PDA

View Full Version : Ben's attorney says no sexual assault, "completely innocent"



hawaiiansteel
03-08-2010, 06:38 PM
Roethlisberger’s attorney says no sexual assault

Steelers star's high-profile lawyer says QB ‘completely innocent’


MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. - The high-profile attorney representing Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger is disputing a woman’s claim that the two-time Super Bowl winner sexually assaulted her at a Georgia nightclub.

Police are investigating the 20-year-old college student’s claim that Roethlisberger sexually assaulted her early Friday. Roethlisberger has not been charged.

In a statement Monday, high-profile Atlanta attorney Ed Garland says there was “no criminal activity” and Roethlisberger is “completely innocent of any crime.” Garland also says no sexual assault occurred.

Also Monday, the police chief of the Georgia college town where the investigation is under way says detectives hope to interview Roethlisberger in the next several days.

kindlecatsb'ng
03-08-2010, 06:51 PM
Per the MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. Union Recorder newspaper:

Milledgeville Police Chief Woodrow Blue confirmed at a press conference Monday that the department will ask Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for DNA as part of an investigation into a 20-year-old woman’s claim that Roethlisberger sexually assaulted her in a downtown Milledgeville nightclub early Friday morning.

Chadman
03-08-2010, 06:53 PM
Well, if he says Ben is completely innocent, we should believe that as vehemonently as we all secretly believe Ben did something wrong.

After all, we all are lapping up some nameless woman's comment that Ben sexually assaulted her, so given that we feel free to condemn on the back of one person's point of view, we should be just as willing to exhonerate based on another's point of view.

kindlecatsb'ng
03-08-2010, 07:00 PM
Have somewhat expected that (with all the various means of communication that was used that night to "capture the moments" and since--including FB and Twitter) the accuser's identity has not come forth yet. I don't know if it is a rule/law but know it is customary to protect the ID of a victim in the mainstream media but have expected it to surface already through some other means.

Chadman
03-08-2010, 07:12 PM
Have somewhat expected that (with all the various means of communication that was used that night to "capture the moments" and since--including FB and Twitter) the accuser's identity has not come forth yet. I don't know if it is a rule/law but know it is customary to protect the ID of a victim in the mainstream media but have expected it to surface already through some other means.

But how is that even close to being 'fair'? Ben gets his name plastered around the papers as an accused 'sexual assaulter' while the person that SAYS he did it can run around annonymously?

JAR
03-08-2010, 07:21 PM
Really, release her name. Nutso McNulty didn't hide.

kindlecatsb'ng
03-08-2010, 07:21 PM
Chadman--it really isn't; and I don't know if this is a rule/law here in the US or the history of how this came about. Maybe PhillieEsq can help us out in that realm but I suppose it has something to do with protection of the victim.

It is frustrating to see one party's (the accused) name being put out there in a negative light and not know anything about the accuser.

That's why it seems weird not to have a leak somewhere by now.

Shawn
03-08-2010, 07:31 PM
It's not fair but necessary. Alot less of these crimes would be reported if the names were splashed in the paper. With that said, both parties should be protected until at the very least charges are filed.

Chadman
03-08-2010, 07:47 PM
It's not fair but necessary. Alot less of these crimes would be reported if the names were splashed in the paper. With that said, both parties should be protected until at the very least charges are filed.


EXACTLY.

That Ben should be forced, in any way, to defend himself BEFORE he has been charged, is absolutely CRIMINAL.

I'm all for protecting the victim- but what if the victim is Ben?

NorthCoast
03-08-2010, 07:54 PM
Per the MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. Union Recorder newspaper:

Milledgeville Police Chief Woodrow Blue confirmed at a press conference Monday that the department will ask Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for DNA as part of an investigation into a 20-year-old woman’s claim that Roethlisberger sexually assaulted her in a downtown Milledgeville nightclub early Friday morning.

No rape but they want DNA?

steelernation77
03-08-2010, 09:08 PM
It's not law, it's media ethics. State laws have been struck down by the supreme court that criminalize naming the victim.

Something like 60 percent of sexual assaults go unreported, I think it's a good policy not to name the person.

feltdizz
03-08-2010, 09:21 PM
If her name was released MSM and half of Steeler Nation would threaten her life evey hour on the hour.

stlrz d
03-08-2010, 10:22 PM
It's not law, it's media ethics. State laws have been struck down by the supreme court that criminalize naming the victim.

Something like 60 percent of sexual assaults go unreported, I think it's a good policy not to name the person.

Correct. That's why even after McNutty's name was out there the PG still wouldn't publish her name...and they'd even put in something explaining why they wouldn't. I don't remember the exact phrase.

Chadman
03-08-2010, 10:48 PM
It's not law, it's media ethics. State laws have been struck down by the supreme court that criminalize naming the victim.

