PDA

View Full Version : Roethelisberger accused of Sexual Assault



Pages : [1] 2

Benihana
07-21-2009, 11:40 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/21/complaint-gets-very-specific-regarding-interaction-between-mcnulty-roethlisberger/

WMR
07-21-2009, 11:42 AM
I don't even need to click the link to know he's guilty. Let's hope a lifetime ban is forthcoming from Mr. Goodell.

TeamSelig
07-21-2009, 12:01 PM
I don't even need to click the link to know he's guilty. Let's hope a lifetime ban is forthcoming from Mr. Goodell.

+1

redhawkfish
07-21-2009, 12:05 PM
Huh?


I don't even need to click the link to know he's guilty. Let's hope a lifetime ban is forthcoming from Mr. Goodell.

Hoosier Red
07-21-2009, 12:33 PM
Huh?

He plays for the Steelers ergo he's guilty. I think WMR is being a bit facetious.

Caveat Emperor
07-21-2009, 01:06 PM
It's important to remember this is a civil suit alleging what amounts to a criminal charge of rape in most jurisdictions. The fact that no criminal matter has been filed against Roethlisberger seems odd, if what this woman is saying is true.

Looks and sounds fishy to me.

GIDP
07-21-2009, 01:17 PM
Seems shady but just another name on the steelers long list of trouble makers.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 01:32 PM
I obviously can't speak to the merits of this specific case, but I can't say that I'm too surprised. The people that I know who are acquaintances of Roethelisberger's do not paint him in the best light.

Chip R
07-21-2009, 01:52 PM
He's guilty...




















In the minds of Bengals fans. :D

CTA513
07-21-2009, 02:02 PM
He's guilty...




















In the minds of Bengals fans. :D



:thumbup:

*BaseClogger*
07-21-2009, 02:22 PM
Based on some of the stories I've heard at school, this doesn't surprise me at all...

LoganBuck
07-21-2009, 02:42 PM
The Steelers need to release him, today. There is no room for conduct like that within this division, er um, correct that, team.

Caveat Emperor
07-21-2009, 02:52 PM
Based on some of the stories I've heard at school, this doesn't surprise me at all...

I heard stories about Ben Roethlisberger from friends at Miami who were there at the same time he was -- probably the same types of stories you heard. They weren't all that different than stories I heard about J.P. Losman when I was at Tulane or stories people told me about high-profile athletes where they went to school. I'm not shocked or surprised by any of them -- they're mostly par for the course when it comes to superstars in their early-20s.

I don't know Ben Roethlisberger, I don't know this girl. What I do know is that there have been no criminal charges filed against him, and none appear forthcoming. Given that, from my point of view, this looks and smells a lot like a money grab.

We don't have nearly enough facts to make a 100% conclusion, though.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:52 PM
I heard stories about Ben Roethlisberger from friends at Miami who were there at the same time he was -- probably the same types of stories you heard. They weren't all that different than stories I heard about J.P. Losman when I was at Tulane or stories people told me about high-profile athletes where they went to school. I'm not shocked or surprised by any of them -- they're mostly par for the course when it comes to superstars in their early-20s.

I don't know Ben Roethlisberger, I don't know this girl. What I do know is that there have been no criminal charges filed against him, and none appear forthcoming. Given that, from my point of view, this looks and smells a lot like a money grab.

We don't have nearly enough facts to make a 100% conclusion, though.


Yep, Losman is an equally sketchy individual. But not all guys are like that. I went to school with Tom Brady, and I wouldn't say he's anything of the sort.

Caveat Emperor
07-21-2009, 03:58 PM
Yep, Losman is an equally sketchy individual. But not all guys are like that. I went to school with Tom Brady, and I wouldn't say he's anything of the sort.

That's true -- Mewelde Moore was far and away the best player on those Tulane teams, and he was one of the nicest and most genuine people I met when I was in school (one of my best friends was his RA and lived in his "quad" soph. year).

What I meant was that there's a certain personality type at work with some "high-profile" athletes in college, and such behavior and stories come with the territory.

Hoosier Red
07-21-2009, 04:09 PM
CE,

Not knowing law, it could be that she understands the burden of proof for a civil suit is lower than a criminal case if I remember my Law and Order correctly.

With something like this, it could be her word against his, especially if she didn't go straight to the police station, and with that she may not feel she could win a criminal case.

Also, she's worked at Harrah's for 6 years, it sounds like shes sort of the concierge to the stars so it's not like he's the first or richest celebrity to stay in the penthouse suite there.

TC81190
07-21-2009, 04:40 PM
I agree with CE, re: the attitudes of athletes. There is certain sense of entitlement that seems to accompany the status...you can't be entitled to EVERYTHING though. :eek:

But, as far as this goes, I'm not buying it yet.

WMR
07-21-2009, 04:42 PM
Wow... I just saw a photo of the accuser...

She's not going to make Ben's G/F Polamalu jealous, let's put it that way. :eek:

She might be a Pittsburgh 9, however, so I guess that makes it a bit more understandable (Vegas 2).

Benihana
07-21-2009, 04:56 PM
That's true -- Mewelde Moore was far and away the best player on those Tulane teams, and he was one of the nicest and most genuine people I met when I was in school (one of my best friends was his RA and lived in his "quad" soph. year).

What I meant was that there's a certain personality type at work with some "high-profile" athletes in college, and such behavior and stories come with the territory.

That's funny- I've also heard nothing but GREAT things about Mewelde Moore from his time at Tulane. We must have a lot of the same friends. ;)

Benihana
07-21-2009, 04:57 PM
Wow... I just saw a photo of the accuser...

She's not going to make Ben's G/F Polamalu jealous, let's put it that way. :eek:

She might be a Pittsburgh 9, however, so I guess that makes it a bit more understandable (Vegas 2).

:laugh:

RedsBaron
07-21-2009, 05:36 PM
I don't even need to click the link to know he's guilty. Let's hope a lifetime ban is forthcoming from Mr. Goodell.

That's not good enough. The alleged incident occurred in 2008. I therefore believe that all of the Steelers games from last season, including the Super Bowl, should be henceforth declared forfeited, and the Lombardi Trophy should be on its way to Arizona. ;)

WMR
07-21-2009, 05:40 PM
That's not good enough. The alleged incident occurred in 2008. I therefore believe that all of the Steelers games from last season, including the Super Bowl, should be henceforth declared forfeited, and the Lombardi Trophy should be on its way to Arizona. ;)

Genius!! :D

I wonder if we could dig up any dirt from 2005? :p:

GIDP
07-21-2009, 05:45 PM
I think the dirt was left on the field along with the blown calls in 2005

WMR
07-21-2009, 05:48 PM
And Carson's knee. :cry:

GIDP
07-21-2009, 05:53 PM
another non call :o

Chip R
07-21-2009, 06:00 PM
Looks like this is a story everywhere except Bristol, CT. The Worldwide Leader has ignored this story.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/21/too-little-too-late-from-espn-on-roethlisberger/

WMR
07-21-2009, 06:05 PM
:lol:

Absolutely ridiculous, thanks for posting that, Chip.

I'm sure if it was a Bengal they would've done the exact same thing, after all, it's only a CIVIL MATTER?!?! LOL what a load of horse crap; as if ESPN has ever shied away from something on such stupid grounds.

GIDP
07-21-2009, 06:07 PM
Prime reason why all media in this country is boned.

Redsfaithful
07-21-2009, 08:16 PM
Ignoring this might actually be the most egregious thing ESPN's ever done. That's saying a lot, but ignoring a story like this is pretty amazing.

Reds4Life
07-21-2009, 08:34 PM
Wow... I just saw a photo of the accuser...

She's not going to make Ben's G/F Polamalu jealous, let's put it that way. :eek:

She might be a Pittsburgh 9, however, so I guess that makes it a bit more understandable (Vegas 2).

When I first saw her pic, I thought.........you are a millionaire, pro-athlete and super bowl champion and THAT is the chick you go after? Maybe that header into a windshield he took caused brain damage.

Caveat Emperor
07-21-2009, 09:20 PM
Ignoring this might actually be the most egregious thing ESPN's ever done. That's saying a lot, but ignoring a story like this is pretty amazing.

It's sensationalist and tawdry -- like Roethlisberger or hate him, at this point he's been found guilty of no crime and liable for no wrong. Publicizing this kind of a story hangs him in the court of public opinion before a shred of evidence has been heard against him or in his defense.

The only thing you can say about ESPN is that they aren't covering this story with the same fervor they have in the past when other athletes have faced legal problems (though, in those situations, the charges were normally criminal in nature and not civil).

Otherwise, I applaud anyone who is not covering this "story" -- if it comes out that this is true, then by all means, publish the gory details. Until then, I wish more news outlets would respect the fact that a man's good name is forever tarnished by even the hint of sexual impropriety and it simply isn't fair to report accusations and give them the credibility of a reporting outlet.

GIDP
07-21-2009, 09:26 PM
It's sensationalist and tawdry -- like Roethlisberger or hate him, at this point he's been found guilty of no crime and liable for no wrong. Publicizing this kind of a story hangs him in the court of public opinion before a shred of evidence has been heard against him or in his defense.

The only thing you can say about ESPN is that they aren't covering this story with the same fervor they have in the past when other athletes have faced legal problems (though, in those situations, the charges were normally criminal in nature and not civil).

Otherwise, I applaud anyone who is not covering this "story" -- if it comes out that this is true, then by all means, publish the gory details. Until then, I wish more news outlets would respect the fact that a man's good name is forever tarnished by even the hint of sexual impropriety and it simply isn't fair to report accusations and give them the credibility of a reporting outlet.
Yea this just isnt true

Yachtzee
07-21-2009, 10:14 PM
It's sensationalist and tawdry -- like Roethlisberger or hate him, at this point he's been found guilty of no crime and liable for no wrong. Publicizing this kind of a story hangs him in the court of public opinion before a shred of evidence has been heard against him or in his defense.

The only thing you can say about ESPN is that they aren't covering this story with the same fervor they have in the past when other athletes have faced legal problems (though, in those situations, the charges were normally criminal in nature and not civil).

Otherwise, I applaud anyone who is not covering this "story" -- if it comes out that this is true, then by all means, publish the gory details. Until then, I wish more news outlets would respect the fact that a man's good name is forever tarnished by even the hint of sexual impropriety and it simply isn't fair to report accusations and give them the credibility of a reporting outlet.

Why should Roethlisberger be treated any different from anyone else? I think the fact that ESPN has held back on reporting this when at the same time publishing just about every bit of trouble involving Chris Henry, even when a lot of the accusations were later shown to be unsubstantiated reflects a bias in ESPN's reporting. If you're going to hold off on reporting something until criminal charges are filed, why not do it for every player. Why wait to make a stand when it involves a popular white quarterback for the Super Bowl champs your network tends to favor? For that matter, I'd like to see how long they waited to report on Kobe Bryant's problems in Colorado.

Chip R
07-21-2009, 10:14 PM
The only thing you can say about ESPN is that they aren't covering this story with the same fervor they have in the past when other athletes have faced legal problems (though, in those situations, the charges were normally criminal in nature and not civil).



The problem is that they aren't covering the story at all. No mention of it whatsoever on their website or any of their programs or on their crawls. Yet when Brett Favre blows his nose, ESPN has a dozen cameras there to cover it. They are the only "news" outlet who isn't covering the story. And the funny thing is, they are the premier sports news outlet. It's fine if they don't want to get sensational. I would applaud it. But the QB of the defending Super Bowl champions has been sued for sexual assault. You would think that might rate a mention somewhere in the ESPN universe.

The larger question is why they aren't covering the story. It can't be a gag order from the NFL because that story is up on their website and the NFL network is covering the story. Is it favortism towards the Steelers from ESPN? Is it because Roethelisberger does commercials for them?

WMR
07-21-2009, 10:32 PM
Why should Roethlisberger be treated any different from anyone else? I think the fact that ESPN has held back on reporting this when at the same time publishing just about every bit of trouble involving Chris Henry, even when a lot of the accusations were later shown to be unsubstantiated reflects a bias in ESPN's reporting. If you're going to hold off on reporting something until criminal charges are filed, why not do it for every player. Why wait to make a stand when it involves a popular white quarterback for the Super Bowl champs your network tends to favor? For that matter, I'd like to see how long they waited to report on Kobe Bryant's problems in Colorado.

:thumbup:

ESPN loves covering trashy stories.

If it were a Bengal they'd have Michael Smith camped out at PBS giving hourly updates.

WMR
07-21-2009, 10:34 PM
The problem is that they aren't covering the story at all. No mention of it whatsoever on their website or any of their programs or on their crawls. Yet when Brett Favre blows his nose, ESPN has a dozen cameras there to cover it. They are the only "news" outlet who isn't covering the story. And the funny thing is, they are the premier sports news outlet. It's fine if they don't want to get sensational. I would applaud it. But the QB of the defending Super Bowl champions has been sued for sexual assault. You would think that might rate a mention somewhere in the ESPN universe.

The larger question is why they aren't covering the story. It can't be a gag order from the NFL because that story is up on their website and the NFL network is covering the story. Is it favortism towards the Steelers from ESPN? Is it because Roethelisberger does commercials for them?

Someone at ESPN/ABC/Disney has a vested interest in the Roethlisberger name. I'm sure if you could see everyone's "money tree" it would become immediately evident why this story is getting no play from ESPN.

They truly are a joke of a network and this is the biggest indictment of their corrupt nature yet. An utter joke.

dsmith421
07-21-2009, 10:38 PM
She might be a Pittsburgh 9, however, so I guess that makes it a bit more understandable (Vegas 2).

The 'scale' in Northern Nevada is closer to Pittsburgh than Las Vegas.

Scrap Irony
07-21-2009, 10:39 PM
Might be a recent change in the winds. ESPN didn't cover the Pitino allegations, which were very similar, IMO.

WMR
07-21-2009, 10:40 PM
The 'scale' in Northern Nevada is closer to Pittsburgh than Las Vegas.

:lol:

I originally thought the alleged incident occurred in Vegas... I contemplated going back and putting in a Tahoe 5 or something. :D

savafan
07-21-2009, 11:24 PM
Might be a recent change in the winds. ESPN didn't cover the Pitino allegations, which were very similar, IMO.

