Brett Favre's Cellphone Seduction Of Jenn Sterger

[Razor Shines]

I'm really not sure what to say about this one. Deadspin has the story.


In the video here (parts of which are NSFW due to penis photos), you'll see and hear all the strange messages Jenn Sterger received from someone she was led to believe was Brett Favre.

This is the evidence she told us about last February. Sadly, Jenn is still reluctant to talk on the record about the matter. Everything shown in the above video was acquired from a third party.

http://deadspin.com/5658206/brett-favres-cellphone-seduction-of-jenn-sterger

[Yachtzee]

Jenn Who?

[Joseph]

She's one of those trampy FSU gals from a few years back. 'Famous' for nothing.

I don't care if it is Favre, I've had enough off field celebrity 'news' and gossip.

[reds44]

Deadspin has gone from a pretty entertaining website to just trash. The fact they actually published those pictures is an absolute joke, and that's coming from somebody who hates Favre.

Btw Jenn Sterger is amazingly fine.

[New York Red]

Btw Jenn Sterger is amazingly fine.
I've seen a lot of negative things said about her since this news broke, but she looks pretty darn good to me!

[Playadlc]

The one thing hearing those voice mails does is just make it so ridiculously obvious that star athletes can just call random hot chicks and get whatever they want.

He's not even offering her anything. It's not like he's giving her an interview and seducing her, or anything like that. He's just like "hey practice is over, I'm chillin', come hang out, here's my stuff" and he seems perplexed that it didn't work because it's worked the previous 100 times he tried.

[savafan]

Is this why Brett doesn't like to be around his family? ;)

[savafan]

She's one of those trampy FSU gals from a few years back. 'Famous' for nothing.

I don't care if it is Favre, I've had enough off field celebrity 'news' and gossip.

She's famous for getting herself on TV while in the stands during an FSU game.

[Kingspoint]

She's one of those trampy FSU gals from a few years back. 'Famous' for nothing.

I don't care if it is Favre, I've had enough off field celebrity 'news' and gossip.

Hear! Hear!

[Cedric]

The media makes me sick.. But I guess they can only get into the private lives of athletes because fans are interested.

I couldn't care less what Brett Favre or any other player does in his spare time.

[Chip R]

The media makes me sick.. But I guess they can only get into the private lives of athletes because fans are interested.

I couldn't care less what Brett Favre or any other player does in his spare time.

What I'm puzzled about is that the NFL is investigating this. I'm no Favre fan but unless he did something illegal or this was something like sexual harassment, what business is this of the NFL's?

[Razor Shines]

What I'm puzzled about is that the NFL is investigating this. I'm no Favre fan but unless he did something illegal or this was something like sexual harassment, what business is this of the NFL's?

Well they both worked for the Jets at the time, I believe. If you started texting penis pics to a woman you worked with it would probably be considered sexual harassment.

Like someone else said, the thing that caught me about this story was the messages. He just assumed that sending a penis pic and asking her to hang out was going to work, and was confused as to why it wasn't working.

[LoganBuck]

Well you know Brett used to have a girlfriend that people thought was hot, and men did all sorts of crazy things to be with her. One guy even made up a story about something Favre, supposedly said about that girlfriend's brother, Warren.

[*BaseClogger*]

The media makes me sick.. But I guess they can only get into the private lives of athletes because fans are interested.

I couldn't care less what Brett Favre or any other player does in his spare time.

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?

[*BaseClogger*]

Deadspin has gone from a pretty entertaining website to just trash.

How is this different than anything they would have done in the past?

[RiverRat13]

I really thought it sounded like someone doing a bad Favre impersonation rather than Brett himself on those voicemails. I wouldn't put money on it, though.

[*BaseClogger*]

I really thought it sounded like someone doing a bad Favre impersonation rather than Brett himself on those voicemails. I wouldn't put money on it, though.

Wouldn't he have vehemently denied these allegations by now if this theory is true?

[Brutus]

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?

It's also their responsibility to use discretion on what should and shouldn't be reported. Unless Favre is being accused of harassment and/or sexual assault of some kind, which has not been alleged in any capacity that I'm aware of, this isn't news and it most certainly shouldn't be any basis for investigation by the NFL. The league and everyone else needs to keep their noses out of where it doesn't belong.

Sexual habits of athletes should be off-limits. We don't really have the right to know what they do behind closed doors.

I don't care if Favre talks dirty, Grady Sizemore sends nude sexting pics to his girlfriend or Tiger Woods makes porn tapes. That's between them, their partners, and if applicable, their spouses.

[RiverRat13]

s Favre is being accused of harassment and/or sexual assault of some kind, which has not been alleged in any capacity that I'm aware of, this isn't news and it most certainly shouldn't be any basis for investigation by the NFL.


I would guess sending pictures of your "self" to someone could be construed as sexual harassment. I don't see how that would be any different than exposing yourself to someone in person.

[Brutus]

I would guess sending pictures of your "self" to someone could be construed as sexual harassment. I don't see how that would be any different than exposing yourself to someone in person.

Assuming it were completely unprovoked, I don't disagree. But we're missing a lot of context with that, and it's not been mentioned whether there was previous dialog.