Something like 60 percent of sexual assaults go unreported, I think it's a good policy not to name the person.

Correct. That's why even after McNutty's name was out there the PG still wouldn't publish her name...and they'd even put in something explaining why they wouldn't. I don't remember the exact phrase.

But my point isn't that I want HER name mentioned. My point is- why is Ben's out there, if hers isn't?

He HASN'T been charged.

But his reputation is taking a battering.

In the court of public opinion, Ben is already toast.

And she is walking around accusing him without having her name drawn through the mud.

even the score- either give her name, or DON'T PUBLISH BEN'S.

feltdizz
03-08-2010, 10:54 PM
Maybe because they want guys to think twice about assault? Not sure why but they do it all the time, photos and all, and not just for high profile guys either.

steelernation77
03-08-2010, 10:56 PM
It's not law, it's media ethics. State laws have been struck down by the supreme court that criminalize naming the victim.

Something like 60 percent of sexual assaults go unreported, I think it's a good policy not to name the person.

Correct. That's why even after McNutty's name was out there the PG still wouldn't publish her name...and they'd even put in something explaining why they wouldn't. I don't remember the exact phrase.

But my point isn't that I want HER name mentioned. My point is- why is Ben's out there, if hers isn't?

He HASN'T been charged.

But his reputation is taking a battering.

In the court of public opinion, Ben is already toast.

And she is walking around accusing him without having her name drawn through the mud.

even the score- either give her name, or DON'T PUBLISH BEN'S.


Well luckily the court of public opinion is not what convicts people.

Look, sexual assaults are already underreported. If every media outlet took it upon themselves to publish names in these cases the numbers would be even lower.

Ben is also a public figure and because of that he has less legal recourse in these type of situations.

I don't see a problem with the way this is being handled by the media. If Ben is innocent his reputation might take a hit but he'll be fine. It's part of being a public figure in America.

Now I'm not sure how things are handled down under, but I'm sure they're a little more lax in a country founded by rapists and criminals :wink:

Chadman
03-08-2010, 10:57 PM
Maybe because they want guys to think twice about assault? Not sure why but they do it all the time, photos and all, and not just for high profile guys either.

Ben, if found not guilty- or not even charged- should get his lawyer & SUE every publication that ran his name for SLANDER.

If it ends up he was innocent of this, his reputation has still copped a massive battering- one that will likely last for the remainder of his career, if not his life.

That is simply not fair.

steelernation77
03-08-2010, 11:01 PM
Maybe because they want guys to think twice about assault? Not sure why but they do it all the time, photos and all, and not just for high profile guys either.

Ben, if found not guilty- or not even charged- should get his lawyer & SUE every publication that ran his name for SLANDER.

If it ends up he was innocent of this, his reputation has still copped a massive battering- one that will likely last for the remainder of his career, if not his life.

That is simply not fair.

First of all, it would be libel. Secondly, he would lose every lawsuit, because it is established fact that he is being investigated, which is what is being reported.

Chadman
03-08-2010, 11:01 PM
And, if you don't believe me- let's take a look at something on this board...


There are about 5 or 6 threads dedicated to Ben 'in trouble', 'doing the wrong thing', 'being a dumb-dumb', 'letting the organisation down' etc.

These are ALL based on one, unnamed woman's accusation. No police charges. No evidence.

There is 1, yes 1, thread that states Ben is innocent. This one. And even here, most are still skeptical. If we want to play fair, if Ben ever wants to be treated fair- we need to treat this lawyers 'Ben is completely innocent' as gospel, the way we all swallowed 'Ben is a sex offender' so easily.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
03-08-2010, 11:07 PM
Maybe because they want guys to think twice about assault? Not sure why but they do it all the time, photos and all, and not just for high profile guys either.

Ben, if found not guilty- or not even charged- should get his lawyer & SUE every publication that ran his name for SLANDER.

If it ends up he was innocent of this, his reputation has still copped a massive battering- one that will likely last for the remainder of his career, if not his life.

That is simply not fair.

First of all, it would be libel. Secondly, he would lose every lawsuit, because it is established fact that he is being investigated, which is what is being reported.

I'm not a lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so here goes:

I think some would be slander (telling the falsehood about someone by saying it), not just libel (doing it by writing it). The only reason I say that is because I have heard people on TV and radio, not just read it.

And, he might win some of them - ESPN and Fox news said something about his being accused of rape, which isn't the case here. Unless maybe they were talking about the Nevada case ... was that rape?

Philly Esq., where are you?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/bat-signal.jpg

steelernation77
03-08-2010, 11:14 PM
Maybe because they want guys to think twice about assault? Not sure why but they do it all the time, photos and all, and not just for high profile guys either.