That's not true, at least not via ESPN MVP on my cell phone. The Pitino allegation story was all over there.

Caveat Emperor
07-21-2009, 11:59 PM
Why should Roethlisberger be treated any different from anyone else? I think the fact that ESPN has held back on reporting this when at the same time publishing just about every bit of trouble involving Chris Henry, even when a lot of the accusations were later shown to be unsubstantiated reflects a bias in ESPN's reporting. If you're going to hold off on reporting something until criminal charges are filed, why not do it for every player. Why wait to make a stand when it involves a popular white quarterback for the Super Bowl champs your network tends to favor? For that matter, I'd like to see how long they waited to report on Kobe Bryant's problems in Colorado.

I agree with your point on the whole -- I think ESPN has to go with the standard they've created for covering these types of events. They can't suddenly decide now to not report on the situation without looking like they're biased in favor of Roethlisberger.

However, my point was larger -- I think it's horrifically unfair to people accused of serious crimes or wrongdoing, especially when the crime or wrongdoing is sexual in nature, to have their names published and charges publicized when the only information out there is the written pleadings or written statement of the alleged victim. Kobe Bryant is the perfect example of this -- the man was convicted publicly before he had made a single court appearance. Why? Because any defense lawyer worth his salt would've been telling him to stay quiet and not make any public statements on the issue. Thus, the media presents the only side of the story they have (the alleged victim's). Bryant lost major sponsorship deals and his image was forever tarnished by a criminal charge that was ultimately dropped.

Thus, I understand your point -- but I'd love it if this marked a change for ESPN to where they stopped running every story like this until all the facts were out.

GIDP
07-21-2009, 11:59 PM
I say its racism.

paintmered
07-22-2009, 12:00 AM
I say its racism.

Do you want to elaborate on that or are you just trolling?

GIDP
07-22-2009, 12:06 AM
Do you want to elaborate on that or are you just trolling?

a little of both, I think it could be a factor.

savafan
07-22-2009, 12:07 AM
a little of both, I think it could be a factor.

As in, ESPN reports on the misdeeds of minority players, but not white players? That's the only claim I could see you make for racism...

GIDP
07-22-2009, 08:47 AM
As in, ESPN reports on the misdeeds of minority players, but not white players? That's the only claim I could see you make for racism...

Yes, but really I think its more that they are trying to cover it up the best they can. Media outlets these days are useless.

freestyle55
07-22-2009, 11:40 AM
Supposedly it's because ESPN doesn't cover civil cases, but they covered various Pacman Jones cases and the Roberto Alomar issue I believe...

Seems like a desperate cash grab to me...someone thought their Big Ben one-night stand was a little more than he thought it was and now is trying to "get even"...as Kanye West once said... "I ain't saying she's a golddigger..."

Chip R
07-22-2009, 11:45 AM
Supposedly it's because ESPN doesn't cover civil cases, but they covered various Pacman Jones cases and the Roberto Alomar issue I believe...



I'll bet they covered O.J.'s civil trial.

NJReds
07-22-2009, 12:11 PM
It's not only ESPN, but I believe all of ABC's networks have been told not to report this story. Even if there are holes in the story, it's their responsiblity as a news outlet to report it. They covered the Kobe Bryant story from beginning to end, and this should be no different.

Just because Big Ben is being showcased on some ABC/Shaq TV show is no excuse to make pretend that it doesn't exist.

Caveat Emperor
07-22-2009, 12:51 PM
They covered the Kobe Bryant story from beginning to end, and this should be no different.

To be fair, Kobe Bryant's situation was a criminal charge of Rape. There's a gigantic difference between that and a civil charge of sexual assault from a legal standpoint.

Anyone can file a lawsuit provided they have an attorney who is willing to take it to the clerk's office. For criminal charges, there are at least (theoretically) some guarantees that only charges for which probable cause exists get indicted. That usually means, in many states, that a Grand Jury has already heard evidence and made the decision to indict prior to anyone finding out about the case. No such vetting occurs in a civil matter.

NJReds
07-22-2009, 01:25 PM
To be fair, Kobe Bryant's situation was a criminal charge of Rape. There's a gigantic difference between that and a civil charge of sexual assault from a legal standpoint.

Anyone can file a lawsuit provided they have an attorney who is willing to take it to the clerk's office. For criminal charges, there are at least (theoretically) some guarantees that only charges for which probable cause exists get indicted. That usually means, in many states, that a Grand Jury has already heard evidence and made the decision to indict prior to anyone finding out about the case. No such vetting occurs in a civil matter.

I still find their motive -- protecting their TV show -- less than honorable. It is worth reporting that this lawsuit has been filed against the QB from the Super Bowl Champions. I'm not saying it has to be a lead story, but how is that not worth a mention on SportsCenter?

Highlifeman21
07-22-2009, 01:26 PM
:lol:

I originally thought the alleged incident occurred in Vegas... I contemplated going back and putting in a Tahoe 5 or something. :D

A Reno/Tahoe 5 might be generous...

Chip R
07-22-2009, 09:20 PM
Well, apparently, ESPN has just learned that Big Ben was named in a suit that alleges he sexually assaulted a woman in Tahoe. Way to be on the ball there, ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4349253

Yachtzee
07-22-2009, 11:49 PM
Well, apparently, ESPN has just learned that Big Ben was named in a suit that alleges he sexually assaulted a woman in Tahoe. Way to be on the ball there, ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4349253

Just in time to say "These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along."

GIDP
07-23-2009, 03:11 AM
Well, apparently, ESPN has just learned that Big Ben was named in a suit that alleges he sexually assaulted a woman in Tahoe. Way to be on the ball there, ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4349253

so they wont report that there is a case, but they instantly report that the cops arent going to look into it. What a joke.

KoryMac5
07-23-2009, 11:20 AM
Dan Patrick had an executive on from ESPN this AM grilling him about what he felt was a lack of coverage of this issue. The executive Jon Walsh stated that ESPN did not cover the story because it was not an in season story, meaning it did not happen during football season. He also went on to state that they didn't want to cover it as criminal charges had not been filed against Ben and they did not want to damage an athletes reputation.

Sounds like a double standard to me by ESPN and I am glad that some folks are calling them out on it.

GIDP
07-23-2009, 11:22 AM
Dan Patrick had an executive on from ESPN this AM grilling him about what he felt was a lack of coverage of this issue. The executive Jon Walsh stated that ESPN did not cover the story because it was not an in season story, meaning it did not happen during football season. He also went on to state that they didn't want to cover it as criminal charges had not been filed against Ben and they did not want to damage an athletes reputation.

Sounds like a double standard to me by ESPN and I am glad that some folks are calling them out on it.

Every time they talk they just keep digging themselves deeper. It's so ridiculous.

Chip R
07-23-2009, 11:28 AM
Every time they talk they just keep digging themselves deeper. It's so ridiculous.


Yep. And it made the story bigger since they didn't cover it.

NJReds
07-23-2009, 12:56 PM
He also went on to state that they didn't want to cover it as criminal charges had not been filed against Ben and they did not want to damage an athletes reputation.

I wonder if the same courtesy would be extended to Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens or Tony Romo?

Chip R
07-23-2009, 12:58 PM
I wonder if the same courtesy would be extended to Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens or Tony Romo?


I believe it was to Brett Favre when he was accused of giving Detroit Green Bay's signals last year.

RichRed
07-23-2009, 01:01 PM
Dan Patrick had an executive on from ESPN this AM grilling him about what he felt was a lack of coverage of this issue. The executive Jon Walsh stated that ESPN did not cover the story because it was not an in season story, meaning it did not happen during football season. He also went on to state that they didn't want to cover it as criminal charges had not been filed against Ben and they did not want to damage an athletes reputation.


That's just insulting. They must think ESPN viewers are about as smart as John Kruk.

Caveat Emperor
07-23-2009, 01:12 PM
That's just insulting. They must think ESPN viewers are about as smart as John Kruk.

Really, though -- when was the last time ESPN covered a civil allegation made against an athlete?

They're all over criminal stuff, but civil? I never see coverage on ESPN about athletes being sued. The closest thing I can come up with is was Shaq's divorce getting mentioned -- but otherwise, every example that has been cited to show ESPN's bias has been pertaining to an athletes criminal conduct.

Can anyone come up with ESPN going wall-to-wall covering a civil lawsuit filed against an athlete? Because I honestly cannot.

GIDP
07-23-2009, 01:16 PM
Roberto Alomar comes to mind.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3900719&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

Chip R
07-23-2009, 01:31 PM
O.J.'s civil trial, Kobe's civil trial, more recently the accusations against Rick Pitino and Dirk Nowitski.

RichRed
07-23-2009, 01:33 PM
Really, though -- when was the last time ESPN covered a civil allegation made against an athlete?

They're all over criminal stuff, but civil? I never see coverage on ESPN about athletes being sued. The closest thing I can come up with is was Shaq's divorce getting mentioned -- but otherwise, every example that has been cited to show ESPN's bias has been pertaining to an athletes criminal conduct.

Can anyone come up with ESPN going wall-to-wall covering a civil lawsuit filed against an athlete? Because I honestly cannot.

For starters:

http://deadspin.com/5320308/does-espns-do-not-report-policy-make-any-sense


The implication is that if there's no criminal action and the athlete himself (or herself) has not publicly commented on it, then ESPN considers it a private matter and not "news." Several readers have already called them on this point, mentioning the Shannon Brown case, the Tony Zendejas case (filed Monday), or the O.J. case, among others. However, in all those instances, ESPN could claim that there was a criminal complaint at least tangentially related to the story. But in all those instances, the story itself was about the civil case. They have also covered many, many purely civil cases like the NFL's current anti-trust fracas, the mess regarding the Dallas Cowboys practice bubble, and—the most glaring of all—the Roberto Alomar "AIDS rumors." It seems pretty clear that they're being selective with their enforcement.

But even if they can justify the civil/criminal aspect of not covering the story, to also use the reasoning that it isn't "an in-season story?" Come on, all they do is sports info, news, etc., 24/7/365. Pretty sure they talk about Brett Favre smack dab in the middle of baseball season.

KoryMac5
07-23-2009, 01:40 PM
According to WFAN, ESPN has banned all employees from commenting on the Rothelisberger case. Can't talk about it on SportsCenter, can't discuss it on their radio shows, even affiliates of ESPN can discuss it. If I am a journalist of these stations I would start looking elsewhere for a new employer due to this self imposed censorship.

Eric_the_Red
07-23-2009, 01:50 PM
Civil...criminal...who cares? It's news! ESPN is (supposedly) a sports news network. They should be reporting on this.

deltachi8
07-23-2009, 05:03 PM
Civil...criminal...who cares? It's news! ESPN is (supposedly) a sports news network. They should be reporting on this.

I don't disagree that it should be reported by them, but ESPN is not a sports news network, they are an entertainment network that carries sports and sports related programming.

Eric_the_Red
07-23-2009, 06:23 PM
I don't disagree that it should be reported by them, but ESPN is not a sports news network, they are an entertainment network that carries sports and sports related programming.

So Sportscenter is not (supposed to be) a sports news show?

Yachtzee
07-23-2009, 08:50 PM
I don't disagree that it should be reported by them, but ESPN is not a sports news network, they are an entertainment network that carries sports and sports related programming.

Really? ESPN is now essentially the sports division for ABC. It sounds like ESPN's moratorium on reporting on the Roethlisberger situation applies beyond ESPN to ABC, including ABC News. If that's true, I think that has some serious implications regarding journalistic ethics at ESPN, ABC and the rest of the Disney Empire. Remember, ABC is the network that puts on shows like 20/20 and Primetime and has employed the likes of Geraldo Rivera. It's one thing to claim journalistic ethics as a reason for not reporting on a story. However, it seems odd that ESPN and ABC choose now to get "ethics" on reporting a story when in the past ABC and ESPN have shown they've had no qualms about reporting on stories with less than stellar support. Apparently, the people's right to know only extends to matters not involving certain athletes in which your network has a vested interest.

IslandRed
07-24-2009, 01:01 PM
My quick summary of it: ESPN probably did the right thing for probably the wrong reasons.

Caveat Emperor
07-24-2009, 01:18 PM
My quick summary of it: ESPN probably did the right thing for probably the wrong reasons.

About my take on the subject.

It'd be nice if we lived in a world that gave the accused the benefit of the doubt before reporting unsubstantiated claims and unproven allegations.

GIDP
07-24-2009, 01:29 PM
About my take on the subject.

It'd be nice if we lived in a world that gave the accused the benefit of the doubt before reporting unsubstantiated claims and unproven allegations.
It would be nice if ESPN followed those rules also.

Chip R
07-25-2009, 05:21 PM
Here's a story that involves an athlete who really hasn't done anything wrong, it isn't a criminal case and it's not during the season that ESPN is reporting on. If you look at the right hand side of the page, you will see several other articles about this.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4355430

goreds2
07-27-2009, 03:03 AM
http://bushtelegraph.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/not-guilty-web.jpg

gosteelers2

MJA
07-27-2009, 03:07 AM
I don't disagree that it should be reported by them, but ESPN is not a sports news network, they are an entertainment network that carries sports and sports related programming.

Thats absolutely ridiculous, ESPN Is at least 90% a sports network. I can't even think of a show that they produce that isn't sports centric in someway (I remember they did have a show about celebrities and sports stars and surprise, surprise, it got cancelled due to low ratings).

When every show you produce has to do with sports, your a sports network!

Caveat Emperor
07-27-2009, 07:57 AM
When every show you produce has to do with sports, your a sports network!

On the other hand, they do covering non-sporting events: strongman competitions, poker, x-games, etc.

They're all competitive in nature, but not really sports.

Eric_the_Red
07-27-2009, 08:36 AM
On the other hand, they do covering non-sporting events: strongman competitions, poker, x-games, etc.

They're all competitive in nature, but not really sports.

Yeah, like Nascar. *ducks for cover*

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 10:39 AM
Yeah, like Nascar. *ducks for cover*

Or BASS fishing

Hoosier Red
07-27-2009, 10:55 AM
Yeah, like Nascar. *ducks for cover*

Please Please Please, we're getting off topic here. We need to concentrate our moral outrage at this obviously guilty sicko and figure out how it can keep him from playing in the NFL ever again.

improbus
07-27-2009, 04:01 PM
My biggest complaint about ESPN over the years has been that they tend to stray from the actual action on the field. This story currently has NO effect on the field and so it really has no business being reported. If and when an event has a visible effect on the action on the field, then ESPN should chime in (ala Michael Vick). This applies to any situation (the Favre saga, almost any T.O./Chad 85 story).