[*BaseClogger*]

It's also their responsibility to use discretion on what should and shouldn't be reported. Unless Favre is being accused of harassment and/or sexual assault of some kind, which has not been alleged in any capacity that I'm aware of, this isn't news and it most certainly shouldn't be any basis for investigation by the NFL. The league and everyone else needs to keep their noses out of where it doesn't belong.

Sexual habits of athletes should be off-limits. We don't really have the right to know what they do behind closed doors.

I don't care if Favre talks dirty, Grady Sizemore sends nude sexting pics to his girlfriend or Tiger Woods makes porn tapes. That's between them, their partners, and if applicable, their spouses.

Do you feel the same way about politicians?

[Brutus]

Do you feel the same way about politicians?

I actually do, though I think elected representatives of the people and athletes are two separate things. The politicians represent us. Athletes don't owe us anything.

But while I don't condone marital infidelity, it's unfortunately rampant in our society. And though I do hold the ideal that elected officials should uphold strict moral standards, I put them in office for many other reasons than their sexual habits.

[*BaseClogger*]

I actually do, though I think elected representatives of the people and athletes are two separate things. The politicians represent us. Athletes don't owe us anything.

I actually agree with you, but this is where many would play the "think of the children" card as far as athletes being role models...

[Sea Ray]

I would guess sending pictures of your "self" to someone could be construed as sexual harassment. I don't see how that would be any different than exposing yourself to someone in person.

In and of itself, it's not. Did she ask him not to? Does he have a position of power over her? Absent these things, I don't think it is harrassment. She can block his number to her cellphone is she wants.

If he'd retired like he should have, would you still think it was harrassment?

[Chip R]

The Deadspin editor on the story says it's possible that whoever sent the texts and voice mails may not have been Favre.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5670800

[cincrazy]

Whether this story is true or not, Bretty Favre has been, and always will be, a dirtbag.

Then again, that's the case for 99% of professional athletes. They have a sense of entitlement that most normal people just simply don't have.

[reds1869]

Whether this story is true or not, Bretty Favre has been, and always will be, a dirtbag.

Then again, that's the case for 99% of professional athletes. They have a sense of entitlement that most normal people just simply don't have.

You've clearly never visited the local shopping malls. ;)

[Chip R]

Whether this story is true or not, Bretty Favre has been, and always will be, a dirtbag.

Then again, that's the case for 99% of professional athletes. They have a sense of entitlement that most normal people just simply don't have.

I'm not a Favre fan because of the way he's handled this retirement/non-retirement issue but aside from this, what has he done to be a dirtbag? Unlike many of his brethren - and many of the Bengals - he's never been arrested. He plays hard and plays every game. He's a Super Bowl champion and he's personable enough.

[Cedric]

I'm not a Favre fan because of the way he's handled this retirement/non-retirement issue but aside from this, what has he done to be a dirtbag? Unlike many of his brethren - and many of the Bengals - he's never been arrested. He plays hard and plays every game. He's a Super Bowl champion and he's personable enough.

I think that is the problem Chip.

Fans like players who give canned responses and "say the right thing."

Favre says what he thinks and gets burned for it later when he changes his mind.

[Chip R]

I think that is the problem Chip.

Fans like players who give canned responses and "say the right thing."

Favre says what he thinks and gets burned for it later when he changes his mind.

And just because of that he's scum? It's quite possible he's sincere. After a season of getting banged up he may want to retire. Then, when the summer comes along, he's healed up and misses his teammates and the spotlight and wants to come back.

[edabbs44]

It's also their responsibility to use discretion on what should and shouldn't be reported. Unless Favre is being accused of harassment and/or sexual assault of some kind, which has not been alleged in any capacity that I'm aware of, this isn't news and it most certainly shouldn't be any basis for investigation by the NFL. The league and everyone else needs to keep their noses out of where it doesn't belong.

Sexual habits of athletes should be off-limits. We don't really have the right to know what they do behind closed doors.

I don't care if Favre talks dirty, Grady Sizemore sends nude sexting pics to his girlfriend or Tiger Woods makes porn tapes. That's between them, their partners, and if applicable, their spouses.

There is a difference between what people are doing with their spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends/other consenting adults and what people are doing that happens to cross the line. Unsolicited photos of your stuff to a reporter is kind of over the line.

Of the things you mentioned, did MLB do anything about Grady? PGA with Tiger? How about Oden and the NBA? No, because it was stupid stuff that wasn't really anyone else's business. But when a player starts to look like a predator, yeah, they're gonna get involved.

[Sea Ray]

The Deadspin editor on the story says it's possible that whoever sent the texts and voice mails may not have been Favre.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5670800

Yes, it is possible but if that's the case why didn't Favre just say it wasn't him and end it? Instead he's evaded the whole thing

[edabbs44]

Yes, it is possible but if that's the case why didn't Favre just say it wasn't him and end it? Instead he's evaded the whole thing

The editor has to say that b/c he has no concrete proof that it is him.

[edabbs44]

I'm not a Favre fan because of the way he's handled this retirement/non-retirement issue but aside from this, what has he done to be a dirtbag? Unlike many of his brethren - and many of the Bengals - he's never been arrested. He plays hard and plays every game. He's a Super Bowl champion and he's personable enough.

He does have a history of cheating on his wife, I believe.