Ben, if found not guilty- or not even charged- should get his lawyer & SUE every publication that ran his name for SLANDER.

If it ends up he was innocent of this, his reputation has still copped a massive battering- one that will likely last for the remainder of his career, if not his life.

That is simply not fair.

First of all, it would be libel. Secondly, he would lose every lawsuit, because it is established fact that he is being investigated, which is what is being reported.

I'm not a lawyer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so here goes:

I think some would be slander (telling the falsehood about someone by saying it), not just libel (doing it by writing it). The only reason I say that is because I have heard people on TV and radio, not just read it.

And, he might win some of them - ESPN and Fox news said something about his being accused of rape, which isn't the case here. Unless maybe they were talking about the Nevada case ... was that rape?

Philly Esq., where are you?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/bat-signal.jpg

The quoted post said sue every publication that ran his name, so I assumed printed, which would be libel. Slander would be the spoken version.

Nobody is going to win a libel case in this instance. Ben is a public figure. He'd have to prove NY Times Actual Malice (Times v. Sullivan), meaning that he'd have to demonstrate that the publications either published the story with either "knowledge of falsity" or "a reckless disregard for the truth." Both are extremely tough to prove.

I've taken a media law class and a constitutional law class where we discussed these types of things at length. Ben would only waste a lot of money if he sued.

stlrz d
03-08-2010, 11:33 PM
It's not law, it's media ethics. State laws have been struck down by the supreme court that criminalize naming the victim.

Something like 60 percent of sexual assaults go unreported, I think it's a good policy not to name the person.

Correct. That's why even after McNutty's name was out there the PG still wouldn't publish her name...and they'd even put in something explaining why they wouldn't. I don't remember the exact phrase.

But my point isn't that I want HER name mentioned. My point is- why is Ben's out there, if hers isn't?

He HASN'T been charged.

But his reputation is taking a battering.

In the court of public opinion, Ben is already toast.

And she is walking around accusing him without having her name drawn through the mud.

even the score- either give her name, or DON'T PUBLISH BEN'S.

I'm on your side. I was just pointing out that sn77 was correct.

papillon
03-08-2010, 11:52 PM
Well, if he says Ben is completely innocent, we should believe that as vehemonently as we all secretly believe Ben did something wrong.

After all, we all are lapping up some nameless woman's comment that Ben sexually assaulted her, so given that we feel free to condemn on the back of one person's point of view, we should be just as willing to exhonerate based on another's point of view.

No, I think most people, myself included can't believe that Ben has put himself in this position again regardless of innocence or guilt. If this lawsuit (if there is one) isn't resolved by training camp, then the potential exists that the Steelers will enter the 2010 season with their franchise quarterback having a civil lawsuit for sexual assault pending and a criminal lawsuit for sexual assault hanging over his head. That will be a dandy way to start the year.

Pappy

Chadman
03-09-2010, 12:00 AM
Well, if he says Ben is completely innocent, we should believe that as vehemonently as we all secretly believe Ben did something wrong.

After all, we all are lapping up some nameless woman's comment that Ben sexually assaulted her, so given that we feel free to condemn on the back of one person's point of view, we should be just as willing to exhonerate based on another's point of view.

No, I think most people, myself included can't believe that Ben has put himself in this position again regardless of innocence or guilt. If this lawsuit (if there is one) isn't resolved by training camp, then the potential exists that the Steelers will enter the 2010 season with their franchise quarterback having a civil lawsuit for sexual assault pending and a criminal lawsuit for sexual assault hanging over his head. That will be a dandy way to start the year.

Pappy

Put himself in what situation, exactly?

If he's innocent- what is he guilty of? Being in a club? Pretty sure nearly EVERY NFL player goes to clubs.

Hanging out with women? Dude's single- what's the biggie?

Just because 'he's the face of the organisation' does not mean we can expect him to be a monk. $100 million or $5 it makes no difference- Ben has the right to do as he wishes with his time away from football- no matter how much we wish he'd be bow tie wrapped in his house waiting for football season to start again.

If he's guilty, then throw the book at him. But really, at times i think we expect too much from these guys.

papillon
03-09-2010, 12:12 AM
Well, if he says Ben is completely innocent, we should believe that as vehemonently as we all secretly believe Ben did something wrong.

After all, we all are lapping up some nameless woman's comment that Ben sexually assaulted her, so given that we feel free to condemn on the back of one person's point of view, we should be just as willing to exhonerate based on another's point of view.

No, I think most people, myself included can't believe that Ben has put himself in this position again regardless of innocence or guilt. If this lawsuit (if there is one) isn't resolved by training camp, then the potential exists that the Steelers will enter the 2010 season with their franchise quarterback having a civil lawsuit for sexual assault pending and a criminal lawsuit for sexual assault hanging over his head. That will be a dandy way to start the year.

