Brett Favre's Cellphone Seduction Of Jenn Sterger

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Chip R

I see where you are coming from and you have a valid point. I'm sure that's the way it used to be. Individual clubs meted out discipline how they saw fit. But the NFL isn't a Mom and Pop business like it used to be. But, while you may not care about perception, you would be in the minority. As much as people admire these athletes, they also want to see them punished for their misdeeds like any other person would be. Of course the legal system is there to punish athletes but we all know that no matter how guilty they are, they often buy their way out of a conviction. So the American sporting fan wants someone to punish them and perhaps it's fairest if the actual entity running things is the one who lays the law down rather than the individual clubs.

Interestingly though, wouldn't you agree that peoples' desires to see athletes punished usually are based on what team they play for? It's a funny thing: teams they root for or like, fans will do a lot to justify not deserving much of a punishment (if any). Teams they hate... amazingly their judgment is suddenly of a very high moral fiber.

I think if allegiance were stripped from the equation entirely, which I suppose is next to impossible, that most people would be rather indifferent on punishment. It seems it's when likes or dislikes come into play is when people suddenly start caring.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

As a member of the media, once they receive this lead isn't it their journalistic responsibility to inform the public and report on it?

Shouldn't the story actually have to be newsworthy?

[The Operator]

The fact that Sterger never reported this doesn't mean it was mutual to me. There are battered wives all over the place who don't want their husbands to be turned in, doesn't mean the beatings were mutual though. And sexual harrassment happens all the time in workplaces but goes unreported.

If it was mutual, I don't think she would have thrown the phone when he sent her the body part pictures. If it was mutual, I don't think she would have said "I'd end up in a river" about being with someone like him.

The tone of his voice on the voicemail after the "river" comment says it all to me. He was preying on her.

She probably didn't go forward because she didn't want to be "that woman" who blows the whistle on the big athlete. Happens plenty. She probably didn't want her name associated with it at all, if she could get it to blow over. And since it did, for the most part, that's why she probably didn't want deadspin to run the story 2 years later.

[reds44]

Originally Posted by The Operator

The fact that Sterger never reported this doesn't mean it was mutual to me. There are battered wives all over the place who don't want their husbands to be turned in, doesn't mean the beatings were mutual though.

If it was mutual, I don't think she would have thrown the phone when he sent her the body part pictures. If it was mutual, I don't think she would have said "I'd end up in a river" about being with someone like him.

The tone of his voice on the voicemail after the "river" comment says it all to me. He was preying on her.

She probably didn't go forward because she didn't want to be "that woman" who blows the whistle on the big athlete. Happens plenty. She probably didn't want her name associated with it at all, if she could get it to blow over. And since it did, for the most part, that's why she probably didn't want deadspin to run the story 2 years later.

Again, if he was creeping on her I have no problem with going after him.

[The Operator]

Originally Posted by reds44

Again, if he was creeping on her I have no problem with going after him.

I know. And if he wasn't, I agree with those of you who are in objection.

I just like to provide a different perspective some times.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by The Operator

The fact that Sterger never reported this doesn't mean it was mutual to me. There are battered wives all over the place who don't want their husbands to be turned in, doesn't mean the beatings were mutual though. And sexual harrassment happens all the time in workplaces but goes unreported.

If it was mutual, I don't think she would have thrown the phone when he sent her the body part pictures. If it was mutual, I don't think she would have said "I'd end up in a river" about being with someone like him.

The tone of his voice on the voicemail after the "river" comment says it all to me. He was preying on her.

She probably didn't go forward because she didn't want to be "that woman" who blows the whistle on the big athlete. Happens plenty. She probably didn't want her name associated with it at all, if she could get it to blow over. And since it did, for the most part, that's why she probably didn't want deadspin to run the story 2 years later.

I think we both agree it's still inconclusive, and I think anyone could take what they wanted out of what we're given. I still wouldn't change my view, even if he did this unsolicited, only because of the stance I have on letting the teams decide but most certainly my opinion of him will change somewhat if he did that completely against her wishes.

What I worry about, though, is if the NFL investigates this, as they clearly will, even if they find it to be somewhat consensual, they're not just going to drop everything and leave it alone. And that's still a problem I have with the whole thing.

I still come back to the issue of payment. That someone was looking to make money off the story is making me highly skeptical. They say it's not her, but clearly she consented to allowing this information to be shared and had to hand it over to someone, to thereby make money off it. Just doesn't pass the smell test.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

First, actually that still couldn't happen because marijuana would still be dinged on a drug test.

Second, yeah, I could really see an NFL team using that as a selling point. Come on... that's a real stretch.

Of course it's a stretch. Nobody's going to come out with a marketing brochure emphasizing weed. But players would know who's going to allow them their vices and who wouldn't.