[cincrazy]

I'm not a Favre fan because of the way he's handled this retirement/non-retirement issue but aside from this, what has he done to be a dirtbag? Unlike many of his brethren - and many of the Bengals - he's never been arrested. He plays hard and plays every game. He's a Super Bowl champion and he's personable enough.

He's cheated on his wife numerous times over the years. Over and over and over and over. The guy is selfish, he's all about Brett. Always has been, always will be. Time doesn't change that.

[Brutus]

There is a difference between what people are doing with their spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends/other consenting adults and what people are doing that happens to cross the line. Unsolicited photos of your stuff to a reporter is kind of over the line.

Of the things you mentioned, did MLB do anything about Grady? PGA with Tiger? How about Oden and the NBA? No, because it was stupid stuff that wasn't really anyone else's business. But when a player starts to look like a predator, yeah, they're gonna get involved.

I think I made it pretty clear, though, that we have absolutely no evidence (or even an allegation) this was unsolicited.

[Brutus]

He's cheated on his wife numerous times over the years. Over and over and over and over. The guy is selfish, he's all about Brett. Always has been, always will be. Time doesn't change that.

You just described nearly half the male, married population.

[Brutus]

Whether this story is true or not, Bretty Favre has been, and always will be, a dirtbag.

Then again, that's the case for 99% of professional athletes. They have a sense of entitlement that most normal people just simply don't have.

I 100% vehemently disagree with this. Our whole society has a sense of entitlement.

You know how many people abuse unemployment? You know how many people think they have a right to hold their job, even though their employer, short of a specified employment contract, could can them at any time. There is probably an endless list of examples of the type of entitlement people show in everyday life.

Athletes are no different than us. They just get more money and more attention.

[edabbs44]

I think I made it pretty clear, though, that we have absolutely no evidence (or even an allegation) this was unsolicited.

OK...does this do enough?


Sterger claimed she spurned Favre's advances because he was married, but also because she was working for the Jets at the time she didn't think it was the best idea to start a torrid affair with the team's highest profile player (the Jets have not responded to a question about any knowledge of the Favre/Sterger saga at this time). Plus, if she went forward with how aggressive he was and how skeeved out she was to some of her superiors, she suspected she might lose her job. The interactions were flirty and strange but she didn't think there wasn't anything that made her too uncomfortable. But then, one night, Sterger received a picture on her phone which was so shocking that she just tossed it across the room.

http://deadspin.com/5603701/brett-favre-once-sent-me-cock-shots-not-a-love-story

Hit the link and read the 4th paragraph down. I stopped there since it gets a little more descriptive.

[cincrazy]

You just described nearly half the male, married population.

Look, I'm not going to get into a morality argument on an internet message board, that's a mine field, and I'm not looking to start an epic brawl around here. I was just stating an opinion. Take it or leave it.

[Brutus]

OK...does this do enough?



http://deadspin.com/5603701/brett-favre-once-sent-me-cock-shots-not-a-love-story

Hit the link and read the 4th paragraph down. I stopped there since it gets a little more descriptive.

Fair enough. But consider that's just one side of the story.

A lot of people have been known to do things with full willingness then later said it was without their cooperation.

[edabbs44]

Fair enough. But consider that's just one side of the story.

A lot of people have been known to do things with full willingness then later said it was without their cooperation.

Absolutely. But at least this gives a legitimate reason for the NFL to look into the matter.

[Brutus]

Look, I'm not going to get into a morality argument on an internet message board, that's a mine field, and I'm not looking to start an epic brawl around here. I was just stating an opinion. Take it or leave it.

That it's an internet message board is the exact reason why I should be able to respond to a fairly specific character assassination of an athlete, especially when you could say the same about millions of married adults in this country. If cheating makes you selfish, unfortunately our country is quite selfish.

It doesn't have to be an "epic brawl" as you put it. You can state an opinion, I can respectfully disagree and state why I think that opinion is a little overboard, and you're free to back it up.

[Brutus]

Absolutely. But at least this gives a legitimate reason for the NFL to look into the matter.

But when have you known the NFL to look into something and determine it's none of their business if the facts don't warrant it? The NFL is acting like the gestapo lately with off-the-field issues, and frankly it feels a bit extreme.

I don't know about you, but I don't care what athletes do off the field. If they do something illegal, they'll be punished by the courts. If they do something immoral within their marriage, it's between them and their spouses.

I just don't see what business it is of the NFL. And mind you, I have no problem with the teams, their employers, firing them or fining them for some of their actions, as that's something an employer might do if we did something. But the league itself should't need to come in and become the moral police.

I root for athletes because of their talent, not because of their character. If they do something wrong, I trust they'll punished in the only court that really matters: the court of law, rather than the court of public opinion. I know the NFL is trying to keep its 'image' from being tarnished, but Roger Gooddell's witch hunt of all things immorality in his league is doing more to tarnish things for me personally than his athletes are.

[edabbs44]

But when have you known the NFL to look into something and determine it's none of their business if the facts don't warrant it? The NFL is acting like the gestapo lately with off-the-field issues, and frankly it feels a bit extreme.

I don't know about you, but I don't care what athletes do off the field. If they do something illegal, they'll be punished by the courts. If they do something immoral within their marriage, it's between them and their spouses.