Pappy

Put himself in what situation, exactly?

If he's innocent- what is he guilty of? Being in a club? Pretty sure nearly EVERY NFL player goes to clubs.

Hanging out with women? Dude's single- what's the biggie?

Just because 'he's the face of the organisation' does not mean we can expect him to be a monk. $100 million or $5 it makes no difference- Ben has the right to do as he wishes with his time away from football- no matter how much we wish he'd be bow tie wrapped in his house waiting for football season to start again.

If he's guilty, then throw the book at him. But really, at times i think we expect too much from these guys.

Sorry, that's not how I see it, with great wealth comes great responsibility. The fact that he's being accused tells me he's put himself in a compromised position. Other celebrities and athletes have been going clubbing without being accused of sexual assault.

He is the face of the organization and with that comes great responsibility that he doesn't seem to be able handle. Brady, Manning (both of them), Brees, Warner (prior to retirement) to mention a few manage to not embarrass their organizations with off field indiscretions. Why Ben?

At some point Ben needs to grow up and comport himself like an adult. It's disappointing as a fan.

Pappy

SanAntonioSteelerFan
03-09-2010, 12:18 AM
Some poster said it best, in my mind, in another thread, since I can't find it to do a :Agree with, I'll just try to remember it -

All of us have the right to go out at 2AM to a bar. But, many of us have jobs where if we got into trouble there, even if NOT OUR FAULT, like Ben says - well our employers would not be amused, to put it mildly. School teacher, doctor, lawyer, IT guy, it doesn't matter - we do what we have to to keep our noses clean.

Ben is, at the minimum, no different. And there's a good argument that he is even more obligated to stay out of trouble than the rest of us - he IS the face of a large corporation, lots of people depend on that corporation for their living, or entertainment (that's us).

Put it this way - if the President of the United States went out and this happened to him, would we say that it was his right, and it's not his fault some hoager set him up? No, we'd say he shouldn't have been there. Same with Ben.

stlrz d
03-09-2010, 12:25 AM
I beg to differ. Big difference between a football player and the leader of the free world.

Chadman
03-09-2010, 12:29 AM
with great wealth comes great responsibility

Why? And responsibility to who?

Not having a go at you Pap, you know I respect you, but there seems to be this unwritten feeling that Ben owes us something. That he needs to be a poster child that we can all look up to.

But he doesn't.

He has a contract. He needs to do what his contract says.

That's his level of responsibility.

If the contract says- stay out of clubs, then sure- Ben needs to do better.

But assuming that we can expect Ben to act the way WE want him to is, well, a little holier than thou.

In the end, we are miffed at Ben for getting ACCUSED of doing the wrong thing. He could have been ACCUSED while sitting at home, if he'd ordered pizza, and some girl brought it around. He could have been ACCUSED if he'd bumped his ugly against a woman in a shopping centre while reaching for the tomato sauce.

No conviction. None. So far, he's guilty of looking like a guy that may or may not have done something to someone.

Northern_Blitz
03-09-2010, 01:03 AM
Well, if he says Ben is completely innocent, we should believe that as vehemonently as we all secretly believe Ben did something wrong.

After all, we all are lapping up some nameless woman's comment that Ben sexually assaulted her, so given that we feel free to condemn on the back of one person's point of view, we should be just as willing to exhonerate based on another's point of view.

No, I think most people, myself included can't believe that Ben has put himself in this position again regardless of innocence or guilt. If this lawsuit (if there is one) isn't resolved by training camp, then the potential exists that the Steelers will enter the 2010 season with their franchise quarterback having a civil lawsuit for sexual assault pending and a criminal lawsuit for sexual assault hanging over his head. That will be a dandy way to start the year.

Pappy

Put himself in what situation, exactly?

If he's innocent- what is he guilty of? Being in a club? Pretty sure nearly EVERY NFL player goes to clubs.

Hanging out with women? Dude's single- what's the biggie?

Just because 'he's the face of the organisation' does not mean we can expect him to be a monk. $100 million or $5 it makes no difference- Ben has the right to do as he wishes with his time away from football- no matter how much we wish he'd be bow tie wrapped in his house waiting for football season to start again.

If he's guilty, then throw the book at him. But really, at times i think we expect too much from these guys.

I admit to knowing nothing about these things, but if they're asking for DNA, does that suggest that they found semen in her and want to see if it's his?

If that's the case, the "situation" he shouldn't put himself in is banging strange women at bars (with no dome even) and throwing them away and opening himself up to the jilted lover making stuff up about him. If she did have his semen in her, that basically becomes the best case scenario, right?