ESPN is not E! (for sports) and it shouldn't act as such. For the first time in a while, I am applauding their lack of coverage.

MJA
07-27-2009, 06:12 PM
My biggest complaint about ESPN over the years has been that they tend to stray from the actual action on the field. This story currently has NO effect on the field and so it really has no business being reported. If and when an event has a visible effect on the action on the field, then ESPN should chime in (ala Michael Vick). This applies to any situation (the Favre saga, almost any T.O./Chad 85 story).

ESPN is not E! (for sports) and it shouldn't act as such. For the first time in a while, I am applauding their lack of coverage.

The problem is that they selectively do this, they reported Roberto Alomar's civil case where someone accused him on giving her AIDS.

Also, I found this in a ESPN Article

"Los Angeles Lakers point guard Shannon Brown has been notified of an intent to sue him in civil court for an alleged sex-related incident with a woman in Denver, Brown's agent, Mark Bartelstein confirmed to ESPN's Shelley Smith on Sunday."

"Bartelstein said that within 24-48 hours after the woman filed a police report, Denver police fully investigated her claims. A Denver police spokesman told ESPN.com on Monday that the police sent their findings to the district attorney, who declined to pursue the matter further."

So the police declined to get involved, therefore Brown had zero chance of his playing time being affected. By ESPN's standards, they should not have reported the story but they did anyway.

ESPN is just trying to protect potential personalities, luckily people are smart enough to look into their past and see that they are full of it.

GIDP
07-27-2009, 06:17 PM
^^ Exactly

They say they have a standard but they are enforcing it selectively.

freestyle55
09-09-2009, 09:34 AM
Hey, good news for Roethlisberger fans...the woman has agreed to drop the lawsuit...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09252/996573-66.stm

if he admits to raping her...

and gives her a letter of apology for the "false statements"...

and giving $100,000 to charity...

and doing it in the next 5 days...

Sounds like a great deal, right?
I'm sure no one (**cough**cough**police**cough**cough**) would care about that tiny little admission...

:bash:

GAC
09-09-2009, 06:06 PM
I'd run the bootleg if I was Ben. :D

traderumor
09-10-2009, 01:56 PM
So, was he in the grasp or not? :p:

NJReds
09-10-2009, 02:20 PM
^^ Exactly

They say they have a standard but they are enforcing it selectively.

Big Ben was scheduled to be on the Shaq show on ABC (which owns ESPN) but had not yet appeared when the story broke. Thus the motivation for ABC/ESPN to not cover the story.

Chip R
09-10-2009, 05:02 PM
Big Ben was scheduled to be on the Shaq show on ABC (which owns ESPN) but had not yet appeared when the story broke. Thus the motivation for ABC/ESPN to not cover the story.


Loks like ESPN is covering the story now. :rolleyes:

NJReds
09-10-2009, 05:29 PM
Loks like ESPN is covering the story now. :rolleyes:

Right. They started covering the story I think three or four days after it had been reported in most other outlets. Then they took a PR beating. First they made an excuse that isn't consistent with how they cover other stories, and then they lifted the ban on coverage.

Chip R
09-10-2009, 05:38 PM
Right. They started covering the story I think three or four days after it had been reported in most other outlets. Then they took a PR beating. First they made an excuse that isn't consistent with how they cover other stories, and then they lifted the ban on coverage.

I wish they still had an Ombudsman.

NJReds
09-10-2009, 06:08 PM
I wish they still had an Ombudsman.

They got rid of her? I hadn't heard that.

Hoosier Red
09-11-2009, 12:39 AM
THey didn't get rid of her, her 2 year contract ended and she left. They replaced her with Don Ohlmeyer.

He addressed the Rothelisberger incident in his first column...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=ohlmeyer_don&id=4405442

The Roethlisberger story

In July, a civil suit was filed accusing Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault. It was based on an event purported to have occurred at a Lake Tahoe hotel-casino a year earlier. No criminal charges were filed. For two and a half days, ESPN decided not to report the story, except on its own local Pittsburgh radio station. That choice not to report ignited a firestorm of protests from viewers, bloggers and media critics.
It illustrates how quickly viewers and today's media act, react and make judgments. Long ago, newspapers established a 48-hour news cycle (the time between when an event occurs, when it is first reported and when there is a response from those involved). Television changed that cycle to 24 hours. Cable news cut it to half a day. The Internet has compressed it to the immediate. Now information is released and responded to as fast as fingers can fly over a keyboard. Accurate or not, important or not, a story can explode around the globe in mere moments.
The Roethlisberger incident is a microcosm of the instantaneous-information universe in which we live. What is news today? Is it what people need to know, are interested in, or tantalized by? What's worth reporting? When do you report a story? How much and what emphasis does it deserve? What's responsible to report? Is that responsibility only to the audience? What ethical standards exist?
The media landscape is in a constant state of flux. To some, the superficial has become the in-depth, and we're on a never-ending quest to target the lowest common denominator. It's a battle between the specific interests of Web and cable versus the general interest of broad-based media -- and the audience goes where it wants when it wants to get what it wants.
I think the Internet is the most transformative technological advancement since the printing press. Gutenberg's press freed information from the control of the church and the aristocracy. It led to literacy and the freedom to think based on knowledge. The Internet has revolutionized access to unfiltered information, putting it at everyone's fingertips. The blessing is that, at the touch of a finger, we can Google almost anything and find a wealth of information. The curse, of course, is you can't be sure what you find is fair or accurate.
No one can possibly absorb everything that's out there. We want and need someone to organize it for us, separating the useful from the useless, the factual from the rumor, the important from the ordinary. That is why God created editors.
When you watch "SportsCenter," you've opted to allow a group of producers, editors and talent to mull over the hundreds of stories and hours of tape that represent the day in sports, and then select from reams of information what they think you as a sports fan need to know -- and how and when you will know it. If you feel they do a good job over time, you hang with them. If they don't, you go elsewhere. That's the pact.
On the Roethlisberger story, a lot of you felt ESPN had broken that pact:
Aaron, Los Angeles/ESPN viewer:
"… it certainly seems to be a sports-related and newsworthy story ? ESPN has a duty to cover all sports-related stories and to do so in a professional and ethical manner."
Bob Raissman, NY Daily News columnist:
"No one should be surprised that top brass at ESPN decided it was more important to protect Ben Roethlisberger than report a civil suit had been filed against him …"
Kevin, Kokomo, Ind./ESPN reader:
"I suppose I'm just looking for consistency. I would prefer that hearsay wasn't a news story, but it was for Marvin Harrison and it should be across the board."
Neil Best, Newsday columnist:
"ESPN still is on the journalistic sidelines regarding allegations of sexual assault aimed at Ben Roethlisberger."
Josh, Pittsburgh/ESPN listener:
"I am disgusted that you would publish the name of the woman who has filed a suit against Ben Roethlisberger."
Some very strong criticism. In trying to understand the decision ESPN had made, I spoke at length with Vince Doria, ESPN's senior VP and director of news.
Q: What went in to making the decision not to cover the civil suit?
Doria: We've always been cautious in reporting civil suits alleging sexual misconduct. The allegations are among the most damaging you can make to someone's reputation, and, once made, they are difficult to disprove. Based on our criteria, it was an easy decision to make. If the story does not meet at least one of our standards, we're likely not to report it initially.
Q: Just what are your criteria?
Doria: First, is there a legal component? Are there criminal charges, an investigation, an arrest? In this case, there was never a criminal complaint. Second, is there a past pattern of behavior? In this case, as far as we could determine, there was not. Third, at the time the suit was filed, can we reasonably believe it might have some on-the-field impact? As the suit was filed before teams opened training camp, we didn't feel we could make that case at this point.
And finally, is the principal speaking publicly about the allegation on his own initiative? At the outset, he was not. Then Roethlisberger called a press conference two and a half days later. At that point, our concern for fairness is moot, and we moved ahead with our reporting. It was never our intent to be out front on this story.
Q: Do you feel you are consistent? One reader specifically asked about Marvin Harrison.
Doria: With Marvin Harrison, we reported on a civil suit that related to a prior criminal investigation. It fit our criteria, so we went with it. In another instance, there were civil claims made against Mike Tyson for reportedly groping a woman in a bar -- because he had spent time in jail for rape, we felt there was a pattern, so ESPN reported it.
In 2005, a woman filed a civil suit against Michael Vick, alleging that under the pseudonym "Ron Mexico" he had unprotected sex with her, then revealed to her that he had herpes. We did not report the story, based on the same reasoning we used in the Roethlisberger situation: no criminal component, no previous history on the part of Vick, it happened during the offseason. Vick never did respond publicly, the suit was settled and we never reported on it. While many other media outlets reported the story, we faced no scrutiny, no criticism, virtually no attention to how we covered it. Times evidently have changed.
Q: Is it ESPN's policy to report the names of alleged victims in rape litigation?
Doria: The complainant made her name public in the lawsuit; it's different from a criminal charge. Our policy is if you're going to report the lawsuit then you should report both names.
Q: As you look back, any second thoughts?
Doria: This whole event was discussed intensely by executives here, and there were differing points of view. Being ethical and fair can be in conflict with all that you know. It's not as simple as "We have this information, so let's put it out." If we don't know something is true, then we're involved in harming someone's reputation. I can't tell you when I make a decision it is any better than anyone else's. Different people will arrive at the decision to report a story at different points of time.
Motives questioned

While Doria's comments address the procedure, more dangerous for ESPN was the reaction that called into question its motives, and by extension, its integrity. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does the mind. "Story" is how the mind copes with the chaos of life. When questions are raised and logical conclusions are not provided, the mind naturally makes up its own -- now you are dealing with "imagined" motives. The reaction was tangible:
Casey, State College, Pa./ESPN Viewer:
"I don't want to judge the intentions of ESPN … whether or not ESPN actually holds a bias toward protecting their celebrities, that is the why this is terribly one-sided and inappropriate coverage."
Mike Florio, NBC Sports/Pro Football Talk columnist:
"The handling of the Roethlisberger case makes us wonder whether there's a complete firewall between the business functions of ESPN and its journalistic activities. … We say this because we're convinced that the Roethlisberger story initially was ignored due to concerns that ESPN would be jeopardizing its access to the two-time Super Bowl-winning quarterback, who also happens to play for the team with the most loyal and rabid fan base in America."
Frank Deford, NPR columnist:
"ESPN's refusal to report the story gave rise to criticism that it was not only protecting Roethlisberger's reputation, but it was also shielding its TV partner, the NFL. It had taken a seemingly inviolate position that accusations in a civil suit could be false, yet incendiary enough to damage Roethlisberger's reputation."
More questions, then, for ESPN and Doria.
Q: ESPN's motives have been questioned. One of the charges is being soft on the NFL and its players for business reasons. Your response?
Doria: We've done a number of tough stories on the NFL over the years. We did a series questioning the league's handling of the concussion issue. More stories on the lack of funding on the retired players experiencing physical and emotional difficulties. The Pacman Jones situation, Michael Vick, Brandon Marshall, Spygate. None of these stories put the individuals or the NFL in a good light. Anyone who contends we shy away from stories that are critical of the NFL isn't paying attention.
Q: How do you feel about all the criticism?
Doria: Today we're scrutinized by everybody who has a laptop. Some, I believe, do it out of legitimate concern; others, perhaps not. The drum beat has an impact. We try to be careful, and we try to be responsive.
Some reflections

At first, I wasn't sure how I felt about the decision. The suit was based on a year-old claim with seemingly little supporting evidence. In our legal system, anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. More than 16 million civil lawsuits are filed in the U.S. each year, and fewer than 1 percent of them ever go to trial. Celebrities are fair game, and there is no question that the public is interested when it happens.
A rape charge is particularly onerous for both the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator. If a man rapes a woman he should get the toughest punishment allowable, but if he goes through months of media attention and speculation with it turning out he didn't do it, where does he go to get his reputation back?
I kept thinking of those young men on the Duke lacrosse team: three players who went through a year of media accusations, innuendo, unnamed sources and pundits pontificating about all the evidence pointing to their supposed guilt. In the end, almost as an aside, they turned out to be innocent. Even though they were exonerated and got numerous apologies, could their lives ever really be the same?
There's a real tension between the public's right to know and the media's right to prosecute. All news organizations, including ESPN, should be cautious with a power that can damage someone's life. In today's landscape, whether ESPN reported on the Roethlisberger suit was immaterial in terms of the public's right to know -- it was being reported virtually everywhere else. This wasn't a case in which ESPN had an exclusive story and, not liking where it led, spiked it.
Honest people can have an honest debate over news judgment. Some may quarrel with ESPN's criteria. Some may feel that when any news breaks in the world of sports, it should be "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." Others may think ESPN should be applauded for having standards and sticking to them.
But the more I thought about it, the more that mantra rang in my ears: "Serve the audience." Even if ESPN judged that it should not report the Roethlisberger suit, not acknowledging a sports story that's blanketing the airways requires an explanation to your viewers, listeners and readers. And in today's world they are owed that explanation right away -- to do otherwise is just plain irresponsible. It forces your audience to ask why the story was omitted. It forces them to manufacture a motive. And it ultimately forces them to question your credibility.
It appears that in an attempt to tamp down media criticism, ESPN issued a statement to inquiring news organizations that had questioned its lack of acknowledgment of this story. That doesn't cut it. In a situation like this you need to be proactive, not reactive. If ESPN felt it needed to explain its rationale to The New York Times or The Washington Post, then there is no excuse for not giving the same explanation DIRECTLY to its audience.
On radio and television, it could have been as simple as this: "Many media outlets are reporting on a legal situation involving Pittsburgh Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger. We have chosen not to report the details of the story at this point -- doing so would not comply with our standards. A further explanation can be found on ESPN.com." On the Web site, ESPN could have posted an expanded version of this statement, including its criteria and any other necessary information.
While this would not have satisfied everyone, at least SportsNation would have received the explanation it deserved. Aside from the events to which they have broadcast rights, the most important assets ESPN has are trust and credibility. Both are amorphous qualities; hard to gain, easy to lose. They are central to a bond with the audience. Break that connection and you jeopardize loyalty and, eventually, success.
ESPN goes to great lengths to position its brand as THE place for what's happening in the world of sports. Its stated mission is "To serve the sports fan wherever sports are watched, listened to, discussed, debated, read about or played." That's its mission, and that's what we should hold it to.
Until next time. …

Chip R
09-11-2009, 10:08 AM
THey didn't get rid of her, her 2 year contract ended and she left. They replaced her with Don Ohlmeyer.



