OT - Ben Roethlisberger suspended six games
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121614
**EDIT** He was also ordered to undergo a "comprehensive behavioral evaluation." Until that evaluation is complete he won't be allowed to participate in any off season team activities. This also leaves the door open for his suspension to be reduced.
I am no lawyer, but I think from the "evidence" thus far he is not "super-innocent".
But yeah, IF he was - I most certainly think a few lawyers would be making some cream from him suing the NFL for lost wages.
That being said, I think he keeps his mouth shut and realizes missing a few games and not being brought to trial is an acceptable result for what was likely some sketchy decision making on his part.
I have never been a Big Ben fan. I think he is a completely hyped player who has been on extraordinary (in particular defensively) teams. I am really hoping he goes to Cleveland and struggles...as well as getting his life straight and all that junk.
I think the NFL is really getting into a dangerous gray area. Basically, they're ignoring legality and trying to punish what they consider poor morals.
I saw that Joey Porter was recently arrested on a DUI charge, but it was dropped after some accusations of unnecessary force and whatnot. Shouldn't that arrest bring a suspension, even though he was never charged? In the NFL's eyes, guys are basically presumed guilty because they "undermine or put at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL" by even being accused of a crime.
Maybe a better example: What if I went to a party at which a bunch of NFL players were in attendance, had some drinks with them (perfectly legal for all involved) and then falsely claimed that one sexually assaulted me? I'd have no supporting evidence and I'm sure they'd never be charged, but that's certainly "making headlines" in a terrible way.
I'm not saying Roethlisberger isn't a douchebag -- logic tells me that he did a lot of things "wrong" in this incident -- but if accusal = suspension, that's just unfair. There are a whole lot of guys who do things I consider to be wrong, and I don't think the NFL wants to suspend 30% of the league's players.
From purely a fan's standpoint, I have no problem with punishing a guy for being an idiot. I just wonder about the fairness of that and how far the league can stretch that argument. Feel free to disagree with me and explain why I'm an uptight moron, which is entirely possible.
I buy this and definitely can see a slippery slope of sorts. In all seriousness, let's say the Jets made the playoffs again and before the divisional game, a woman comes forward and says something Ben-like happened between her and Sanchez. How could they then justify not suspending him? What's preventing female fans from pulling stunts like this?
I am not discrediting the severity of this individual claim, I am just pointing out the possibility that a can of worms has been opened for the league to deal with.
"What's preventing female fans from pulling stunts like this?"
Civil damages for slander and/or libel; criminal charges for committing perjury if statements were given under oath or during a state investigatory process. The incredible embarrassment of being labeled a binge-drinking slut/whore/prostitute/etc. when the defense puts all of its energy into finding evidence of character flaws. Increased skepticism that comes from making such claims at the height of a person's popularity.
Not to mention, people sadly expect such "players" to have no trouble getting laid by very willing women. When everyone already expects you to be "very willing", it's harder to prove force was used; and some states still require a woman to prove she "resisted". This can be very difficult if the alleged rape or sexual assault occurs at a party or bar where patrons and passersby don't validate the allegation, and there are no physical signs of a struggle.
Because BR's act was SO flagrantly stupid in that he not only sexually assaulting a woman, but an intoxicated, underage drinking college-girl in a very public bar, I don't think this opens a Pandora's Box. There was enough of an investigative and fact-finding process to qualify the NFL's suspension in this case, which probably wouldn't be the case in your Mark Sanchez hypothetical.
The NFL does not pick up a newspaper, see that there was an allegation, and dole out a suspension. They do a careful investigation of the facts.
You cannot stand up at a microphone, say Chris Johnson shot your foot, and see him suspended shortly thereafter. The NFL would gather all of the evidence, meet with Johnson, get the statements of any witnesses, etc. Roethlisberger's case didn't go to trial but there is a tremendous amount of information available.
The NFL cannot wait on legal verdicts because law enforcement and prosecution is a local, flawed, inconsistent process. I think you can debate whether it is fair to punish someone without a guilty verdict, but I can certainly see the NFL's logic. Rapists are bad for its image, bad for the product, bad for revenues. As are unconvicted assumed-to-be rapists.
I think my main issue is with your last sentence: "assumed-to-be rapists." Why should I presume that the NFL can conduct a more fair and thorough investigation than law enforcement (and, by proxy, that their determination of guilt is correct when law enforcement officials couldn't/wouldn't make that determination)?
If the NFL isn't going to wait for legal resolution in these situations -- and they obviously aren't -- it seems like there's no way around having a lot of problems. If a guy is accused and there's an implication that he MIGHT have done something wrong, he'll have to be suspended.
Maybe there should be some sort of a disciplinary panel or something that would serve as the NFL's version of a jury. As it is currently, it seems like Roger Goodell just talks to the guy involved and then goes into his office and draws a number out of his to determine the length of a suspension.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying I think Roethlisberger did nothing wrong -- just the opposite, in fact. But to reiterate my original point, I think it's a very slippery slope for the NFL to basically say "We're ignoring the legal process and will be suspending people based on how much negative publicity you're bringing to the league, regardless of whether you might or might not have done anything legally wrong."