It's a big IF, but I'd have to imagine that's the DNA they're trying to match. I'm not saying semen = rape, but I think it would be better if he didn't have sex with her and the whole thing was made up. I'd have to think that if there's proof that they had sex, things get much worse for Ben.

It's alot of IFs and I hope that it all gets dropped in a couple of days.

papillon
03-09-2010, 02:01 AM
with great wealth comes great responsibility

Why? And responsibility to who?

Not having a go at you Pap, you know I respect you, but there seems to be this unwritten feeling that Ben owes us something. That he needs to be a poster child that we can all look up to.

But he doesn't.

He has a contract. He needs to do what his contract says.

That's his level of responsibility.

If the contract says- stay out of clubs, then sure- Ben needs to do better.

But assuming that we can expect Ben to act the way WE want him to is, well, a little holier than thou.

In the end, we are miffed at Ben for getting ACCUSED of doing the wrong thing. He could have been ACCUSED while sitting at home, if he'd ordered pizza, and some girl brought it around. He could have been ACCUSED if he'd bumped his ugly against a woman in a shopping centre while reaching for the tomato sauce.

No conviction. None. So far, he's guilty of looking like a guy that may or may not have done something to someone.

Ben Roethlisberger doesn't owe me, you or any other fan one bit of anything. However, he does owe the Pittsburgh Steeler organization a 1 billion dollar corporation a lot. He gets a check for $461,000 every two weeks, has 52 other teammates that depend on him, has advertising sponsors that depend on him and has a family name that deserves better (I assume his mom and dad are stand up folks). How much more responsibility do you want for his great wealth?

He owes me nothing. I want nothing. The Rooneys and the NFL differ in their perspective on this I believe. With great wealth comes great responsibility.

If he'd been accused while sitting at home with his friends this case wouldn't have made the airwaves, because he had an alibi. But, that's not how it happened, he was there, has a pending civil case of similar violation and has shown poor judgment in the past. It has legs until someone says it doesn't.

Just for the record, I don't believe you're having a go at me; I'm taking an unpopular stance on this incident. I expect some folks not to be enthralled with my take of the situation. It's all good my friend from down under, we just have a different perspective on this one, but in true PlanetSteeler fashion it never gets personal.

Pappy

SanAntonioSteelerFan
03-09-2010, 02:02 AM
with great wealth comes great responsibility

Why? And responsibility to who?

Not having a go at you Pap, you know I respect you, but there seems to be this unwritten feeling that Ben owes us something. That he needs to be a poster child that we can all look up to.

But he doesn't.

He has a contract. He needs to do what his contract says.

That's his level of responsibility.

If the contract says- stay out of clubs, then sure- Ben needs to do better.

But assuming that we can expect Ben to act the way WE want him to is, well, a little holier than thou.

In the end, we are miffed at Ben for getting ACCUSED of doing the wrong thing. He could have been ACCUSED while sitting at home, if he'd ordered pizza, and some girl brought it around. He could have been ACCUSED if he'd bumped his ugly against a woman in a shopping centre while reaching for the tomato sauce.

No conviction. None. So far, he's guilty of looking like a guy that may or may not have done something to someone.

I hear what you're saying, Chadman, but I think it goes beyond that - we all have an implicit contract to do/not do certain things - it's not written out, but it's just as valid. I think it's pretty well understood that actions that cheapen the value of your employer's product are pretty much understood by all employees everywhere to be avoided - from plumber to CEO. Ben's hanging out in a bar at 2:30 makes it more likely that "bad" things will happen, so it's irresponsible from a corporate point of view - no holier than thou stuff needed. My :2c

NJ-STEELER
03-09-2010, 02:11 AM
i think ChadM has a good point with this.


why dont they adapt something like waiting to see if there's enuff evidence to charge someone for a crime.
what would it be. a 2 week diffeerence, even if that?

doesn't make much sense

papillon
03-09-2010, 02:17 AM
i think ChadM has a good point with this.


why dont they adapt something like waiting to see if there's enuff evidence to charge someone for a crime.
what would it be. a 2 week diffeerence, even if that?

doesn't make much sense

That would be nice, but when you're a high profile figure like Ben keeping it under wraps isn't happening. And, as much as I would like to see both names left out of the media until charges are filed or not, that isn't happening either with a high profile athlete. It may not be fair, but it comes with the territory and these athletes really need to understand that they aren't one of the guys any longer once they are famous.

The only time Ben can be one of the guys is when they're at his house, drinking beers, shooting the breeze and talking about chicks. The moment he steps into public view being one of the guys isn't an option, he has to become more careful, more cautious and more aware of what is going on around him. It's sad, but it's the down side to being young, famous and wealthy.