I had no idea they replaced her.

CTA513
03-05-2010, 03:58 PM
Another person is now accusing Roethlisberger of sexual assault:


Ben Roethlisberger Accused of Sexual Assault

Posted Mar 5th 2010 3:15PM by TMZ Staff

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has been accused of sexual assault by a young woman in Georgia, TMZ has learned.

The alleged incident occurred early this morning at Capital City -- a club in Milledgeville, Georgia.

According to law enforcement sources, the alleged victim -- who has already been interviewed by police -- was treated at a local hospital and released.

We're told in addition to the alleged victim, witnesses are being interviewed -- and one law enforcement source says they will attempt to interview Roethlisberger.

In addition to the Milledgeville Police Dept, we've learned the Georgia Bureau of Investigations is also investigating.

As we previously reported, Roethlisberger is being sued by a Reno woman, Andrea McNulty, who claims the QB sexually assaulted her in 2008.

UPDATE: We're told Ben Roethlisberger has already been interviewed by police. We're also told no formal charges have been filed at this point.

UPDATE 3:30 PM EST: A rep from the Steelers tells TMZ, "We are gathering information on this incident - until then we have no further comment."


http://www.tmz.com/2010/03/05/ben-roethlisberger-accused-of-sexual-assault/

deltachi8
03-05-2010, 04:42 PM
Another person is now accusing Roethlisberger of sexual assault:

If either of these accusations are true, I hope the Steelers release him and never look back. (I also hope he spends a long time in jail as well).

Eric_the_Red
03-05-2010, 04:51 PM
Wonder if ESPN will report this?

TC81190
03-05-2010, 05:04 PM
Hmm...where there is smoke....?

BuckeyeRed27
03-05-2010, 05:08 PM
Hmmm....didn't buy the woman's story the first time and I don't buy this one either.

Dom Heffner
03-05-2010, 06:07 PM
Hmmm....didn't buy the woman's story the first time and I don't buy this one either.

So you think women are picking on Ben Roethlisberger and nobody else?

It could be- I'm keeping an open mind. Seems a little odd it's happened again.

BuckeyeRed27
03-05-2010, 06:12 PM
So you think women are picking on Ben Roethlisberger and nobody else?

It could be- I'm keeping an open mind. Seems a little odd it's happened again.

I do think the first story makes it more likely that there would be a second fake story.

Probably want to hear a few more details, but on the surface I don't buy it.

savafan
03-05-2010, 06:37 PM
I am hearing that the assault took place in the women's restroom at the club. Why would Roethelisberger be in the women's restroom?

Benihana
03-05-2010, 07:03 PM
Wonder if ESPN will report this?

It's listed in Top Headlines now.

Degenerate39
03-05-2010, 07:29 PM
I am hearing that the assault took place in the women's restroom at the club. Why would Roethelisberger be in the women's restroom?

That's where all the Steelers use the bathroom?

camisadelgolf
03-05-2010, 07:50 PM
That's where all the Steelers use the bathroom?
. . . when they're not beating them up. http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/17258/jeff_reed_proves_gas_station_bathroom_theorem

Newport Red
03-05-2010, 10:53 PM
Aside from the Washington Wizards, the NFL is making the NBA look wholesome.

The Operator
03-06-2010, 12:27 AM
I am hearing that the assault took place in the women's restroom at the club. Why would Roethelisberger be in the women's restroom?

Because he's an NFL quarterback and he feels he's entitled to be wherever he wants to go? I've heard stories about his time at Miami. This stuff isn't exactly shocking.

BUTLER REDSFAN
03-06-2010, 08:23 AM
http://www.tmz.com/

Kingspoint
03-06-2010, 09:38 AM
That's where all the Steelers use the bathroom?

:beerme:

dabvu2498
03-06-2010, 01:01 PM
The google ads on this one are interesting as well.

goreds2
03-06-2010, 01:51 PM
http://bushtelegraph.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/not-guilty-web.jpg

redsfan1966
03-06-2010, 05:34 PM
disturbing story...looks like a pattern is starting to develop....hope for ben's sake it resolves itself..

Dom Heffner
03-07-2010, 08:27 AM
Story seems to be credible => http://toledoblade.com/article/20100307/NEWS14/3070334

I like how Roethlisberger's agent "Questions her motive" because of the Tahoe case.

Funny, I sorta question Ben for the same thing.

What a tool.

Blame the victim by questioning her motive while you grope her in any way you please.

Redsfaithful
03-07-2010, 09:18 AM
Sounds like more than groping if she had to go to the hospital ...

Dom Heffner
03-07-2010, 09:37 AM
Sounds like more than groping if she had to go to the hospital ...

Could be- I'm keeping an open mind.

westofyou
03-07-2010, 10:14 AM
I am hearing that the assault took place in the women's restroom at the club. Why would Roethelisberger be in the women's restroom?

Sex, blow or to borrow some makeup

camisadelgolf
03-07-2010, 11:39 AM
Just so you all know, I am reporting this thread. I received a three-point infraction for joking about bribing a judge because it was 'discussion of illegal or unlawful activity'. If I'm not allowed to discuss illegal or unlawful activity, then neither are any of you.

Dom Heffner
03-07-2010, 11:55 AM
Just so you all know, I am reporting this thread. I received a three-point infraction for joking about bribing a judge because it was 'discussion of illegal or unlawful activity'. If I'm not allowed to discuss illegal or unlawful activity, then neither are any of you.

I'm just taking a stab here-

Maybe you were discussing actually participating in illegal activity (joking or not) and we are all discussing the alleged illegal activity of a famous person.

I don't think we can't discuss illegal activity- I think we can't talk about doing something to somebody else that is illegal.

And while I think it's a bit off to punish you for the joke, I can also see where that thinking comes from and I think you are misapplying the ruling against you towards others.

And if you are seriously reporting this, I would take some time away to clear your head....

camisadelgolf
03-07-2010, 01:08 PM
I'm just taking a stab here-

Maybe you were discussing actually participating in illegal activity (joking or not) and we are all discussing the alleged illegal activity of a famous person.

I don't think we can't discuss illegal activity- I think we can't talk about doing something to somebody else that is illegal.

And while I think it's a bit off to punish you for the joke, I can also see where that thinking comes from and I think you are misapplying the ruling against you towards others.

And if you are seriously reporting this, I would take some time away to clear your head....
So what you're saying is that it's a double standard? It's okay to discuss alleged illegal activity as long as it's done by a celebrity?

Eric_the_Red
03-07-2010, 01:35 PM
So what you're saying is that it's a double standard? It's okay to discuss alleged illegal activity as long as it's done by a celebrity?

Seriously, when is your court date? I may want to take a day off work to watch that. With your obvious grasp of logic and rules, I'd love to see what you are capable of in a courtroom setting.

Dom Heffner
03-07-2010, 01:35 PM
So what you're saying is that it's a double standard? It's okay to discuss alleged illegal activity as long as it's done by a celebrity?

I would think that it violates board rules for me to say, "I"m going to go kill my next door neighbor..." This would be a direct admission by me, and probably something the owners of the board would not want to become involved with...they might have to deal with subpoenas or screams of "you knew but did nothing..", you know, liability issues.

What they would not care about is if we all are discussing events that did not involve any of us- events we were just commenting on.

It is not the discussion of illegal events, but whether or not we were personally involved in those events.

But I'm probably overstepping my bounds here...I was just trying to explain what might be the distinction....

camisadelgolf
03-07-2010, 02:19 PM
Seriously, when is your court date? I may want to take a day off work to watch that. With your obvious grasp of logic and rules, I'd love to see what you are capable of in a courtroom setting.
Tomorrow morning at 11:00. I'm kind of a late sleeper, so I might be a little late, though.

camisadelgolf
03-07-2010, 02:22 PM
I would think that it violates board rules for me to say, "I"m going to go kill my next door neighbor..." This would be a direct admission by me, and probably something the owners of the board would not want to become involved with...they might have to deal with subpoenas or screams of "you knew but did nothing..", you know, liability issues.

What they would not care about is if we all are discussing events that did not involve any of us- events we were just commenting on.

It is not the discussion of illegal events, but whether or not we were personally involved in those events.

But I'm probably overstepping my bounds here...I was just trying to explain what might be the distinction....
So it's clear, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I'm just curious and want to understand your point of view better. Do you think it'd be okay for me to discuss my neighbor killing me, but it wouldn't be okay for me to discuss killing my neighbor?

Chip R
03-07-2010, 03:02 PM
Just so you all know, I am reporting this thread. I received a three-point infraction for joking about bribing a judge because it was 'discussion of illegal or unlawful activity'. If I'm not allowed to discuss illegal or unlawful activity, then neither are any of you.

I'm going to tell you this once so read this very carefully. If you have a problem with posts, report them and we will deal with them. DO NOT announce in a thread that you are going to do so. Report the post and move on. Otherwise, your driving privileges may not be the only thing that is going to be suspended.

camisadelgolf
03-07-2010, 04:00 PM
I'm going to tell you this once so read this very carefully. If you have a problem with posts, report them and we will deal with them. DO NOT announce in a thread that you are going to do so. Report the post and move on. Otherwise, your driving privileges may not be the only thing that is going to be suspended.
Noted. I will not do that. For the record, I wasn't expressing a problem with the post. I was expressing a problem with how the site is being moderated. For future reference, may I publicly express that in the Site Feedback forum, or am I strictly limited to PMs to the site administrators/moderators?

Chip R
03-07-2010, 04:02 PM
Noted. I will not do that. For the record, I wasn't expressing a problem with the post. I was expressing a problem with how the site is being moderated. For future reference, may I publicly express that in the Site Feedback forum, or am I strictly limited to PMs to the site administrators/moderators?

Then address it with the mods and admins. This is neither the time or place. Last warning.

camisadelgolf
03-07-2010, 04:15 PM
Then address it with the mods and admins. This is neither the time or place. Last warning.
Okay, I'll be sure to do that. May I ask why we're not allowed to address it in the Site Feedback forum?

Chip R
03-07-2010, 04:34 PM
Okay, I'll be sure to do that. May I ask why we're not allowed to address it in the Site Feedback forum?

No. This thread is about the accusations about Roethelisberger not for your issues.

GIDP
03-07-2010, 08:04 PM
He seems to be addicted to sexual assault. :)

westofyou
03-08-2010, 09:48 AM
Just so you all know, I am reporting this thread. I received a three-point infraction for joking about bribing a judge because it was 'discussion of illegal or unlawful activity'. If I'm not allowed to discuss illegal or unlawful activity, then neither are any of you.

Why don't you practice on your opening statement and leave the mods alone?

camisadelgolf
03-08-2010, 12:38 PM
Why don't you practice on your opening statement and leave the mods alone?
If you have a problem, why don't you take it to PMs?

Dom Heffner
03-10-2010, 07:47 PM
Roethlisberger admits to having sexual contact with the woman. Apparently this evil girl fell and hit her head and has said it was sexual assault by Big Ben...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/10/report-roethlisberger-admitted-to-having-sexual-contact-with-alleged-victim/

GIDP
03-10-2010, 07:48 PM
Roethlisberger admits to having sexual contact with the woman. Apparently this evil girl fell and hit her head and has said it was sexual assault by Big Ben...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/10/report-roethlisberger-admitted-to-having-sexual-contact-with-alleged-victim/

How dare she put herself in the position to be sexually assaulted by such a nice guy.

Sea Ray
03-10-2010, 08:24 PM
This sounds eerily similar to his first victim. It all boils down to whether she consented or not. When the girl's been drinking heavily, which I suppose is the case here, that becomes extra hard for the prosecution to prove. For that reason I doubt Ben gets convicted of anything criminal.

Yachtzee
03-10-2010, 10:04 PM
This sounds eerily similar to his first victim. It all boils down to whether she consented or not. When the girl's been drinking heavily, which I suppose is the case here, that becomes extra hard for the prosecution to prove. For that reason I doubt Ben gets convicted of anything criminal.

We have very little information on what happened, so to say that is a bit premature. If his DNA shows up somewhere it's not supposed to be, he's going to have issues. He said at the scene that there was no intercourse. If that's proven false and his attorney is unable to get those statements suppressed, it could be an interesting decision for a jury to make.

Sea Ray
03-10-2010, 11:41 PM
We have very little information on what happened, so to say that is a bit premature. If his DNA shows up somewhere it's not supposed to be, he's going to have issues. He said at the scene that there was no intercourse. If that's proven false and his attorney is unable to get those statements suppressed, it could be an interesting decision for a jury to make.

You're right, it's a lot of speculation at this point but that's what we do here.

I'm not so sure the DNA is a big thing because Ben will claim it was consentual.

Jack Burton
03-11-2010, 11:51 AM
Real class act.

jredmo2
03-11-2010, 12:02 PM
When I was a in high school me and some guys from the football team went to a huge party Roethlisberger was throwing in Oxford. From what I saw, he was a huge, drunken jackass, and apparently nothing has changed. Also, let me just say this: the dude did not seem too concerned with the term "age of consent".

bucksfan2
03-11-2010, 12:21 PM
These are my thoughts, opinions about this case.

First of all I think there is a little more to the prior accusation.

Where there is smoke there is fire. Isn't the first accusation and if Big Ben isn't convicted or tried I doubt it will be the last.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if you see a financial settlement reached quickly and quietly.

Apparently the girl went to the police right after she left the club. Any bruise or DNA should be fresh.

TC81190
03-11-2010, 12:57 PM
When I was a in high school me and some guys from the football team went to a huge party Roethlisberger was throwing in Oxford. From what I saw, he was a huge, drunken jackass, and apparently nothing has changed. Also, let me just say this: the dude did not seem too concerned with the term "age of consent".
welcome to college.