I just don't see what business it is of the NFL. And mind you, I have no problem with the teams, their employers, firing them or fining them for some of their actions, as that's something an employer might do if we did something. But the league itself should't need to come in and become the moral police.

I root for athletes because of their talent, not because of their character. If they do something wrong, I trust they'll punished in the only court that really matters: the court of law, rather than the court of public opinion. I know the NFL is trying to keep its 'image' from being tarnished, but Roger Gooddell's witch hunt of all things immorality in his league is doing more to tarnish things for me personally than his athletes are.

There are plenty of employers who take certain things into account, especially those things that harm the reputation of your franchise's brand. If Favre worked for Apple and this story made its way around the world identifying him as an Apple executive, do you think they'd sit there and do nothing? Or do you think that HR, Legal, PR and Senior Management would be heavily involved?

[Brutus]

There are plenty of employers who take certain things into account, especially those things that harm the reputation of your franchise's brand. If Favre worked for Apple and this story made its way around the world identifying him as an Apple executive, do you think they'd sit there and do nothing? Or do you think that HR, Legal, PR and Senior Management would be heavily involved?

But I do reiterate, the teams, the ones that actually write the contracts out, have every right to look it over. I'm completely fine with that.

The NFL is just the organization to oversee fair operations between the clubs themselves. Personnel issues should be above their pay grade. The franchises I've been involved with have never stepped into personnel issues. The ones within the actual company, on the franchisee level, are the ones that handle those matters. The franchise, the higher corporation, just manages the systems and making sure the overall operation is up to snuff.

If the clubs want to look into player misconduct, I'm fine with that. The league, in my opinion, is overstepping their boundaries.

[edabbs44]

But I do reiterate, the teams, the ones that actually write the contracts out, have every right to look it over. I'm completely fine with that.

The NFL is just the organization to oversee fair operations between the clubs themselves. Personnel issues should be above their pay grade. The franchises I've been involved with have never stepped into personnel issues. The ones within the actual company, on the franchisee level, are the ones that handle those matters. The franchise, the higher corporation, just manages the systems and making sure the overall operation is up to snuff.

If the clubs want to look into player misconduct, I'm fine with that. The league, in my opinion, is overstepping their boundaries.

I don't agree with that. The NFL has to pay attention to its franchises, they do not just oversee fair operations. Reputational harm to one team hurts them all, and therefore the NFL's brand.

Going back to my example, what do you think Apple's reaction would be to that? Because the NFL's size and magnitude is on par with Apple. I don't know the size of the franchises you have been involved with, but players like the NFL value their brand as much as anything else.

[Chip R]

There are plenty of employers who take certain things into account, especially those things that harm the reputation of your franchise's brand. If Favre worked for Apple and this story made its way around the world identifying him as an Apple executive, do you think they'd sit there and do nothing? Or do you think that HR, Legal, PR and Senior Management would be heavily involved?

The difference is that if this happened to an Apple executive who wasn't Steve Jobs, no one - except some Apple stockholders, employees and board members - would care. The Better Business Bureau or the NYSE or the SEC wouldn't bother to look into it. It's certainly no worse than what happened with companies like Enron. If Apple VP of whatever Brett Favre did this, it wouldn't stop Joe Schmoe from buying a computer made by Apple. The national media wouldn't care. It would be an internal matter. If Brett Favre was a great VP for Apple, they would find a way to keep him because he's that good.

As for harming the franchise value, how do Brett Favre's affair(s) harm a franchise's values any more than someone who is arrested for drunk driving or drug use or domestic violence? Sure, some people will be turned off but after some time, it will pass. People root for laundry.

[edabbs44]

The difference is that if this happened to an Apple executive who wasn't Steve Jobs, no one - except some Apple stockholders, employees and board members - would care. The Better Business Bureau or the NYSE or the SEC wouldn't bother to look into it. It's certainly no worse than what happened with companies like Enron. If Apple VP of whatever Brett Favre did this, it wouldn't stop Joe Schmoe from buying a computer made by Apple. The national media wouldn't care. It would be an internal matter. If Brett Favre was a great VP for Apple, they would find a way to keep him because he's that good.

The BBB, NYSE and SEC are not the NFL in this case. The NFL is Apple. If someone is harming their name, franchise and brand, you bet the home office is going to get involved.

But you are right, it probably wouldn't stop Joe Schmoe from buying one computer. But negative publicity doesn't help businesses like these. If Apple (or HP or Dell or whoever) has a rash of bad stories in the press, do you think that may affect the decision making ability of some school systems from buying hundreds of computers? Or government agencies?


As for harming the franchise value, how do Brett Favre's affair(s) harm a franchise's values any more than someone who is arrested for drunk driving or drug use or domestic violence? Sure, some people will be turned off but after some time, it will pass. People root for laundry.

I'm not talking about his affairs, I'm talking about him crossing into Predatorville.

[IslandRed]

The league, in my opinion, is overstepping their boundaries.

If this is something you consider overstepping, then they've been overstepping for 50 years on all sorts of matters. But ultimately, the NFL is the clubs. The commissioner and central office have the power the clubs have consented to give them. In instances like this, I'd argue the clubs prefer to let the league formulate policy, because (1) it saves them the trouble, (2) they don't have to justify decisions and (3) they don't risk looking bad relative to other clubs.