Pappy

Chadman
03-09-2010, 02:22 AM
I hear what you're saying, Chadman, but I think it goes beyond that - we all have an implicit contract to do/not do certain things - it's not written out, but it's just as valid. I think it's pretty well understood that actions that cheapen the value of your employer's product are pretty much understood by all employees everywhere to be avoided - from plumber to CEO. Ben's hanging out in a bar at 2:30 makes it more likely that "bad" things will happen, so it's irresponsible from a corporate point of view - no holier than thou stuff needed. My

Are you saying that anyone employed that stays out until 2:30 in their private time is in fact risking the wrath of their employer?

The fact that Ben was out, in his free time, doing his own thing, at whatever hour, does not indicate that he was acting poorly, or showing poor judgement.

If in fact, he was chasing women, and we find him irresponsible for doing so- then Hell, all men are irresponsible. If you are young, and single, who isn't looking for some action? Does being an NFL player mean that he can't have normal urges & desires? Can we really expect an employer, any employer, to frown on that?

The actual thing we are saying 'no go' to is an ACCUSATION of SEXUAL ASSAULT. Not hanging out at night, not having fun, not being in the company of women. SEXUAL ASSAULT. And, as of now, it is an ACCUSATION- not a CONVICTION, NO PROOF as of this stage. If he is found to have done wrong by this woman, by all means- knock yourself out in giving it to him. But don't give it to him because he's a football player. Give it to him because he's a criminal.

If Ben assaulted this woman- fair enough. Throw the book at him & be done with him.

But to sit here & say that Ben shouldn't be out on the hunt, that Ben has greater responsibilities than the common man because he has a bucket load of cash, that he's acting a buffoon for doing what he wants in his own personal time is, for lack of a better term to use- a holier than thou stance from a bunch of people (us) that have no right to demand that from him. He might be a footballer. He might be a rich Steeler QB. But add to this- he's also a young man that has a life beyond football. He doesn't stand back & tell you, as fans, that you are doing the wrong thing if you yell & scream abuse from the sidelines, does he? He doesn't tut-tut you if you are given a speeding ticket & tell you that you brought the organisation you work for into disgrace as a result.

papillon
03-09-2010, 02:28 AM
I hear what you're saying, Chadman, but I think it goes beyond that - we all have an implicit contract to do/not do certain things - it's not written out, but it's just as valid. I think it's pretty well understood that actions that cheapen the value of your employer's product are pretty much understood by all employees everywhere to be avoided - from plumber to CEO. Ben's hanging out in a bar at 2:30 makes it more likely that "bad" things will happen, so it's irresponsible from a corporate point of view - no holier than thou stuff needed. My

Are you saying that anyone employed that stays out until 2:30 in their private time is in fact risking the wrath of their employer?

The fact that Ben was out, in his free time, doing his own thing, at whatever hour, does not indicate that he was acting poorly, or showing poor judgement.

If in fact, he was chasing women, and we find him irresponsible for doing so- then Hell, all men are irresponsible. If you are young, and single, who isn't looking for some action? Does being an NFL player mean that he can't have normal urges & desires? Can we really expect an employer, any employer, to frown on that?

The actual thing we are saying 'no go' to is an ACCUSATION of SEXUAL ASSAULT. Not hanging out at night, not having fun, not being in the company of women. SEXUAL ASSAULT. And, as of now, it is an ACCUSATION- not a CONVICTION, NO PROOF as of this stage. If he is found to have done wrong by this woman, by all means- knock yourself out in giving it to him. But don't give it to him because he's a football player. Give it to him because he's a criminal.

If Ben assaulted this woman- fair enough. Throw the book at him & be done with him.

But to sit here & say that Ben shouldn't be out on the hunt, that Ben has greater responsibilities than the common man because he has a bucket load of cash, that he's acting a buffoon for doing what he wants in his own personal time is, for lack of a better term to use- a holier than thou stance from a bunch of people (us) that have no right to demand that from him. He might be a footballer. He might be a rich Steeler QB. But add to this- he's also a young man that has a life beyond football. He doesn't stand back & tell you, as fans, that you are doing the wrong thing if you yell & scream abuse from the sidelines, does he? He doesn't tut-tut you if you are given a speeding ticket & tell you that you brought the organisation you work for into disgrace as a result.

If I were the face of a 1 billion dollar organization that was paying me 1/10 of the worth of the company and I did something that embarrassed the organization, not once, but twice in one year, I'd expect to be fired.

I'm not saying Ben can't have a life outside of football, but his life outside of football has changed and I don't believe he has realized this yet. If he wants to hang out and be one of the guys, he needs to do that at home with his friends. Once he steps outside the front gate of his house he has to be a different person even if he doesn't want to.

Pappy
Pappy

Chadman
03-09-2010, 02:31 AM
nyway...I seem to have been sidetracked from my point-

We are all willing to believe he did the wrong thing because a woman said he did.

