posted in this thread referring to women as bitches or other derogatory terms I hope your mothers are proud of you because essentially that's just women hating talk unless of course you'r about twelve and trying to do the big man walk and talk *sarcasm*
considering the lack of intelligence in his post, I'm sure everything you said went right over his head.
Are you serious? I can't believe this isn't obvious to you but . . . It isn't up to the commissioner of the NFL to determine whether a player did some ILLEGAL. It's SOLELY a responsibility of state and/or federal LAW ENFORCEMENT to make that determination. The commissioner has no framework for determining whether a player broke the law if he wasn't even charged with a crime. The Personal Conduct Policy and the law of the land are two different things entirely. Also, and more to the point, as many of my detractors have repeatedly pointed out to me, the rape allegation likely isn't why Roethlisberger was even suspended.