GIDP
03-11-2010, 01:19 PM
Ben had quite the sleazy rep when at Miami of Ohio.

Sea Ray
03-11-2010, 01:58 PM
I wouldn't be surprised at all if you see a financial settlement reached quickly and quietly.



The first case has not been settled quickly and quietly; anything but.

I don't see how this case would be settled that way while the other civil case is ongoing. He has to get the criminal case in Georgia settled before he can settle it civilly anyway, so he's a long way away from a financial settlement. At this point it'll take more than money to settle it

bucksfan2
03-11-2010, 02:27 PM
The first case has not been settled quickly and quietly; anything but.

I don't see how this case would be settled that way while the other civil case is ongoing. He has to get the criminal case in Georgia settled before he can settle it civilly anyway, so he's a long way away from a financial settlement. At this point it'll take more than money to settle it

The first case is odd. Hotel/casino employee who didn't file the law suit until a year later saying that she feared for her job if she came out against Big Ben. She also contends that the hotel covered up the rape. To be honest a celebrity golf tournament every year is going to be much more valuable to the casino/hotel than the one employee is. To me it is a he said she said case, while very intriguing, doesn't hold a whole lot of legal water unless someone comes out in the accuser's defense.

As for the latest case, the immediacy of the complaints and accusation should make the case a little more black and white. I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of financial settlement is reached if the accuser drops the criminal case against Big Ben and agrees not to sue for any further damages. Sure its going to take more money, but it may be in Ben's best interest to pony up and rid himself of this case as soon as possible. The longer it drags on the more of distraction it will be.

Sea Ray
03-11-2010, 02:30 PM
I think Ben would love to make this go away with a bag of cash but it's not up to the accuser at this point to drop the criminal suit.

I agree with your assessment of stark differences in the two cases

Redsfaithful
03-11-2010, 02:52 PM
At what point does the NFL suspend the guy?

Sea Ray
03-11-2010, 02:59 PM
At what point does the NFL suspend the guy?

That's the $64K question. I'm not Roger Goodell but I would say if he's implicated criminally--not necessarily convicted--as we've seen with others

GIDP
03-11-2010, 03:48 PM
At what point does the NFL suspend the guy?

Depends on when he becomes a bengal.

GIDP
03-11-2010, 03:50 PM
Remember a Bengal player gets into trouble in college and gets suspended a year later once he gets in the NFL.

Jarred Allen can get 2 DUIs get a 4 game suspension and get it reduced to 2 games.

Jonathan Joeseph can have pot in a car he was in and get suspended a year later.

James Harrison can beat up everyone in his path and get nothing..

macro
03-11-2010, 05:36 PM
At what point does the NFL suspend the guy?

As GIDP has eluded to, Goodell is a Steelers fan, so I wouldn't expect him to do anything until absolutely necessary.

bucksfan2
03-12-2010, 08:59 AM
Remember a Bengal player gets into trouble in college and gets suspended a year later once he gets in the NFL.

Jarred Allen can get 2 DUIs get a 4 game suspension and get it reduced to 2 games.

Jonathan Joseph can have pot in a car he was in and get suspended a year later.

James Harrison can beat up everyone in his path and get nothing..

Thats B.S. I know it feels like Goddell has come down hard on the Bengals, but they had a pretty impressive run of things.

J Joe pleaded guilty to some misdemeanor, hence the suspension.

Jarred Allen is an interesting case. He wasn't suspended for his first DUI because it was his first offense. He was suspended for 4 games for his second but an arbitrator cut it down to 2.

Did Harrison get into legal trouble?

Big Ben won't get suspended until he is charged or convicted of something. In the American society you are innocent until proven guilty. Right now no criminal charges have been levied against Ben.

The Operator
03-12-2010, 09:34 AM
There have been Bengal players suspended before over mere allegations of crime. I think that's what they're referring too.

Hoosier Red
03-12-2010, 09:41 AM
The only one who was suspended for mere allegations was Henry, and he had developed a pretty consistent rap sheet previous to the suspension.

I could be wrong though.

macro
03-12-2010, 10:49 AM
The media (even in Pittsburgh) is not cutting Roethlisberger much slack at this point...



Long-time Pittsburgh sportscaster unloads on Big Ben

Ben is a bad citizen...In my more than 30 years of working in the Pittsburgh sports media, I have never had any player come close to generating as many unsolicited questions from fans as Roethlisberger has. They want to know why he's such a jackass..."

Steigerwald specifically points to a Make-A-Wish child that Roethlisberger allegedly blew off..who had cystic fibrosis...

"Roethlisberger is a punk who needs to be knocked down a peg or two."

Complete article: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/11/long-time-pittsburgh-sportscaster-unloads-on-big-ben/


Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Starkey: Steelers' image in tatters

By Joe Starkey
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, March 11, 2010

It's easy to find the face of the Steelers' storied franchise. Just click on TMZ.com.

There you will see Ben Roethlisberger clad in a black Satan T-shirt — that's Satan, not satin — apparently posing for photos with co-eds the night he was accused of sexual assault in a small Georgia college town.

Complete article: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_671073.html



Roethlisberger's in More Trouble Than You Think

3/11/2010 1:15 PM ET By Clay Travis

Ben RoethlisbergerJudging by the relatively tame media coverage associated with Ben Roethlisberger's alleged sexual assault down in Georgia, you'd think that the case isn't that serious.

You'd be wrong.

Big Ben is in a huge mess, one that could potentially keep him off the field this upcoming season and more.


Complete article: http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/03/11/big-bens-in-more-trouble-than-you-think/

GIDP
03-12-2010, 12:43 PM
Thats B.S. I know it feels like Goddell has come down hard on the Bengals, but they had a pretty impressive run of things.

J Joe pleaded guilty to some misdemeanor, hence the suspension.

Jarred Allen is an interesting case. He wasn't suspended for his first DUI because it was his first offense. He was suspended for 4 games for his second but an arbitrator cut it down to 2.

Did Harrison get into legal trouble?

Big Ben won't get suspended until he is charged or convicted of something. In the American society you are innocent until proven guilty. Right now no criminal charges have been levied against Ben.
The Joeseph thing im refuring to is him getting suspended like a year later and randomly in the middle of the season.

James Harrison got arrested for beating his girlfriend or something but all the charges were dropped because he went to anger management.

There are just the 1st examples that came to my mind. Its been a massive double standard for years.

Jack Burton
03-12-2010, 12:50 PM
Guy sounds like a real dirtbag.

RichRed
03-12-2010, 01:18 PM
Guy sounds like a real dirtbag.

And I'm just going to say this at the risk of sounding like a jerk/idiot: he looks like one too. Something about the smug expression on his face.

The Operator
03-12-2010, 02:25 PM
The only one who was suspended for mere allegations was Henry, and he had developed a pretty consistent rap sheet previous to the suspension.

I could be wrong though.

Yea, but it's not as if this is the first time Big Ben's been accused of this type of behavior. If he were wearing Bengal stripes, I'd bet a lot of money he'd already be sidelined for 4 games next year.

The fact that he repeatedly puts himself in these type of situations would be enough for suspension if he were a Bengal, IMO.

savafan
03-12-2010, 02:38 PM
I can't recall specifically, but was there alcohol involved when he crashed his motorcycle as well?

Matt700wlw
03-12-2010, 02:57 PM
BREAKING NEWS: Photo of Ben's accuser has been revealed.


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c27/swerb/SteelerUgly.jpg

:D

goreds2
03-14-2010, 03:18 PM
BREAKING NEWS: Photo of Ben's accuser has been revealed.


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c27/swerb/SteelerUgly.jpg

:D

Come on, a Steelers fan would not accuse him. ;)

Yachtzee
03-14-2010, 11:59 PM
Wow, I can't believe I'm actually seeing some members of the Pittsburgh media turn on Roethlisberger. What's next? An ESPN analyst demanding he get a suspension?

GIDP
03-15-2010, 12:22 AM
Before you know it people will be saying their D won the super bowls and Ben really isnt that good. :)

savafan
03-28-2010, 09:23 PM
ESPN reports Roethlisberger won't be reporting to the Steelers.

And this is pretty accurate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6yOwlrCUyk

TC81190
03-29-2010, 02:37 PM
Now Holmes is being accused of an assault of his own again.

bucksfan2
03-29-2010, 02:47 PM
The more details that come out about Big Ben the more I think both the bar and authorities were involved in a cover up for Ben. I could be completely wrong on this but something just doesn't smell right with Ben's case.

As for Santonio here is TMZ's link. http://www.tmz.com/2010/03/29/another-steelers-star-accused-of-nightclub-attack/

Caveat Emperor
03-29-2010, 04:44 PM
The more details that come out about Big Ben the more I think both the bar and authorities were involved in a cover up for Ben. I could be completely wrong on this but something just doesn't smell right with Ben's case.

On a case as high-profile from the outset as this one has been, I'd be skeptical that a cover-up could be successfully done. Too many people looking on this one.

This whole incident is another reminder (one even those of us who see these types of cases frequently can use) that crimes of a sexual nature are rarely cut and dry, and that the biggest mistake you can make is thinking you've got all the angles figured out.

Did Roethlisberger do it? Who knows -- the guy had a reputation that stunk when he was at Oxford when it came to boozing and women -- but I don't think any of us can presume to know the facts from the outside looking in.

Sea Ray
03-29-2010, 04:48 PM
On a case as high-profile from the outset as this one has been, I'd be skeptical that a cover-up could be successfully done. Too many people looking on this one.

This whole incident is another reminder (one even those of us who see these types of cases frequently can use) that crimes of a sexual nature are rarely cut and dry, and that the biggest mistake you can make is thinking you've got all the angles figured out.

Did Roethlisberger do it? Who knows -- the guy had a reputation that stunk when he was at Oxford when it came to boozing and women -- but I don't think any of us can presume to know the facts from the outside looking in.


One of the reports I heard was a female friend of the victim trying to get to her friend in the bathroom but Ben's buddies were "guarding" the door. This friend said that she was worried because she thought the victim was drunk.

Seems to me such a story would work to Ben's advantage. If they can prove she was drunk then she may have done all kinds of irrational things.

TeamSelig
03-29-2010, 04:50 PM
If she was drunk, then she wouldn't be able to consent.

JaxRed
03-29-2010, 04:57 PM
One of the reports I heard was a female friend of the victim trying to get to her friend in the bathroom but Ben's buddies were "guarding" the door. This friend said that she was worried because she thought the victim was drunk.

Seems to me such a story would work to Ben's advantage. If they can prove she was drunk then she may have done all kinds of irrational things.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. She's drunk, Ben "posse" is keeping people from getting to her while incident occurs, she reports it the very next day? This could not look much worse.

Yachtzee
03-29-2010, 05:59 PM
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. She's drunk, Ben "posse" is keeping people from getting to her while incident occurs, she reports it the very next day? This could not look much worse.

Without looking up the law in that state, I would say that, if true, that type of behavior could possibly give rise to conspiracy charges.

Sea Ray
03-29-2010, 08:54 PM
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. She's drunk, Ben "posse" is keeping people from getting to her while incident occurs, she reports it the very next day? This could not look much worse.

I hope you're right. I've just heard prosecutors say that they wouldn't touch a sexual assault case if the female was drunk because her testimony couldn't trusted. Put it another way, if both of them were drunk then why does the burden of responsibility fall on him?

macro
03-29-2010, 10:22 PM
It's becoming nearly impossible for any Steelers fan to make jokes about the Bengals and problems with the law:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36084816%2336084816#36084816

A 30 second commercial precedes the actual video.

GIDP
03-30-2010, 05:24 AM
It's becoming nearly impossible for any Steelers fan to make jokes about the Bengals and problems with the law:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36084816%2336084816#36084816

A 30 second commercial precedes the actual video.

The Steelers have had way more legal problems this decade than the Bengals ever did.

SeeinRed
03-30-2010, 08:45 AM
Its a lot easier to pick on a franchise like the Bengals who have had so little success on the field in the last couple decades. I think that is a reason for the Bengals arrest history being in the spotlight. There is also the fact that the Bengals have an owner who has come to be known as The Redeemer. Lets be honest, the Bengals did themselves no favors in the public eye.

The NFL has had a problem with crime for a long time honestly. Being able to pin it on certain franchises helps keep the NFL as a whole looking better. Especially when these franchises are deemed dysfunctional to begin with. The Steelers being associated with this type of behavior is a black eye for the league and I'm guessing you may see a lot more uproar over this than anything associated with the Bengals. Part of that is also because of the size of the Steelers fan base. Just my opinion though.

bucksfan2
03-30-2010, 08:54 AM
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. She's drunk, Ben "posse" is keeping people from getting to her while incident occurs, she reports it the very next day? This could not look much worse.

That is exactly the way I look at it. Her friend goes to the manager saying her friend is drunk and locked in the bathroom with Ben and one of Ben's posse is keeping watch of the door. You stay classy Ben.

Too much just seems fishy, the investigating officer taking a pitcher with Ben earlier in the evening, the friend guarding the door, the security tapes being taped over, not erased where they video could possible be retrieved.

I am not one for frivolous lawsuits. I think often times they are used too often. But if this were my daughter or sister or even friend I wouldn't hesitate to slap a lawsuit on not only Ben but the bar owners, the manager who refused to open the door, and Ben's friend who was guarding the door.

GIDP
03-30-2010, 04:41 PM
We hadn't noticed a far less charitable exchange with another fan. Holmes accuses the fan of trying to make Holmes look like the bad guy, and then says that the fan "shud try finding the worst thing that you could drink n kill urself."

the hits just keep on coming.

RichRed
03-30-2010, 04:46 PM
"shud try finding the worst thing that you could drink n kill urself."

Stay in school, kids.

TheNext44
04-01-2010, 06:32 PM
I hope you're right. I've just heard prosecutors say that they wouldn't touch a sexual assault case if the female was drunk because her testimony couldn't trusted. Put it another way, if both of them were drunk then why does the burden of responsibility fall on him?

That used to be the case, but things have changed in the last 10 years. Now it's the reverse. In some places, a guy can get charged with rape if he has sex with a girl who is too drunk to know what's going on, even if he had nothing to do with her getting drunk.

GIDP
04-10-2010, 12:16 PM
Apparently Santonio Holmes failed a drug test now also.