All things being equal, and fair, we should now all believe he's completely innocent, because his lawyer said so.

They have provided an equal amount of proof to us- why are we willing to lap up only one side of the story?

Chadman
03-09-2010, 02:33 AM
If I were the face of a 1 billion dollar organization that was paying me 1/10 of the worth of the company and I did something that embarrassed the organization, not once, but twice in one year, I'd expect to be fired.

I'm not saying Ben can't have a life outside of football, but his life outside of football has changed and I don't believe he has realized this yet. If he wants to hang out and be one of the guys, he needs to do that at home with his friends. Once he steps outside the front gate of his house he has to be a different person even if he doesn't want to.

Pappy

Your first sentence proves my point Pap- you already BELIEVE he did the wrong thing. His reputation is tarnished to you.

And why?

Because a couple of women say so?

If we are going to believe these two women so easily, why can't we believe Ben as easily?

Chadman
03-09-2010, 02:37 AM
I'm not saying Ben can't have a life outside of football, but his life outside of football has changed and I don't believe he has realized this yet

Ben surrounds himself with what locals are calling 'bodyguards', he stops & poses for photos with everyone, he buys drinks for people he just met.

Don't know about you, but I can't remember the last time that was my normal life.

Are you saying that, because he's famous, he has to act as if he can't trust anyone?

Will he then be accused of being aloof & stand-offish?

papillon
03-09-2010, 02:44 AM
If I were the face of a 1 billion dollar organization that was paying me 1/10 of the worth of the company and I did something that embarrassed the organization, not once, but twice in one year, I'd expect to be fired.

I'm not saying Ben can't have a life outside of football, but his life outside of football has changed and I don't believe he has realized this yet. If he wants to hang out and be one of the guys, he needs to do that at home with his friends. Once he steps outside the front gate of his house he has to be a different person even if he doesn't want to.

Pappy

Your first sentence proves my point Pap- you already BELIEVE he did the wrong thing. His reputation is tarnished to you.

And why?

Because a couple of women say so?

If we are going to believe these two women so easily, why can't we believe Ben as easily?

He doesn't have to be convicted, unfortunately, to be labeled with the tag. Regardless, being talked about in this light is embarrassing to the Steelers, innocent or not, it just is.

I haven't convicted him anything except poor decision making or judgment whichever you prefer.

I don't believe a word that the woman has said during this, there aren't enough quotes to make any type of determination. And, yet, I still have this question: How is it that other high profile athletes have one night stands, BJs in the VIP room, etc and we aren't hearing of these women filing charges?

Even if the sex was consensual, why is she willing to file charges?

Pappy

Chadman
03-09-2010, 02:56 AM
He doesn't have to be convicted, unfortunately, to be labeled with the tag. Regardless, being talked about in this light is embarrassing to the Steelers, innocent or not, it just is.

So what's to say this woman isn't just a jilted Ravens fan trying to get at the Steelers?

We've basically accepted that Ben has done the wrong thing based on an unknown, unnamed woman's account of what happened.

And the cracker- Ben isn't even named yet as the suspect in the case.

Yet here we all are, saying Ben has shown poor judgement. There is NO REASON these accusations can't be made by people that never even had contact with Ben. If that happens, is Ben guilty of poor judgement?

If Ben is found not guilty, I sure hope that EVERY TALKING HEAD that has been quick to jump on him is JUST AS QUICK to say Ben was wrongly accused & that they are sorry for painting him in a bad light.

But even if that is done, his reputation is tarnished, regardless.

Because more people are willing to accept he did the wrong thing than there are people willing to wait to see the outcome of the investigation.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
03-09-2010, 03:03 AM
I hear what you're saying, Chadman, but I think it goes beyond that - we all have an implicit contract to do/not do certain things - it's not written out, but it's just as valid. I think it's pretty well understood that actions that cheapen the value of your employer's product are pretty much understood by all employees everywhere to be avoided - from plumber to CEO. Ben's hanging out in a bar at 2:30 makes it more likely that "bad" things will happen, so it's irresponsible from a corporate point of view - no holier than thou stuff needed. My

Are you saying that anyone employed that stays out until 2:30 in their private time is in fact risking the wrath of their employer?

The fact that Ben was out, in his free time, doing his own thing, at whatever hour, does not indicate that he was acting poorly, or showing poor judgement.

If in fact, he was chasing women, and we find him irresponsible for doing so- then Hell, all men are irresponsible. If you are young, and single, who isn't looking for some action? Does being an NFL player mean that he can't have normal urges & desires? Can we really expect an employer, any employer, to frown on that?