[Brutus]

If this is something you consider overstepping, then they've been overstepping for 50 years on all sorts of matters. But ultimately, the NFL is the clubs. The commissioner and central office have the power the clubs have consented to give them. In instances like this, I'd argue the clubs prefer to let the league formulate policy, because (1) it saves them the trouble, (2) they don't have to justify decisions and (3) they don't risk looking bad relative to other clubs.

Well, I would argue that since the day Gooddell has stepped in for Tagliabue, he has been arranging meetings with seemingly every single bad egg in the league. It's almost monthly he's chasing after yet another off-field incident to 'punish' under the detrimental conduct policy. Just feels like it's obsessive.

When another Bengals player gets into trouble, people don't go "oh look, that NFL is crooked." They tend to say, "oh, another Bengals player arrested. Surprise."

I think it should be up to the teams to self-police their image. Employers have the right, within limits (and within the CBA) to decide what's fine and not fine for their organization. If the Vikings don't care that Brett Favre may or may not be another sex addict, the NFL should have no business deciding what's best for the team.

I do agree that unfortunately the clubs have granted the league some of these powers, but I think they'll start to regret it. I personally already think it's going too far.

[WVRed]

Well, I would argue that since the day Gooddell has stepped in for Tagliabue, he has been arranging meetings with seemingly every single bad egg in the league. It's almost monthly he's chasing after yet another off-field incident to 'punish' under the detrimental conduct policy. Just feels like it's obsessive.

When another Bengals player gets into trouble, people don't go "oh look, that NFL is crooked." They tend to say, "oh, another Bengals player arrested. Surprise."

I think it should be up to the teams to self-police their image. Employers have the right, within limits (and within the CBA) to decide what's fine and not fine for their organization. If the Vikings don't care that Brett Favre may or may not be another sex addict, the NFL should have no business deciding what's best for the team.

I do agree that unfortunately the clubs have granted the league some of these powers, but I think they'll start to regret it. I personally already think it's going too far.

From South Park:

YouTube - My Movie.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJxaWLNRz-k)

[Brutus]

From South Park:

YouTube - My Movie.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJxaWLNRz-k)

Anytime you can provide a gratuitous South Park reference to aid a discussion, you earn bonus points.

Well done :D

[Chip R]

I think it should be up to the teams to self-police their image. Employers have the right, within limits (and within the CBA) to decide what's fine and not fine for their organization. If the Vikings don't care that Brett Favre may or may not be another sex addict, the NFL should have no business deciding what's best for the team.

I do agree that unfortunately the clubs have granted the league some of these powers, but I think they'll start to regret it. I personally already think it's going too far.

I understand why the NFL does it like this. If you left it to the clubs to police themselves, discipline would be inconsistent from one club to the next. Left to their own devices, the Steelers may not have disciplined Rothlisberger at all for his incident in Georgia. A lesser player may have been suspended. With the NFL handling discipline problems, it eliminates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Bias may still be there but there is less of a chance for a conflict of interest than there would be if things were handled by the individual clubs.

I'm all for the NFL investigating things like domestic violence or drug use or other illegal things. But I don't believe that this is something the NFL should be investigating.

[The Operator]

I'm not talking about his affairs, I'm talking about him crossing into Predatorville.

That's the thing that creeps me out. I certainly don't like to see any man be unfaithful to his spouse, but it does happen, a lot, and there's not much any of us can do about that.

But this, this looks like a guy who expects to get whomever he wants and has a real problem taking "no" for an answer from women he feels should submit to him. And it's very clear to me that this was unprovoked, I mean... he wouldn't be sounding so desperate in those voicemails if this wasn't all unprovoked.

[edabbs44]

Well, I would argue that since the day Gooddell has stepped in for Tagliabue, he has been arranging meetings with seemingly every single bad egg in the league. It's almost monthly he's chasing after yet another off-field incident to 'punish' under the detrimental conduct policy. Just feels like it's obsessive.

When another Bengals player gets into trouble, people don't go "oh look, that NFL is crooked." They tend to say, "oh, another Bengals player arrested. Surprise."

I think it should be up to the teams to self-police their image. Employers have the right, within limits (and within the CBA) to decide what's fine and not fine for their organization. If the Vikings don't care that Brett Favre may or may not be another sex addict, the NFL should have no business deciding what's best for the team.

I do agree that unfortunately the clubs have granted the league some of these powers, but I think they'll start to regret it. I personally already think it's going too far.

Times are a-changing in this world. Technology has made advances since Tags was in office, and it also seems like players have upped the bar in the behavior department.

[edabbs44]

I understand why the NFL does it like this. If you left it to the clubs to police themselves, discipline would be inconsistent from one club to the next. Left to their own devices, the Steelers may not have disciplined Rothlisberger at all for his incident in Georgia. A lesser player may have been suspended. With the NFL handling discipline problems, it eliminates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Bias may still be there but there is less of a chance for a conflict of interest than there would be if things were handled by the individual clubs.

I'm all for the NFL investigating things like domestic violence or drug use or other illegal things. But I don't believe that this is something the NFL should be investigating.

Favre has made the move from cheater to predator. Next stage is sexual assault. The NFL does not want that kind of black eye, especially with a marquee name.