Remember when Mouton got suspended for slapping the Notre Dame lineman and RichRod was rightfully irritated, arguing that the Big Ten needed to be uniform in its punishment?
I can totally see the same thing happening in the NFL. If Ed Reed gets accused of domestic violence or something, wouldn't the Steelers have every right to demand that a competing team's player in a similar situation to Big Ben be punished just as severely as he has been?
My point is that there's a ginormous and hard-to-define gray area created when you don't wait for a definitive judgment and you just make up your own punishments as you go along.
You don't have to presume that the NFL collected better information than the local Georgia cops. They may followed a similar process and obtained the exact same information. One party, though, cannot move forward if the sole eye witness to the alleged act does not want to testify in the proceedings. That is why one investigation ended without punishment and the other did not.
The NFL does not have to get the accuser to testify (i.e. spend 4 months having her past boyfriends and Facebook photos paraded through the news cycle as defense counsel attempts to make her look promiscous). They can simply draw their own conclusion. I realize this power frightens you. However, remember that the NFL does not have the power to do anything other than temporarily impede your ability to make millions of dollars playing in their particular football league. (You can always blow them off and play for less in Canada, Europe, Arena.) They are not a government. They do not have a prison. There is no inalienable right to play football in a maximum value market. Somehow, I think, the public will survive this tyranny.
Also remember this. Goodell met with Roethlisberger in person. That interview was interesting I'm sure. I would guess it was a tougher interrogation than he got from the local cop in the immediate aftermath, which may have gone something like:
Cop: she's saying you raped her
Ben: no way man, it was consensual
Cop: oh. ...hey, can you sign this for my son?
Ben: sure, no problem
Very compelling, particularly this:
They can simply draw their own conclusion. I realize this power frightens you. However, remember that the NFL does not have the power to do anything other than temporarily impede your ability to make millions of dollars playing in their particular football league. (You can always blow them off and play for less in Canada, Europe, Arena.) They are not a government. They do not have a prison. There is no inalienable right to play football in a maximum value market. Somehow, I think, the public will survive this tyranny.
The Goodell-era discipline policy is inherently subjective and must be pursued in an ad-hoc fashion that can appear arbitrary/inconsistent. And it is an aggressive stance. And it is not inconceivable that some future player who has done no wrong could get a suspension; and that would be terrible. But my sense is that the NFL is not bringing down the hammer unless it is a sure-fire case of wrongdoing. And if that is correct, I completely support their approach.
I just think that they might overstep their bounds and jump to conclusions to save the image of the league. I am not saying it's necessarily wrong.
Get accused twice? GUILTY!
Did you guys know that Brett Favre stole my car? That's one, one more person accuses him and he's suspended! Who cares if the only evidence I have is the constantly shifting testimony of a drunk college student, its enough in the NFL's eyes!
Do you really think that's all this was? Just a couple people coming with an empty accusation? There are a lot of instances where the legal system doesn't have enough to convict someone criminally, but a common person can see that there's enough evidence against this person that other non-criminal sanctions are necessary.
The NFL asks its players to keep themselves out of situations where this might occur. Maybe BR didn't commit an actual crime, maybe he did. But there is enough evidence to show that he's putting himself in enough bad situations to warrant being suspended.
This girl has nothing to gain by alleging he did all of this, if anything it's probably very embarassing to come forward with it and risk having a stigma attached to her as well. And this isn't the first time BR has been involved in some gray area with the law, specifically sexual assault, one of the most frowned upon areas. It's not like he was caught with weed, or driving under the influence. Those are both crimes, the latter of which can still really hurt someone, but when you are a public figure, perception matters a lot.
If fans start to think that BR is a rapist, the league, and his team, suffers because of it, even if he wasn't found guilty. The league has the responsibility to keep its image as positive as possible, and suspending a player for these actions is certainly within their right. I don't think he deserves more than 6 games, but he should be shown that this type of behavior is not appropriate, and even being accused, especially twice, is a little too close to the fire.
What other evidence do they have? She had cuts and bruises, after allegedly having sex in a bathroom. If you have sex in a bathroom, its not unlikely that you will get some collateral damage, it's not a place designed for that type of activity. So it really boils down to a he said she said thing, and she was too drunk to remember the night. We all do dumb things when we're drunk, maybe she regrets it and has convinced herself it was sexual assault, but suspending someone 6 games when no one has found probably cause as to a crime being committed in either case is just stupid.
Does Roethlisberger put himself in bad situations and make dumb decisions? Yes, there is no doubt there, but that in and of itself is not a crime, and not anything ANYONE would be surprised at if you gave most 28 year old single men millions of dollars. Is it now against the NFL policies for their players to go out to bars and look to get laid? Because if it is, we are gonna need to suspend just about every player without a wife and a good deal of those who have one. The police in the case couldn't even come up with probable cause to show that he had done anything else, so the NFL is essentially suspending him because he was out, partying, trying to get laid, and might have had sex in a bathroom, which one drunk girl, who couldn't remember what happened, said was non-consensual.