Tommyjohn25
04-10-2010, 12:19 PM
Looks like the charges against Big Ben are being dropped.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5071769

macro
04-10-2010, 07:48 PM
Looks like the charges against Big Ben are being dropped.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5071769

From Oldcat at www.go-bengals.com:

"In totally unrelated news, Millegeville Police and District Attorneys are getting a new sports complex/gym, tastefully decorated in yellow and black, from an anonymous public-spirited corporation."

:D

Caveat Emperor
04-10-2010, 08:04 PM
Looks like the charges against Big Ben are being dropped.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5071769

A technicality, but the DA in me feels compelled to note that charges were never filed in the first place. The police turned their investigation over to the prosecutors, and they declined to seek an indictment. That tells me, based on experience, that they felt the case was too weak to bring forward.

Looks like Big Ben dodged another bullet. Someone needs to get into his ear and tell him that he's rapidly running out strikes in life. The "lifestyle" that he leads is going to eventually land him in a courtroom -- either fighting to keep himself out of prison or fighting to keep one of his "conquests" out of his wallet after the fact.

WMR
04-10-2010, 08:43 PM
Roethilisberger is a public menace and would likely fit the classification of a sexual predator as well.

Few sexual predators are ever really 'fixed' or 'healed' of their predilections. Many argue that they are incurable. The chances Ben does something else to a woman in the future are high. Hopefully his next incident won't get swept under the carpet as well so no more females fall prey to this monster.

Scrap Irony
04-11-2010, 10:26 AM
From WMR, in the thread about Kentucky Basketball:I'm sure you've got some proof.

You wouldn't come in this thread and make HIGHLY disparaging comments about a bunch of 19 year old kids (if Cal is dirty, so are they) without some sort of proof.

Surely no one would make such an ass of themselves without some real solid evidence that Eric Bledsoe, John Wall, Demarcus Cousins, and/or Daniel Orton received cash payments from Cal. They ARE real people, in case you've forgotten. Hopefully you'll think before typing such slanderous, libelous comments on a public forum again.


Hello, irony.

GIDP
04-11-2010, 12:23 PM
Busted haha.

WMR
04-11-2010, 01:36 PM
Hello, irony.

Hmmm... maybe you can show me the history of one of those UK players that makes suggesting they are dirty is plausible whatsoever? Maybe your definition of irony is just different than mine.

Ben's history is well-known and this is not the first incident where he acted inappropriately towards a female.

All of Ben's run-ins with women could be nothing more than a LONG run of bad luck. :rolleyes: A run that has been going since his collegiate days at Miami.

Sea Ray
04-11-2010, 01:54 PM
As I stated earlier in this thread, the fact the girl was also intoxicated made it very difficult to prosecute this case. It does not surprise me a bit that Ben will not be facing criminal charges

This is what I said a month ago and I stand by it:


This sounds eerily similar to his first victim. It all boils down to whether she consented or not. When the girl's been drinking heavily, which I suppose is the case here, that becomes extra hard for the prosecution to prove. For that reason I doubt Ben gets convicted of anything criminal.

MWM
04-11-2010, 02:51 PM
There's as much evidence that Ben is dirty as there is that Calipari is. But you know that already.

All of Cal's run-ins with NCAA violations could be nothing more than a LONG run of bad luck. A run that has been going since his days at UMASS.

WMR
04-11-2010, 02:56 PM
There's as much evidence that Ben is dirty as there is that Calipari is. But you know that already.

All of Cal's run-ins with NCAA violations could be nothing more than a LONG run of bad luck. A run that has been going since his days at UMASS.

I disagree with that, but the dirtiness of Cal isn't what I was defending or arguing in that post. It was the accusation of dirtiness made towards Eric Bledsoe, Demarcus Cousins, John Wall, and Daniel Orton.

I thought I made that clear...

Scrap Irony
04-11-2010, 03:30 PM
Hmmm... maybe you can show me the history of one of those UK players that makes suggesting they are dirty is plausible whatsoever? Maybe your definition of irony is just different than mine.

Ben's history is well-known and this is not the first incident where he acted inappropriately towards a female.

All of Ben's run-ins with women could be nothing more than a LONG run of bad luck. :rolleyes: A run that has been going since his collegiate days at Miami.

Would that be the iron-clad proof that you demanded of another poster, or your own "plausible history" proof? I get so confused in these matters.

WMR
04-11-2010, 03:39 PM
Would that be the iron-clad proof that you demanded of another poster, or your own "plausible history" proof? I get so confused in these matters.

Did I demand iron-clad proof?

The words I used were 'some sort of proof' and then later 'solid evidence.'

That doesn't equate to demanding iron-clad proof. I was basically asking for SOME sort of plausible proof/evidence that those UK players were dirty if you're going to label them as such.

Stack that up against all the crap Ben has pulled over the years... The guy is a menace and likely a sexual predator, just like I typed in my initial post.

Chip R
04-11-2010, 04:12 PM
OK, guys. Get back on the topic or I'm going to shut it down.

Scrap Irony
04-11-2010, 04:12 PM
Okay, follow along, then.

Cal's teams have long been considered dirty. They've given up two Final Fours and World Wide Wes, most agree, is a street agent at best and a powerful player broker at worst. They come to Kentucky, and, magically, the Cats, in less than three months, grab what most consider to be one of the two greatest collections of recruits ever in NCAA history. Too, this isn't the Kentucky of year's past either; this is a Kentucky program struggling to bring in any top talen at all, let alone a group this good.

You've got to think, if you're a fan of a different program, something has to be going on. After all, Cal has a history (like Ben) of being dirty. (Of course, there's been no proof-- for either Cal or Roethlisberger.) Cal's players must be dirty, as the only reason he gets these guys is that he pays for them.

Not only would these guys get paid, fans of other teams would also argue they're not exactly the innocents you paint them as. Wall was trouble, as "evidenced" by his police record (breaking and entering with another guy and a girl). Bledsoe and Orton were "dirty", as you could clearly see" in the Louisville game and the "obvious" thug mentality of their play both in the SEC and NCAA tournament. Cousins has a history of playing dirty and being a handful. Add in Patterson's "new truck" and fans from different programs might call that plausible.

Certainly as plausible as the "proof" against Roethlisberger.

WMR
04-11-2010, 04:27 PM
Okay, follow along, then.

Cal's teams have long been considered dirty. They've given up two Final Fours and World Wide Wes, most agree, is a street agent at best and a powerful player broker at worst. They come to Kentucky, and, magically, the Cats, in less than three months, grab what most consider to be one of the two greatest collections of recruits ever in NCAA history. Too, this isn't the Kentucky of year's past either; this is a Kentucky program struggling to bring in any top talen at all, let alone a group this good.

You've got to think, if you're a fan of a different program, something has to be going on. After all, Cal has a history (like Ben) of being dirty. (Of course, there's been no proof-- for either Cal or Roethlisberger.) Cal's players must be dirty, as the only reason he gets these guys is that he pays for them.

Not only would these guys get paid, fans of other teams would also argue they're not exactly the innocents you paint them as. Wall was trouble, as "evidenced" by his police record (breaking and entering with another guy and a girl). Bledsoe and Orton were "dirty", as you could clearly see" in the Louisville game and the "obvious" thug mentality of their play both in the SEC and NCAA tournament. Cousins has a history of playing dirty and being a handful. Add in Patterson's "new truck" and fans from different programs might call that plausible.

Certainly as plausible as the "proof" against Roethlisberger.

:lol:

Funny post. You almost had me going for a second there. ;)

The ONLY point in contention was whether or not the four freshmen accepted cash to pay for Coach Cal. All this other stuff you typed is hot air (as far as this discussion is concerned).

Yachtzee
04-11-2010, 11:01 PM
A technicality, but the DA in me feels compelled to note that charges were never filed in the first place. The police turned their investigation over to the prosecutors, and they declined to seek an indictment. That tells me, based on experience, that they felt the case was too weak to bring forward.

Looks like Big Ben dodged another bullet. Someone needs to get into his ear and tell him that he's rapidly running out strikes in life. The "lifestyle" that he leads is going to eventually land him in a courtroom -- either fighting to keep himself out of prison or fighting to keep one of his "conquests" out of his wallet after the fact.

From my experience, there could be other factors at play here too. Every jurisdiction has its own way of doing things. For example, if it's a small DA's office with a limited budget, they may decide not to pursue it because of the potential expense it would take to get a conviction. They may have decided that it's not worth their time because they can't guarantee a win and to take it to trial would take up so much of their budget that it would limit them in pursuing other cases.

Another factor would be the DA's attitude toward these type of cases in general. In some jurisdictions, the DA or County Prosecutor just might not have sympathy for these types of victims, whereas had Ben committed the crime in a neighboring jurisdiction where the DA takes a harder line (or maybe has a federal grant to prosecute these type of cases), he would have been indicted.

And of course you can't discount plain old star power. Even DA's offices can be effected by it, especially ones unaccustomed to dealing with national celebrities.

I'd be interested to talk to some of the defense attorneys in the area. I'd say they'd have a good idea of whether this was just a weak case or if Ben caught a break. If Ben somehow got a break that other defendants in that area don't normally get, I'm sure you could find the defense bar grumbling. Of course, they aren't going to talk to the press about it if they ever want to get a favorable plea deal again.

Ben definitely needs to change his lifestyle though. While he's dodged criminal charges in two cases so far, he might not be so lucky next time. I imagine if he gets involved in another situation like this, it may lead people to believe in the old adage "where there's smoke, there's fire." He's one of those guys who could definitely use a "Jiminy," someone to act as his conscience and advise him against getting himself into these situations, since he doesn't seem to have that voice in his head that tells him when something like this is a bad idea.

macro
04-11-2010, 11:43 PM
Apparently Santonio Holmes failed a drug test now also.

Reports are coming out that Holmes has now been traded to the Jets.

CTA513
04-11-2010, 11:52 PM
Reports are coming out that Holmes has now been traded to the Jets.

If profootballtalk.com is correct then the Steelers traded him for a 5th round pick.


:laugh:

macro
04-12-2010, 12:34 AM
They really wanted to get rid of him, didn't they?

The good news: it weakens the Steelers receiving corps
The bad news: it strengthens the Jets receiving corps

He is facing a four-game suspension, however.

redsfandan
04-12-2010, 12:57 AM
If profootballtalk.com is correct then the Steelers traded him for a 5th round pick.


:laugh:
I'm seeing it reported as for a 5th rounder other places as well. Kinda surprising. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Big Ben's days in the Steel City are numbered too.

Caveat Emperor
04-12-2010, 02:14 AM
I'm seeing it reported as for a 5th rounder other places as well. Kinda surprising. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Big Ben's days in the Steel City are numbered too.

I expect the Steelers will be looking for a quarterback in the draft. Wouldn't be shocked if they look at someone like Dan LeFevour in round 2/3. I've also seen a few interesting things thrown around about the Steelers possibly targeting Tim Tebow if he's still around when they pick in Round 2.

bucksfan2
04-12-2010, 08:49 AM
From my experience, there could be other factors at play here too. Every jurisdiction has its own way of doing things. For example, if it's a small DA's office with a limited budget, they may decide not to pursue it because of the potential expense it would take to get a conviction. They may have decided that it's not worth their time because they can't guarantee a win and to take it to trial would take up so much of their budget that it would limit them in pursuing other cases.

Another factor would be the DA's attitude toward these type of cases in general. In some jurisdictions, the DA or County Prosecutor just might not have sympathy for these types of victims, whereas had Ben committed the crime in a neighboring jurisdiction where the DA takes a harder line (or maybe has a federal grant to prosecute these type of cases), he would have been indicted.

And of course you can't discount plain old star power. Even DA's offices can be effected by it, especially ones unaccustomed to dealing with national celebrities.

I'd be interested to talk to some of the defense attorneys in the area. I'd say they'd have a good idea of whether this was just a weak case or if Ben caught a break. If Ben somehow got a break that other defendants in that area don't normally get, I'm sure you could find the defense bar grumbling. Of course, they aren't going to talk to the press about it if they ever want to get a favorable plea deal again.

Ben definitely needs to change his lifestyle though. While he's dodged criminal charges in two cases so far, he might not be so lucky next time. I imagine if he gets involved in another situation like this, it may lead people to believe in the old adage "where there's smoke, there's fire." He's one of those guys who could definitely use a "Jiminy," someone to act as his conscience and advise him against getting himself into these situations, since he doesn't seem to have that voice in his head that tells him when something like this is a bad idea.

What you are saying here makes perfect sense. But if true it is an absolute sham of the Georgia legal system. I am not one who thinks that frivolous lawsuits should be used in any manner. I think the american public and lawyers get too lawsuit happy and end up making the lives of everyday americans more difficult.

That said if I were this girls parents I would bring down the pain on Ben, the bar, the police, anyone associated with this manner. Too many sketchy details have come out of this case for me to think that justice is being done.

Chip R
04-12-2010, 09:24 AM
What you are saying here makes perfect sense. But if true it is an absolute sham of the Georgia legal system. I am not one who thinks that frivolous lawsuits should be used in any manner. I think the american public and lawyers get too lawsuit happy and end up making the lives of everyday americans more difficult.

That said if I were this girls parents I would bring down the pain on Ben, the bar, the police, anyone associated with this manner. Too many sketchy details have come out of this case for me to think that justice is being done.


I think this case was too iffy to prosecute. No real witnesses, the girl was drinking and possibly drunk. I'm guessing this county doesn't exactly have a large DA's office. Meanwhile Big Ben can afford the best lawyers money can buy. You know the media is going to swarm into that place and the locals may not be able to handle that storm.

They can choose to do that. However, she's not going to remain anonymous any longer. That girl in Nevada who went after him got killed in the public eye as a golddigger and a **** and those were the kinder stuff said about her.

RedEye
04-12-2010, 10:28 AM
That used to be the case, but things have changed in the last 10 years. Now it's the reverse. In some places, a guy can get charged with rape if he has sex with a girl who is too drunk to know what's going on, even if he had nothing to do with her getting drunk.

This surprises you? A person who is too incapacitated to consent to sex should be protected by the law. It is repugnant that some people think this gives them a license to do whatever they want.