[TC81190]

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?
Uh, no?

[Brutus]

I understand why the NFL does it like this. If you left it to the clubs to police themselves, discipline would be inconsistent from one club to the next. Left to their own devices, the Steelers may not have disciplined Rothlisberger at all for his incident in Georgia. A lesser player may have been suspended. With the NFL handling discipline problems, it eliminates the appearance of a conflict of interest. Bias may still be there but there is less of a chance for a conflict of interest than there would be if things were handled by the individual clubs.

I'm all for the NFL investigating things like domestic violence or drug use or other illegal things. But I don't believe that this is something the NFL should be investigating.

My take: what happens off the field is off the field. I say let the law handle those problems. Why do the clubs need to be obligated to punish the players?

I honestly don't care if someone gets caught with weed. Or if someone gets a DUI. Not to say some of those things aren't bad, but there's a court system in place in America to prosecute criminal offenders. I don't really think playing football or baseball obligates someone to punish you for something that will be taken care of by the justice system.

I guess as fans, do we really need to see a player suspended because of what they do off the field or court? I don't care about perception. It's entertainment for me. What they do with their own devices doesn't change the entertainment value. If they screw up and do bone-headed things, if they're illegal I expect them to pay their debt to society, but I don't think they have to pay their debts to the NFL.

I firmly support the right of employers to make their own personnel decisions and hiring on whatever criteria they like, as long as it's not prejudicial because of race (or gender with regard to professions that are not requiring stricter physical standards), or even sexuality. But it's with that mindset that I don't think each team's moral code should have to be consistent with other clubs.

If the Chargers don't want guys being busted for marijuana possession, but the Bengals are willing to tolerate it, does that really matter? It's a personal choice. They're each free to cater to their own standards.

[kaldaniels]

My take: what happens off the field is off the field. I say let the law handle those problems. Why do the clubs need to be obligated to punish the players?

I honestly don't care if someone gets caught with weed. Or if someone gets a DUI. Not to say some of those things aren't bad, but there's a court system in place in America to prosecute criminal offenders. I don't really think playing football or baseball obligates someone to punish you for something that will be taken care of by the justice system.

I guess as fans, do we really need to see a player suspended because of what they do off the field or court? I don't care about perception. It's entertainment for me. What they do with their own devices doesn't change the entertainment value. If they screw up and do bone-headed things, if they're illegal I expect them to pay their debt to society, but I don't think they have to pay their debts to the NFL.

I firmly support the right of employers to make their own personnel decisions and hiring on whatever criteria they like, as long as it's not prejudicial because of race (or gender with regard to professions that are not requiring stricter physical standards), or even sexuality. But it's with that mindset that I don't think each team's moral code should have to be consistent with other clubs.

If the Chargers don't want guys being busted for marijuana possession, but the Bengals are willing to tolerate it, does that really matter? It's a personal choice. They're each free to cater to their own standards.

I just think that somewhere their is language written in a labor or franchise contract that probably gives the NFL an umbrella policy to police behavior that they view unfitting of the league. I see your point about individual employers, but I'm sure in order to field an NFL team, you sign paperwork agreeing to play by their rules. You don't like it...take your team to the CFL.

[Brutus]

I just think that somewhere their is language written in a labor or franchise contract that probably gives the NFL an umbrella policy to police behavior that they view unfitting of the league. I see your point about individual employers, but I'm sure in order to field an NFL team, you sign paperwork agreeing to play by their rules. You don't like it...take your team to the CFL.

I said in an earlier post that undoubtedly the NFL has the legal right to do what they're doing, I just think they're abusing the right.

I tend to be a less is more, live and let live kind of guy. It's interesting because I dislike MLB and NFL for the opposite extremes. The NFL has taken a very hand-on approach to disciplining, too strong for my tastes. The Major League Baseball collective bargaining agreements, on the other hand, have empowered the Player's Union so much that the individual clubs are severely limited in disciplinary action they can take against a player for detrimental conduct. Almost to the extreme that they can't punish players without going through an awfully strict arbitrary process to do so.

[edabbs44]

My take: what happens off the field is off the field. I say let the law handle those problems. Why do the clubs need to be obligated to punish the players?

I honestly don't care if someone gets caught with weed. Or if someone gets a DUI. Not to say some of those things aren't bad, but there's a court system in place in America to prosecute criminal offenders. I don't really think playing football or baseball obligates someone to punish you for something that will be taken care of by the justice system.

I guess as fans, do we really need to see a player suspended because of what they do off the field or court? I don't care about perception. It's entertainment for me. What they do with their own devices doesn't change the entertainment value. If they screw up and do bone-headed things, if they're illegal I expect them to pay their debt to society, but I don't think they have to pay their debts to the NFL.

I firmly support the right of employers to make their own personnel decisions and hiring on whatever criteria they like, as long as it's not prejudicial because of race (or gender with regard to professions that are not requiring stricter physical standards), or even sexuality. But it's with that mindset that I don't think each team's moral code should have to be consistent with other clubs.

If the Chargers don't want guys being busted for marijuana possession, but the Bengals are willing to tolerate it, does that really matter? It's a personal choice. They're each free to cater to their own standards.