Does he need to change his behavior? Of course, it's not becoming of someone in his position to do those sort of things, but is it really something he should get a 6 game suspension for? Brandon Marshall was charged with a crime, and has been in a whole lot more legal trouble than Roethlisberger, at least a few times for domestic violence and abuse, and the most he's ever gotten was a 1 game suspension. It's a ridiculous system the NFL is implementing, with punishment seemingly dolled out at random, with no relation to the crime's allegedly committed or evidence that they were or weren't. It is entirely a publicity stunt enacted by Goodell, trying to make the league look better by punishing any high profile players who garner a bad reputation.
I'm with you 100% on this one. It's purely a save-face thing, and I think it's a little unfair for Goodell to have the kind of power he has and wield it so arbitrarily at times.
Unfortunately, we appear to be heavily outnumbered, which I think is a big part of the reason Roethlisberger's getting a six-game suspension.
"Is it now against the NFL policies for their players to go out to bars and look to get laid?"
If this is all you think happened with BR, you are either stupid, naive, or a total asshole. Either way you aren't impressing anyone in this argument.
The NFL player conduct policy does not say that you need to be convicted of a crime in order to be suspended. They have their own rules, many of which are different from criminal laws. Laws are created to protect the public, the NFL's purpose is different. Image plays a big role in that purpose. If a player walked off the field flicking off everyone in the stands, they would likely not get convicted of a crime. They would likely get a suspension from the NFL.
according to ESPiN reporter Adam Schefter, the Pittsburgh Steelers have contacted the Seattle Sea Hawks about such a trade. The Sea Hawks have the 6th pick in this years draft. The Pittsburgh Steelers now have the 18th overall pick. I do find it interesting that the Steelers less than 24hr.s ago, picked up Byron Leftwich from TB for a late seventh round pick. Seems like the Steelers have had enough of this playa.
Julius Hodge, when he was with the Denver Nuggets, rather foolishly put himself in a situation where a woman claimed he sexually assaulted her. So, yes, that kind of stuff happens. The police investigated, found out she was full of crap, and she went to jail.
None of that has anything to to do with the Big Ben case. NFL Securities investigated this case and the case where he was sued (in Aspen?) for sexual assault. If Roethlisberger tried to sue, I would bet that his attorney would remind him that the discovery phase would be particularly troublesome.
That's a HUUUGEEEE bitch
........Mace
I find it no coincidence that this issue has happened twice now.
"Why should I presume that the NFL can conduct a more fair and thorough investigation than law enforcement (and, by proxy, that their determination of guilt is correct when law enforcement officials couldn't/wouldn't make that determination)?"
Did OJ Simpson kill Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman?
He probably did, and that's a valid point. But as I said, I'm not talking entirely about the Roethlisberger case. I'm talking about the precedent the NFL is setting, which is the bigger problem.
The league is trying to punish what they see as "dumb" or "negative" behavior, and that's extremely hard to define. Kind of like the old pornography argument in the Supreme Court, I suppose. I'm just troubled by that idea in general.
Where do you draw that line? What about a guy charged with a DUI who isn't convicted (there have been several pro athletes in that situation)? What about a domestic violence situation with no charges pressed? I'm not sure it's possible to be fair and consistent, although I don't they (or most fans) really care, so maybe it doesn't matter.
"We all do dumb things when we're drunk, maybe she regrets it and has convinced herself it was sexual assault, but suspending someone 6 games when no one has found probably cause as to a crime being committed in either case is just stupid."
There is not enough evidence to convict Roethlisberger of sexual assault or rape. But there is enough evidence to form a pretty good picture of what happened.
The guy went trolling for leg, found a 20 year old, used his celebrity status to entice her, got her completely wasted, then dragged her off to the bathroom in a public place to have sex with her while his bodyguards kept her friends from intervening.
I don't think any of that is in question. Look, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business. But getting underage girls drunk and having sex with them in public places while bodyguards form a perimeter is NOT okay. I don't think there's any society in the world that's okay with that kind of s***.
That boy better be thanking or kissing the asses of his lawyers or Goodell everyday. He could of ended up a lot worse than this.
I'll be VERY interested to see what the NFL does with Colts DT Eric Foster, who is in a similar situation (accused of sexual assault of a 22-year-old in a hotel room).
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5122609
Colts GM Bill Polian said Wednesday that the team has no reason to discipline Foster because police investigated the incident and prosecutors later decided not to file charges.
I think the difference with Foster is you have only one person's allegations, which are contested, with no supporting witness testimony.
For Ben, no one else was in the bathroom, but a half dozen people have given corroborating accounts that have the accuser incredibly drunk, moved to a secluded place, and insulated from her friends' attempts to reach her. That is circumstantial evidence, sure, but much more than a standard he said-she said.
It's the getting laid IN the bar that's the problem...
"If a player walked off the field flicking off everyone in the stands..."
Brian Cox.