Hoosier Red
04-12-2010, 10:29 AM
I think this case was too iffy to prosecute. No real witnesses, the girl was drinking and possibly drunk. I'm guessing this county doesn't exactly have a large DA's office. Meanwhile Big Ben can afford the best lawyers money can buy. You know the media is going to swarm into that place and the locals may not be able to handle that storm.

They can choose to do that. However, she's not going to remain anonymous any longer. That girl in Nevada who went after him got killed in the public eye as a golddigger and a **** and those were the kinder stuff said about her.


I think all of that's true. The police bumbling like allowing the video tape from that night to be taped over. And the general slowness involved in following up just made it far too much.

Joseph
04-12-2010, 12:39 PM
This surprises you? A person who is too incapacitated to consent to sex should be protected by the law. It is repugnant that some people think this gives them a license to do whatever they want.

I agree with you 100%, truly do, however with the level of intoxication this girl may have had do we know for certain that this just isn't a case of drunken regret?

Chip R
04-12-2010, 12:44 PM
I agree with you 100%, truly do, however with the level of intoxication this girl may have had do we know for certain that this just isn't a case of drunken regret?


And who knows what really happened?

GIDP
04-12-2010, 01:13 PM
Well we know all we need to know about Steelers and their ownership now.

redhawkfish
04-12-2010, 01:18 PM
Well we know all we need to know about Steelers and their ownership now.

Huh?

Yachtzee
04-12-2010, 01:34 PM
I agree with you 100%, truly do, however with the level of intoxication this girl may have had do we know for certain that this just isn't a case of drunken regret?

You have to look at the circumstances surrounding the event. If she was all over him and then agreed to go back to his place, then brings this up after she's had time to think about it, that's one thing. If she was taken into the restroom at the bar and was in there alone with him while his buddies blocked the door, and then she went to the hospital soon after the event, that's something else to think about.

GIDP
04-12-2010, 01:35 PM
Huh?

How they handle certain players compared to others.

Caveat Emperor
04-12-2010, 01:36 PM
This surprises you? A person who is too incapacitated to consent to sex should be protected by the law. It is repugnant that some people think this gives them a license to do whatever they want.

They are protected by the law.

Trouble is, there's a world of difference between matching the legal elements up on a checklist and convincing a jury, as a DA, that you've proven a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Rape by intoxication is one of the toughest criminal charges to prove. Usually the only thing you have to go on is what the victim says about their state and what their friends or observers (who are usually hammered as well and not really paying attention to what is going on around them) say about the victim's state. If you're exceptionally lucky, you get a statement from the defendant admitting that he knew his victim was intoxicated. Once in a blue moon, you also get a rape kit with a tox report that gives you a BAC for the victim.

Most of the time, though, it's just a victim's word vs. a defendant's word. When the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that's a fiercely uphill battle.

GIDP
04-12-2010, 01:40 PM
If you are stupid enough to drink to a point where you cant handle a simple thing like having sex then some times you reap what you sow. If you consent to getting drunk then you cant really blame anyone other than yourself when something stupid happens to you. I've never been drunk and blamed everyone around me for me getting into trouble. Still there is a sense that people should know where a line is when dealing with some drunk person. Just because they are too stupid to understand stuff happens doesnt mean you are allowed to do stuff to them.

Yachtzee
04-12-2010, 01:41 PM
I'm seeing it reported as for a 5th rounder other places as well. Kinda surprising. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Big Ben's days in the Steel City are numbered too.

I don't know about that. Everything I've seen about the Steelers tells me they are masters of playing the PR game. Santonio Holmes was probably dealt because he was expendable and gives the FO some good PR for getting rid of a "troublemaker" facing a suspension. It takes the heat off them even though they keep guys like Roethlisberger and Harrison on the team. I don't see them getting rid of Roethlisberger until he either picks up a criminal case he can't beat or the Steelers have another QB ready to take over as the starter. Joey Porter had a number of issues, but the Steelers didn't part ways with him until they had someone ready to step in at his spot. Holmes, on the other hand, is a receiver. The Steelers don't seem to value the receiver spot highly to begin with and I suspect they figure they can pick someone up to replace his production either in the draft or on the free agent market.

GIDP
04-12-2010, 01:42 PM
Dennis Dixon is better than Ben. There I said it!

Yachtzee
04-12-2010, 01:48 PM
They are protected by the law.

Trouble is, there's a world of difference between matching the legal elements up on a checklist and convincing a jury, as a DA, that you've proven a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Rape by intoxication is one of the toughest criminal charges to prove. Usually the only thing you have to go on is what the victim says about their state and what their friends or observers (who are usually hammered as well and not really paying attention to what is going on around them) say about the victim's state. If you're exceptionally lucky, you get a statement from the defendant admitting that he knew his victim was intoxicated. Once in a blue moon, you also get a rape kit with a tox report that gives you a BAC for the victim.

Most of the time, though, it's just a victim's word vs. a defendant's word. When the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that's a fiercely uphill battle.


Don't forget about the inevitable motion to supress. If there were any issues concerning the collection and retention of evidence, or if police didn't follow proper procedures when talking to the defendant, there's a good chance the DA may be unable to use certain evidence necessary to prove the case.

bucksfan2
04-12-2010, 01:56 PM
They are protected by the law.

Trouble is, there's a world of difference between matching the legal elements up on a checklist and convincing a jury, as a DA, that you've proven a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Rape by intoxication is one of the toughest criminal charges to prove. Usually the only thing you have to go on is what the victim says about their state and what their friends or observers (who are usually hammered as well and not really paying attention to what is going on around them) say about the victim's state. If you're exceptionally lucky, you get a statement from the defendant admitting that he knew his victim was intoxicated. Once in a blue moon, you also get a rape kit with a tox report that gives you a BAC for the victim.

Most of the time, though, it's just a victim's word vs. a defendant's word. When the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that's a fiercely uphill battle.

What you said makes logical sense. I am not doubting that there would have been problems in trying this case. I also can see this DA with visions of the over-zealous Duke prosecutor in the back of his mind. Here are some of the issues I had with the case.

Investigating cop was involved in a group photo with Ben earlier that night. Cops are human and his shouldn't be a big deal but why would you let said cop investigate this crime? Why would you put him in that situation when there was evidence of him cozening up to Ben earlier in the night.

The cops don't interview Ben and allow him to go home. I have a friend who is a cop and he said there is no way he would have allowed Ben to leave. He would have interviewed him right away to get as much information out of him as possible.

Ben lawyering up with one of the best lawyers in Georgia Fully within his legal right but something that always makes you look a little deeper. If your accused of murder and hire Robert Shapiro it makes you wonder.

The cops bumbling around allowing the bar tape from that night to be recorded over. Not erased in which you can get the footage off of, rather taped over. Why would bar allow that tape to be put into use again?

Reports of the girls friend trying to get into the bathroom and one of Ben's posse protecting the door. Then reports of the girl hysterical with cops later that night when reporting the "rape."

Finally Ben's ongoing civil suit. Some similar questions as well as handling of the case by Ben's handlers. Where there is smoke there is fire. I think the DA from that small town is doing justice a disservice. I am not saying Ben is guilty just that with the way the facts have been reported it seemed like a charges should have been filed.

Caveat Emperor
04-12-2010, 02:41 PM
Investigating cop was involved in a group photo with Ben earlier that night. Cops are human and his shouldn't be a big deal but why would you let said cop investigate this crime? Why would you put him in that situation when there was evidence of him cozening up to Ben earlier in the night.

If he's the best investigator on the force or the best investigator for sex-related offenses, I don't care who he is taking pictures with -- I want him on the case. A good investigator can make or break a case. Trust me, as a DA you want the best man out there -- especially if a case comes to trial and you're going to count on the investigator not having cut some corner that gets a vital piece of evidence thrown out.

Further, in smaller police departments, often there are only 1 or 2 guys who are department investigators / detectives. So it wouldn't be shocking to me if this was the only guy they had who was qualified to investigate the case.


The cops don't interview Ben and allow him to go home. I have a friend who is a cop and he said there is no way he would have allowed Ben to leave. He would have interviewed him right away to get as much information out of him as possible.

Every situation is different. If the police didn't have enough information at the time, an interview would be fruitless. At best, you'd have an investigator fumbling in the dark for information about what happened -- and that's never a good way to conduct a good police interview. The police interviewer needs to know the situation backwards and forwards. The single best way that I've heard to break a suspect is when the investigator comes at the them with tons of facts and makes the suspect think he's beaten and needs to come clean to save his skin. When the investigator is only playing around with half the facts, it makes the suspect confident -- if the police don't know everything, they'll often clam up thinking they can beat the case.

And, of course, a person like Roethlisberger isn't dumb -- I suspect any attempt at an interview would've been thwarted by a request to speak to a lawyer immediately. Ben's been down this road before. He knows his rights.


Ben lawyering up with one of the best lawyers in Georgia Fully within his legal right but something that always makes you look a little deeper. If your accused of murder and hire Robert Shapiro it makes you wonder.

It doesn't make me wonder at all -- I'd be more curious if he'd hired a nobody. If you're being investigated for a high-felony sex offense that carries a presumption of prison time, you want the best lawyer money can buy at your side.

This is one of those things where you have to put yourself in the situation: if you were innocent of a crime being charged against you, wouldn't you fight it with every resource you had? I know I would.


The cops bumbling around allowing the bar tape from that night to be recorded over. Not erased in which you can get the footage off of, rather taped over. Why would bar allow that tape to be put into use again?

The bar might've had staff involved in the incident -- helping Roethlisberger isolate this particular girl. The video might not have painted the establishment in a good light. Who knows.

What I can tell you is that it's not uncommon for security footage to get taped over, especially at places where they're not used to preserving evidence. Bus companies are notoriously bad for taping over evidence tapes. Places like TJ Maxx and UDF who are routinely the victim of theft offenses are much better about knowing what to do when they catch someone on tape.


Reports of the girls friend trying to get into the bathroom and one of Ben's posse protecting the door. Then reports of the girl hysterical with cops later that night when reporting the "rape."

Just reports at this point -- nothing conclusive in the slightest and likely started by people connected to the girl, which throws their veracity into question.


Finally Ben's ongoing civil suit. Some similar questions as well as handling of the case by Ben's handlers. Where there is smoke there is fire. I think the DA from that small town is doing justice a disservice. I am not saying Ben is guilty just that with the way the facts have been reported it seemed like a charges should have been filed.

Ben's civil suit would be inadmissible in this case. Evidence of it would certainly be subject to a motion in limine, and jurors in any rape trial would be thoroughly questioned in voir dire by Roethlisberger's lawyers to make sure they had a jury pool that was untainted by the news of Roethlisberger's past indiscretions.

The trouble with a lot of the evidence surrounding this case is that it amounts to nothing more than hearsay, speculation and a healthy dose of "man, this guy just seems like a scumbag" -- the latter of which is most likely true. When you boil the case down to hard evidence -- evidence that a jury would be able to see and consider, the case probably just doesn't add up to the standard necessary for prosecution.

Hoosier Red
04-12-2010, 02:55 PM
The bar might've had staff involved in the incident -- helping Roethlisberger isolate this particular girl. The video might not have painted the establishment in a good light. Who knows.

What I can tell you is that it's not uncommon for security footage to get taped over, especially at places where they're not used to preserving evidence. Bus companies are notoriously bad for taping over evidence tapes. Places like TJ Maxx and UDF who are routinely the victim of theft offenses are much better about knowing what to do when they catch someone on tape.




CE I appreciate the expertise you have in sorting through these facts.

The tape I have an issue with because if I understand correctly the girl went to the police that night. Wouldn't it be normal for the police to say to the bar "We want everything that could be evidence. Do not touch anything."

It's not like the girl went to the police three nights later and the bar had at that point taped over the night's footage.

bucksfan2
04-12-2010, 03:07 PM
CE quite lawyering on me!!!!!!!

I can't really argue with what you have said. But I bet if CSI got a hold of this one they could turn it around in a day!

Caveat Emperor
04-12-2010, 03:18 PM
CE I appreciate the expertise you have in sorting through these facts.

The tape I have an issue with because if I understand correctly the girl went to the police that night. Wouldn't it be normal for the police to say to the bar "We want everything that could be evidence. Do not touch anything."

It's not like the girl went to the police three nights later and the bar had at that point taped over the night's footage.

Without knowing the facts thoroughly, if the girl made the report to the police that night, I'd expect the police to have contacted the bar within the next few days.

Most police departments lack the resources to send the CSIs out to a scene to collect boxes full of evidence every time someone wanders in reporting a crime. My understanding is that this area is heavily populated by college kids -- which means that the police department probably gets a fair number of intox reports and a decent number of intox-related sex offense allegations / reports. Most of them probably go nowhere. It'd be difficult to send investigators out to the crime scenes immediately on every one of these cases to preserve all of the evidence.

The usual procedure, even in larger jurisdictions, is to assign the case to an investigator and have the investigator do follow up as necessary. Often times it isn't until the second or third witness is interviewed that the investigator begins to suspect that there might be more than your average "nothing to see here" report. That can sometimes be days or weeks after the events in question. It all depends.

When it comes to evidence gathering, the police are often at the mercy of local businesses when it comes to how quickly evidence is brought to their attention. The investigator would have to contact the bar to determine if video recordings were available (and that's assuming that they knew there was recording equipment in place to begin with -- though, I suspect this probably isn't the first time this bar has had an incident) and ask that those recordings be made available. This process is usually informal, as obtaining a search warrant can be time consuming for the officer -- and, in the majority of cases, establishments are cooperative with the police so there is no worry regarding evidence destruction.

And that time period can be crucial with security fotoage. Many places use their security system as an overnight monitor only and a means of keeping an eye on things while the business is open. These places rarely keep video logs (places like a bar usually see no need to keep footage unless they report an incident themselves and usually have no interest in storing tapes that have nothing more than a "routine night" recorded), and often will erase and re-tape on the same day. In these cases, a 24 hour delay would be all that was needed for a crucial piece of evidence to disappear.

I'm just spitballing based on past experience, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

TC81190
04-12-2010, 04:35 PM
That Georgia DA is making himself look like a real idiot in that press conference airing on ESPN, IMO.

Mario-Rijo
04-12-2010, 04:43 PM
Without knowing the facts thoroughly, if the girl made the report to the police that night, I'd expect the police to have contacted the bar within the next few days.