I don't think it's the weed that they truly care about. It's stuff like this



NBA all-star Gilbert Arenas and his Washing ton Wizards teammate Javaris Crittenton drew guns on each other in the team's locker room during a Christmas Eve dispute over a gambling debt, The Post has learned.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/nba_gunpoint_R52AnT76DRgTSuVKDQ8XBO

and this


LAS VEGAS -- Police seized $81,020 in cash belonging to Tennessee Titans cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones, money they said sparked a melee and a triple shooting at a strip club over the weekend, court documents show.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2775250

and this


A woman has accused Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger of sexual assault, TMZ Sports reports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/ben-roethlisberger-sexual_n_487877.html


and this



"I've always been competitive. I've always been in sports," Newton explained. "I couldn't see myself not being the biggest dope man."

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1876540_1876541_1876485,00.html

I think these types of stories are the main concerns. The other stuff is just keeping the streets clean.

[Brutus]

I don't think it's the weed that they truly care about. It's stuff like this



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/nba_gunpoint_R52AnT76DRgTSuVKDQ8XBO

and this



http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2775250

and this



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/ben-roethlisberger-sexual_n_487877.html


and this



http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1876540_1876541_1876485,00.html

I think these types of stories are the main concerns. The other stuff is just keeping the streets clean.

When you start having shootouts, I think that's the perfect time to draw the line. But not everything is that serious.

With regard to Roethlisberger, I am uneasy about punishing him for something that never got past the allegation stage. Charges were never filed. He most certainly was never indicted or prosecuted. Sexual assault is a big deal, but the truth is the guy got punished for never being charged with a crime. I find there to be a problem with that... after all, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Roethlisberger, by a lot of accounts, seems to have some major issues. If he did do as was alleged, shame on him. But I do not condone the NFL going after someone when the law didn't. The Duke lacrosse situation should have taught us to be careful before we jump the gun on all allegations.

[*BaseClogger*]

Uh, no?

It's Deadspin...

[edabbs44]

When you start having shootouts, I think that's the perfect time to draw the line. But not everything is that serious.

With regard to Roethlisberger, I am uneasy about punishing him for something that never got past the allegation stage. Charges were never filed. He most certainly was never indicted or prosecuted. Sexual assault is a big deal, but the truth is the guy got punished for never being charged with a crime. I find there to be a problem with that... after all, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Roethlisberger, by a lot of accounts, seems to have some major issues. If he did do as was alleged, shame on him. But I do not condone the NFL going after someone when the law didn't. The Duke lacrosse situation should have taught us to be careful before we jump the gun on all allegations.

The NFL's goal is to stop things from reaching the shootout stage. Like I said before, Favre has now potentially moved from cheating husband to sexual deviant. The next step is when the line truly needs to be drawn. But the NFL doesn't want it to reach that stage.

Regarding Big Ben, I always thought it was odd that he got as harsh a penalty as he did for allegations. That leads me to believe that there is more to it.

[Brutus]

The NFL's goal is to stop things from reaching the shootout stage. Like I said before, Favre has now potentially moved from cheating husband to sexual deviant. The next step is when the line truly needs to be drawn. But the NFL doesn't want it to reach that stage.

Regarding Big Ben, I always thought it was odd that he got as harsh a penalty as he did for allegations. That leads me to believe that there is more to it.

I think it's extremely preliminary to mention 'deviant' or 'predator' with regards to Favre. The fact that this 'story' was up for sale for "more than they have ever paid" at Deadspin leads me to believe that it's more about someone looking to make a profit off an easy target than any concerns over whether they were being unwillingly propositioned. And now Deadspin can't even vouch for complete accuracy of the account.

At worst, this seems like a case of a mutual flirtation that didn't go as far as it could have because of circumstances, and now someone is using it to make a few bucks. At best, none of it happened and the whole story is bunk.

I do understand the idea of drawing a line. But many off-field issues are not automatically a precursor to larger problems. Smoking weed is a far cry from pulling guns on one another in a locker room. Sexting or sending nude photos is a giant leap to sexually assaulting someone. Public intoxication would be a big step to killing someone because you were driving drunk.

The Gilbert Arenas situation is pretty bad. But I believe that's the outlier. Certainly you can't have a work environment where guys are pulling guns on one another in a dispute. No question about that. But most incidents, I don't believe, are going to build up to that kind of behavior.

[The Operator]

What makes you think it was mutual flirtation, Brutus?

I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that's the case.

[Brutus]

What makes you think it was mutual flirtation, Brutus?

I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that's the case.

Well, understand that since we can only go by what Deadspin has 'reported,' I'm basing my opinion off the info we have at hand. So with that disclaimer:

Basically they way they have reported it made it sound like she wasn't terribly offended by the advances, but she didn't want to go through a physical affair with him because of his marriage and her standing with the team. I didn't get the impression, again only based on this report, that she was terribly concerned by the advances, just that she didn't want to take them to the next level.

I guess my point is that it's one thing to not want to get involved physically with someone, even if that means sometimes flirting or sending pictures, though it's another thing to be given unsolicited pictures that were neither wanted or expected. Perhaps it was indeed the latter, but we're not given enough of a clear picture on whether it's the former.

The fact she didn't step forward with any complaints about it and only now are we hearing it (thanks to a hefty ransom to acquire the story), makes me question how serious an issue it really is.