And who said the league would still be doing drug testing for marijuana? Your argument is that the teams should take back the functions that normally accrue to the individual business, and the league should keep out of it unless it's an essential matter. If it's the team's business whether to suspend someone for being caught with a non-performance-enhancing drug, it stands to reason that testing for it -- or not -- is also rightly a team matter.

Of course, in real life they can't get away with that, which is why they sign over policy-making to the league office and hide behind the shield.

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by jojo

Shouldn't the story actually have to be newsworthy?

This is a quite noteworthy story to Deadspin's readership (hence all of the controversy)...

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

Of course it's a stretch. Nobody's going to come out with a marketing brochure emphasizing weed. But players would know who's going to allow them their vices and who wouldn't.

And who said the league would still be doing drug testing for marijuana? Your argument is that the teams should take back the functions that normally accrue to the individual business, and the league should keep out of it unless it's an essential matter. If it's the team's business whether to suspend someone for being caught with a non-performance-enhancing drug, it stands to reason that testing for it -- or not -- is also rightly a team matter.

Of course, in real life they can't get away with that, which is why they sign over policy-making to the league office and hide behind the shield.

But what's the point in investigating something that the courts can decide? If you have a no-drug policy, why not let the court systems determine whether in fact the drugs were taken. If a player is caught with drug possession, and he's found guilty, then fine, enforce the policy as if he tested positive. There's no reason to "investigate" something that the legal system is already doing. I am saying this as an addition to the drug testing. But between the testing and being caught as a civilian, I see no reason to 'investigate' something with those things in place.

I never said I was opposed to testing for drugs. In fact, quite the opposite, I think I've stated very clearly if a team (or an employer) wants to do that, by all means do it. But that's what the testing is in place for, so there's no reason to care whether or not one team isn't as worried about it as another.

[RedsBaron]

What was it, about three years ago that Favre was SI's "Sportsman of the Year," the beloved Green Bay Packer in his probable final season, having a terrific year and appearing to be on the verge of leading the Packers back to the Super Bowl?
Since then Favre looked terrible and very, very old in Green Bay's NFC title game defeat to the Giants. He then proceeded to burn all of his ties to Green Bay and make his indecision regarding retirement into a bit of a national joke. He left the Jets in a less than glorious way. He did have a great regular season with the Vikings in 2009 before badly faltering at the end of the NFC title game against the Saints.
Now this scandal. There understandably is a debate about how newsworthy the Favre-Sterger mater is. What is beyond debate is that Favre's image will never return to what it was three years ago, nor will anyone watch his commercials in quite the same way after this.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

This is a quite noteworthy story to Deadspin's readership (hence all of the controversy)...

Deadspin is seriously news? And they had and obligation to report this story? C'mon.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by jojo

Deadspin is seriously news? And they had and obligation to report this story? C'mon.

Good point, and I've had a bit of an issue with that aspect. Deadspin wants to be humor, satire and the lighter side of the news - poking fun of it - but then wants to turn around and suddenly be seen as a credible reporting organization.

It seems hard to accept both.

[*BaseClogger*]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Good point, and I've had a bit of an issue with that aspect. Deadspin wants to be humor, satire and the lighter side of the news - poking fun of it - but then wants to turn around and suddenly be seen as a credible reporting organization.

It seems hard to accept both.

Change is difficult, but we'll get through it!

[bucksfan2]

I watched the Deadspin video about the alleged cell phone seduction. If that truly was Brett Favre then they guy really disappointed me. I mean come on he is Brett Freakin Favre, he should have more game than that. But I digress.

What I am trying to figure out is if what he did was against the law. The messages weren't against the law. They may have been sad, depressing, and sorry, but they were not illegal. The issue comes down to the text or sext if you wish. It is my understanding that any adult can take a picture of themselves naked and that is not illegal. Any adult can text that picture to another adult as long as the other adult willingly accepts that text. So I guess the legality of the whole episode hinges on whether or not Jenn Steger and Brett had a relationship or not. To me it comes down to a he says she says story. And since it happened 3 years ago I see much ado about nothing.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Interestingly though, wouldn't you agree that peoples' desires to see athletes punished usually are based on what team they play for? It's a funny thing: teams they root for or like, fans will do a lot to justify not deserving much of a punishment (if any). Teams they hate... amazingly their judgment is suddenly of a very high moral fiber.

Oh, definitely. If we were Cardinals fans, we'd want to see Cueto suspended for life.

I think if allegiance were stripped from the equation entirely, which I suppose is next to impossible, that most people would be rather indifferent on punishment. It seems it's when likes or dislikes come into play is when people suddenly start caring.[/QUOTE]

And that's a problem but, like you said, it's nearly impossible to remove an agenda from one's opinion. But, regardless of affiliation, I do think people like to see someone important being taken down for a misdeed. I suppose it makes them more human.