Most police departments lack the resources to send the CSIs out to a scene to collect boxes full of evidence every time someone wanders in reporting a crime. My understanding is that this area is heavily populated by college kids -- which means that the police department probably gets a fair number of intox reports and a decent number of intox-related sex offense allegations / reports. Most of them probably go nowhere. It'd be difficult to send investigators out to the crime scenes immediately on every one of these cases to preserve all of the evidence.

The usual procedure, even in larger jurisdictions, is to assign the case to an investigator and have the investigator do follow up as necessary. Often times it isn't until the second or third witness is interviewed that the investigator begins to suspect that there might be more than your average "nothing to see here" report. That can sometimes be days or weeks after the events in question. It all depends.

When it comes to evidence gathering, the police are often at the mercy of local businesses when it comes to how quickly evidence is brought to their attention. The investigator would have to contact the bar to determine if video recordings were available (and that's assuming that they knew there was recording equipment in place to begin with -- though, I suspect this probably isn't the first time this bar has had an incident) and ask that those recordings be made available. This process is usually informal, as obtaining a search warrant can be time consuming for the officer -- and, in the majority of cases, establishments are cooperative with the police so there is no worry regarding evidence destruction.

And that time period can be crucial with security fotoage. Many places use their security system as an overnight monitor only and a means of keeping an eye on things while the business is open. These places rarely keep video logs (places like a bar usually see no need to keep footage unless they report an incident themselves and usually have no interest in storing tapes that have nothing more than a "routine night" recorded), and often will erase and re-tape on the same day. In these cases, a 24 hour delay would be all that was needed for a crucial piece of evidence to disappear.

I'm just spitballing based on past experience, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

Remember though this isn't your run of the mill accused, this high profile potential defendant should make said department go check that evidence right away. Nothing like high profile public scrutiny to cause a department funds down the road. Embarass the public and/or the people signing those checks and be prepared for a long monetary drought.

dsmith421
04-12-2010, 05:43 PM
I've never been drunk and blamed everyone around me for me getting into trouble.

So if someone gets drunk, and is subsequently raped, they have no cause to blame the rapist for, you know, committing rape.

Interesting.

GIDP
04-12-2010, 06:09 PM
So if someone gets drunk, and is subsequently raped, they have no cause to blame the rapist for, you know, committing rape.

Interesting.

I know you read my whole post because you chose to ignore all of it an pull 1 line out to make your point.

redsfandan
04-12-2010, 06:12 PM
How they handle certain players compared to others.
I think most teams would give a good qb with a big contract a little more rope to hang themselves.

But, there are reports that the Steelers are thinking about disciplining Big Ben.

Multiple Steelers sources indicated today that Steelers President Art Rooney is considering various types of punishment for his quarterback that could include suspension from a game or games in 2010. It's also possible the NFL could take that decision out of Rooney's hands by issuing a suspension under the league's conduct policy.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10102/1049820-66.stm?cmpid=steelers.xml#ixzz0kvVgB4te

I don't know about that. Everything I've seen about the Steelers tells me they are masters of playing the PR game. Santonio Holmes was probably dealt because he was expendable and gives the FO some good PR for getting rid of a "troublemaker" facing a suspension. It takes the heat off them even though they keep guys like Roethlisberger and Harrison on the team. I don't see them getting rid of Roethlisberger until he either picks up a criminal case he can't beat or the Steelers have another QB ready to take over as the starter. Joey Porter had a number of issues, but the Steelers didn't part ways with him until they had someone ready to step in at his spot. Holmes, on the other hand, is a receiver. The Steelers don't seem to value the receiver spot highly to begin with and I suspect they figure they can pick someone up to replace his production either in the draft or on the free agent market.
I'm just saying that if Big Ben does anything else stupid that I wouldn't be surprised if the team decides to go in another direction. I would be surprised if they haven't already thought about it. Alot of the city has already turned on him. The team might not be far behind.

GIDP
04-12-2010, 06:14 PM
Pitt has been using double standards for players for years. Holmes got a bunch of chances, Ben is getting his fair share, Harrison has had a few, Porter had a few. Its just they act like they dont take any crap but basically it depends on who you are and then they prove their points with lesser players.

Yachtzee
04-12-2010, 11:04 PM
Without knowing the facts thoroughly, if the girl made the report to the police that night, I'd expect the police to have contacted the bar within the next few days.

Most police departments lack the resources to send the CSIs out to a scene to collect boxes full of evidence every time someone wanders in reporting a crime. My understanding is that this area is heavily populated by college kids -- which means that the police department probably gets a fair number of intox reports and a decent number of intox-related sex offense allegations / reports. Most of them probably go nowhere. It'd be difficult to send investigators out to the crime scenes immediately on every one of these cases to preserve all of the evidence.

The usual procedure, even in larger jurisdictions, is to assign the case to an investigator and have the investigator do follow up as necessary. Often times it isn't until the second or third witness is interviewed that the investigator begins to suspect that there might be more than your average "nothing to see here" report. That can sometimes be days or weeks after the events in question. It all depends.

When it comes to evidence gathering, the police are often at the mercy of local businesses when it comes to how quickly evidence is brought to their attention. The investigator would have to contact the bar to determine if video recordings were available (and that's assuming that they knew there was recording equipment in place to begin with -- though, I suspect this probably isn't the first time this bar has had an incident) and ask that those recordings be made available. This process is usually informal, as obtaining a search warrant can be time consuming for the officer -- and, in the majority of cases, establishments are cooperative with the police so there is no worry regarding evidence destruction.

And that time period can be crucial with security fotoage. Many places use their security system as an overnight monitor only and a means of keeping an eye on things while the business is open. These places rarely keep video logs (places like a bar usually see no need to keep footage unless they report an incident themselves and usually have no interest in storing tapes that have nothing more than a "routine night" recorded), and often will erase and re-tape on the same day. In these cases, a 24 hour delay would be all that was needed for a crucial piece of evidence to disappear.

I'm just spitballing based on past experience, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

I don't know how they do it in GA, but in my limited experience in prosecutors offices, but in a potential felony case like this, the officers usually call the prosecutor (who is on call 24-7) that night to discuss whether to charge the suspect and arrest him at that time or hold off and gather more evidence. At that point, the prosecutor usually tells the officer to make sure the business owner preserves the tape from the incident because, as you said, these thing regularly get taped over. Being that this involves a rape charge, I would have thought telling the bar owner to keep the tape would be done as a matter of course. This isn't some misdemeanor theft they were dealing with. (Note: I'm basing this off procedure in a city in a three-attorney law department with one full-time prosecutor. Every jurisdiction has their own way of dealing with things, but to me the police and prosecutor seemed rather casual in their handling of this matter).

The other issue regarding the officer, I think it's definitely improper to have the investigating officer involved in a photo session with the suspect beforehand. Were I the prosecutor and only had one officer who could investigate the case, I would have probably considered bringing in law enforcement with concurrent jurisdiction, such as the county sheriff or the state police, just to avoid any appearance of impropriety. There are ways to handle this, just as if this was a case involving a family member of the investigator.

I have no problem with Ben hiring the best lawyer money can buy, and I would make no assumptions based on whether he hired a high-profile guy or a nobody. Everyone has a right to hire the counsel of their choosing. How much they bill an hour has no bearing on whether they're good or not. Of course, I'm a nobody defense attorney. :)

bucksfan2
04-13-2010, 08:29 AM
I was listening to Doug Gotleib last night and found myself in agreement with him. This is in light of the accuser's attorney writing a letter to the DA requesting that charges not be filed. Doug's point was whether or the girl received money to keep quite, if something egregious happened that night and she decided to take a buyout shame on her. If a crime was committed and the girls parents decided to not to press charges shame on them.

WMR
04-13-2010, 01:35 PM
Terry Bradshaw is the happiest man in the world right now. For the first time in his life, he isn't known as the dumbest Steeler QB ever.

Chip R
04-13-2010, 02:18 PM
Terry Bradshaw is the happiest man in the world right now. For the first time in his life, he isn't known as the dumbest Steeler QB ever.


Yeah. He isn't exactly a Ben fan either.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Terry-Bradshaw-spells-it-out-for-Ben-Roethlisber?urn=nfl,233742

Yachtzee
04-13-2010, 02:32 PM
Yeah. He isn't exactly a Ben fan either.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Terry-Bradshaw-spells-it-out-for-Ben-Roethlisber?urn=nfl,233742

Looks like those Steeler team reunions are going to be tense for a few years.

macro
04-13-2010, 03:58 PM
Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger meets with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell as more allegations surface

By Ralph Vacchiano and Nathaniel Vinton
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITERS

Tuesday, April 13th 2010, 3:06 PM

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger could still be in trouble even after his latest charges are dropped Monday.

A day after a Georgia district attorney declined to charge Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger with sexual assault, a Boston attorney came forward to say he had knowledge of another alleged victim with "absolutely identical" allegations.

The new allegations, which would mark the third round of sexual-assault allegations leveled against Roethlisberger, came on the same day that Big Ben traveled to New York to meet with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who has the option of suspending Roethlisberger even in the absence of criminal charges.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2010/04/13/2010-04-13_steelers_qb_ben_roethlisberger_meets_with_nfl_c ommissioner_roger_goodell_as_more.html#ixzz0l0ofOy r8

dsmith421
04-13-2010, 04:20 PM
I know you read my whole post because you chose to ignore all of it an pull 1 line out to make your point.

No, I didn't. Your view on the matter is pretty clear -- if a woman gets blackout drunk she runs the risk of being sexually violated. It's the old "she shouldn't have dressed so provocatively" defense. I disagree, but you're entitled to that opinion.

GIDP
04-13-2010, 04:24 PM
No, I didn't. Your view on the matter is pretty clear -- if a woman gets blackout drunk she runs the risk of being sexually violated. It's the old "she shouldn't have dressed so provocatively" defense. I disagree, but you're entitled to that opinion.

So you didnt read my whole post so what are you commenting on?

pedro
04-13-2010, 04:25 PM
Ben is a scum bag.

dabvu2498
04-13-2010, 04:34 PM
Terry Bradshaw is the happiest man in the world right now. For the first time in his life, he isn't known as the dumbest Steeler QB ever.

Luckily for Bradshaw, his reign in that position ended during the Bubby Brister Era.

Playadlc
04-13-2010, 05:03 PM
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2010/04/13/2010-04-13_steelers_qb_ben_roethlisberger_meets_with_nfl_c ommissioner_roger_goodell_as_more.html#ixzz0l0ofOy r8

This is unbelievable.

Hoosier Red
04-13-2010, 05:22 PM
I'm certainly no Rothelisberger fan, and believe he's scum, but for a lawyer to call into a radio show like this and be treated as credible is insane. If you have a case, take it to court. If the victim doesn't want to go forward, don't go forward. Calling in something like this drags Rothelisberger through the mud in a setting wher it is impossible for him to defend himself.

Dom Heffner
04-13-2010, 07:29 PM
I'm going to make a prediction right now: nothing's going to happen to him.

I read where the Rooney's were saying the next time will be it, which means they aren't going to do anything ever to him.

Sham
04-13-2010, 07:38 PM
If you are stupid enough to drink to a point where you cant handle a simple thing like having sex then some times you reap what you sow. If you consent to getting drunk then you cant really blame anyone other than yourself when something stupid happens to you. I've never been drunk and blamed everyone around me for me getting into trouble. Still there is a sense that people should know where a line is when dealing with some drunk person. Just because they are too stupid to understand stuff happens doesnt mean you are allowed to do stuff to them.

Posts like this are the reason there's a Sun Deck.

Caveat Emperor
04-13-2010, 09:44 PM
I'm going to make a prediction right now: nothing's going to happen to him.

I read where the Rooney's were saying the next time will be it, which means they aren't going to do anything ever to him.

Donte Stallworth admitted that he killed a dude, and he'll be playing football next year. The NFL isn't exactly a haven for the saints of the world. Having said that, I expect the commish to levy some kind of penalty against Roethlisberger. To let him off entirely would have people wondering openly if there is a double-standard for punishment depending on the position you play and, quite possibly, the color of your skin.

I suspect Roger wants to head any such talk off immediately.

redsfandan
04-13-2010, 10:17 PM
I'm going to make a prediction right now: nothing's going to happen to him.

I read where the Rooney's were saying the next time will be it, which means they aren't going to do anything ever to him.
We'll see. I'm betting that either the league or the Steelers will levy some kind of penalty. Only time will tell though.

Chip R
04-13-2010, 10:25 PM
We'll see. I'm betting that either the league or the Steelers will levy some kind of penalty. Only time will tell though.

Laps. Lots of laps.

redsfandan
04-13-2010, 10:28 PM
Laps. Lots of laps.
Lol. Lots of pushups and situps too huh. We'll see.

GIDP
04-13-2010, 10:40 PM
Posts like this are the reason there's a Sun Deck.

Irony.

paintmered
04-13-2010, 10:49 PM
Irony.

Take it private.

Chip R
04-13-2010, 10:52 PM
Lol. Lots of pushups and situps too huh. We'll see.

Also, Artie Rooney will shake his bony finger in Ben's face and warn him not to ever do it again or else.

redsfandan
04-13-2010, 11:01 PM
Maybe they'll make Ben be the teams lone cheerleader for a couple games. Football with no cheerleaders, ... it's just odd.

Yachtzee
04-14-2010, 12:08 AM
Donte Stallworth admitted that he killed a dude, and he'll be playing football next year. The NFL isn't exactly a haven for the saints of the world. Having said that, I expect the commish to levy some kind of penalty against Roethlisberger. To let him off entirely would have people wondering openly if there is a double-standard for punishment depending on the position you play and, quite possibly, the color of your skin.


Or the color of your jersey.

westofyou
04-14-2010, 09:51 AM
http://www.timesonline.com/sports/sports_details/article/1424/2010/april/12/madden-monday-some-owe-big-ben-apology.html


Not too long ago, rumor had it, the Steelers had a quarterback who liked men. You weren't real comfortable with that.

The current Steelers quarterback likes women. You don't like that, either. Make up your mind.

GIDP
04-14-2010, 09:54 AM
http://www.timesonline.com/sports/sports_details/article/1424/2010/april/12/madden-monday-some-owe-big-ben-apology.html

Type of reporters like this are so awesome at their job.