[reds44]

If Favre was just randomly sending pics of his junk and leaving weird messages on her phone, then I have no problem with this investigation.

I'm under the impression that it was mutual, though. So I have no idea why the NFL cares.

Btw, I would just like to repeat that Kenn Sterger is fine.

[The Operator]

Btw, I would just like to repeat that Kenn Sterger is fine.Is that Jenn's brother? ;)

....Not that there's anything wrong with that. /Seinfeld

[IslandRed]

If the Chargers don't want guys being busted for marijuana possession, but the Bengals are willing to tolerate it, does that really matter? It's a personal choice. They're each free to cater to their own standards.

It would matter when the Chargers had to play a Bengals team that was using "hey, you can smoke all the weed you want here" as a free-agency selling point.

The NFL, like any pro sports league, is a walled ecosystem. There are few things teams do that don't affect the other clubs in some manner.

[Chip R]

My take: what happens off the field is off the field. I say let the law handle those problems. Why do the clubs need to be obligated to punish the players?

I honestly don't care if someone gets caught with weed. Or if someone gets a DUI. Not to say some of those things aren't bad, but there's a court system in place in America to prosecute criminal offenders. I don't really think playing football or baseball obligates someone to punish you for something that will be taken care of by the justice system.

I guess as fans, do we really need to see a player suspended because of what they do off the field or court? I don't care about perception. It's entertainment for me. What they do with their own devices doesn't change the entertainment value. If they screw up and do bone-headed things, if they're illegal I expect them to pay their debt to society, but I don't think they have to pay their debts to the NFL.

I firmly support the right of employers to make their own personnel decisions and hiring on whatever criteria they like, as long as it's not prejudicial because of race (or gender with regard to professions that are not requiring stricter physical standards), or even sexuality. But it's with that mindset that I don't think each team's moral code should have to be consistent with other clubs.

If the Chargers don't want guys being busted for marijuana possession, but the Bengals are willing to tolerate it, does that really matter? It's a personal choice. They're each free to cater to their own standards.

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.



If Favre was just randomly sending pics of his junk and leaving weird messages on her phone, then I have no problem with this investigation.

I'm under the impression that it was mutual, though. So I have no idea why the NFL cares.

And that's my understanding. Plus, this happened two years ago. Neither Sterger (I believe) or Favre are employed by the Jets any more.

[edabbs44]

If Favre was just randomly sending pics of his junk and leaving weird messages on her phone, then I have no problem with this investigation.

I'm under the impression that it was mutual, though. So I have no idea why the NFL cares.

Btw, I would just like to repeat that Kenn Sterger is fine.

What makes you think that this was mutual?

[reds44]

What makes you think that this was mutual?
What would make you think it wasn't? This happend two years ago, she never pressed chargers against Favre, and she didn't even want Deadspin to run the story.

[Brutus]

It would matter when the Chargers had to play a Bengals team that was using "hey, you can smoke all the weed you want here" as a free-agency selling point.

The NFL, like any pro sports league, is a walled ecosystem. There are few things teams do that don't affect the other clubs in some manner.

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.

[Brutus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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*]

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]

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]

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]

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*]

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]

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.

[edabbs44]

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.

They were also both employees of the Jets, so you have that to think about. If it was against the law, the cops would be involved.

[The Operator]

Update: Favre has admitted to the voicemails, but still denies the photos.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5723186


Brett Favre admitted to the NFL this week that he did leave voicemails for Jenn Sterger, but denied sending the former sideline hostess any lewd photographs...

[edabbs44]

Update: Favre has admitted to the voicemails, but still denies the photos.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5723186

In other words, my face isn't on the photos so they can't prove anything.

[Sea Ray]

There was also a report that if they agreed to a "financial settlement" that she'd refuse to cooperate with the Commissioners office.

If that does indeed happen the Commissioner should suspend him for sure. A player should not be able to buy his way out of this sort of thing.

I think a player forfeits his pay while on suspension; seeing as he gets paid $1mill a week this could add up to a lot of jack.

[flyer85]

every packer fan should own this

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=4365384

[Screwball]

every packer fan should own this

http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=4365384

Hilarious comments by Mr. Average.

[TeamSelig]

Hilarious comments by Mr. Average.

:lol: nice

[New York Red]

LOL ... too funny. :beerme:

[Razor Shines]

http://i.imgur.com/aLnI4.jpg

[KronoRed]

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/663757/gyi0062167821.jpg

[TeamSelig]

:lol:

[BuckeyeRedleg]

I could believe those were his pics if she had vmails that went along with them. His vmails seem pretty tame and don't go along with the profile of someone that would send pics like that.

So if all he's guilty of is having a mid-life crisis and trying to hook up with a hot, younger woman, then I guess I say....meh.

I'd be disappointed if I were in his family, but since I'm not (and not a Vikings or Favre fan) I couldn't care less. I'm sure this kind of thing happens everyday and there are worse things out there for people to be outraged over.

[texasdave]

The NFL has fined Brett Favre $50,000 for a "failure to cooperate" with the investigation into allegations he sent inappropriate messages and lewd photos to a former New York Jets game-day hostess.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/12/29/brett-favre-sterger.ap/index.html#ixzz19WkkImqO