The actual thing we are saying 'no go' to is an ACCUSATION of SEXUAL ASSAULT. Not hanging out at night, not having fun, not being in the company of women. SEXUAL ASSAULT. And, as of now, it is an ACCUSATION- not a CONVICTION, NO PROOF as of this stage. If he is found to have done wrong by this woman, by all means- knock yourself out in giving it to him. But don't give it to him because he's a football player. Give it to him because he's a criminal.

If Ben assaulted this woman- fair enough. Throw the book at him & be done with him.

But to sit here & say that Ben shouldn't be out on the hunt, that Ben has greater responsibilities than the common man because he has a bucket load of cash, that he's acting a buffoon for doing what he wants in his own personal time is, for lack of a better term to use- a holier than thou stance from a bunch of people (us) that have no right to demand that from him. He might be a footballer. He might be a rich Steeler QB. But add to this- he's also a young man that has a life beyond football. He doesn't stand back & tell you, as fans, that you are doing the wrong thing if you yell & scream abuse from the sidelines, does he? He doesn't tut-tut you if you are given a speeding ticket & tell you that you brought the organisation you work for into disgrace as a result.

No, I'm NOT saying that anyone employed and out at 2:30 AM in their private time is doing something wrong. But, it depends on who you are, and what happens next. What I'm saying is that if SOME employees do that, and THEN get into the kind of trouble we're talking about, on MULTIPLE occasions, it is NOT OK in the eyes of MANY employers.

Look, there are many many 28 year olds who get what Ben doesn't, that their employers expect them to keep their nose clean, to not cheapen the value of the product - even if it's not explicitly in a contract. Any number of famous single athletes like Brady/Crosby/Brown's QB/Terrel Owens, or non-athletes who are in certain professions like doctors/lawyers, etc. etc. - by and large, these folks get it. They gotta make choices that minimize the chance of something bad happening. Along with the wealth/fame/etc. comes responsibilities/restrictions that people in other situations don't have.

There's more to it. This kind of thing is almost certainly a distraction for the team, in the locker room, etc. That alone should make it important to try your hardest to avoid winding up in that situation. Do you think Hines might be thinking something like - "What an as*hole, if he's suspended there goes my last best chance for another ring". And what about the front office - do you think they're talking about things this week they weren't last - like what the heck to do if Ben gets suspended indefinitely in the next week ... like do we need to change our draft strategy?

In too many ways, it's more than just some random 28 year old guy going out and having a beer and running into a psycho-hosebeast. It's the face of a multimillion dollar corporation. It's not fair, perhaps, but it's just the way it is.

Jeesh, even TO and OchoCinco don't put themselves, and their teams in this position. I hope Ben doesn't get indicted, this blows over, and THIS time Ben decides to grow up.

On another topic, I will not include any :Boobs :Boobs icons in this post, at your suggestion in an early post.

Whoops ...

hawaiiansteel
03-09-2010, 03:03 AM
Steeler quarterback not scrimping on his legal defense

By Jason Cato, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, March 9, 2010



When high-profile people get into high-profile trouble in Georgia, many turn to criminal defense attorney Edward T.M. Garland.

One magazine nicknamed him "Atlanta's Perry Mason," and another gave him the title: "The Best Attorney to Get You Out of Big Trouble."

Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has joined the list of celebrity athletes who have turned to Garland in the Peach State.

"Down there, I wouldn't hire anybody else," said Jay Reisinger, a Downtown sports law attorney.

Garland has investigators combing Milledgeville, the rural college town about 80 miles southeast of Atlanta where Roethlisberger, 28, is accused of sexually assaulting a 20-year-old sorority member early Friday in a bar. Roethlisberger has not been charged.

"I'm confident that law enforcement — the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the local police and the district attorney — will do a thorough evaluation of the facts in this case and that their conclusion will be that no crime was committed," Garland told the Tribune-Review.

Reisinger said he has consulted Garland for help, though he declined to name the clients.

"He's really good at what he does," Reisinger said.

Diane O'Steen, executive director of the Atlanta Bar Association, heard on news talk radio that Roethlisberger hired a "well-known midtown Atlanta lawyer."

"I knew the name before the announcer said it," O'Steen said. "Either Ed, or Don Samuel."

Roethlisberger retained both, meaning his defense team includes two-thirds of the named partners at Garland, Samuel & Loeb.

"I have known Ed probably since he has been practicing law," O'Steen said. "He is as well-respected by the entire Atlanta legal community as any other lawyer or judge in our area, in my opinion."

Garland's father was a renowned criminal defense attorney. Reuben Garland successfully defended a group of white supremacists accused of a 1958 bombing at Atlanta's Hebrew Benevolent Society, a Reform congregation commonly called the Temple.

The bombing and the Garland family's 16,000-square-foot mansion were featured in the 1989 Academy Award-winning film "Driving Miss Daisy." The Italian Renaissance Revival house, built in 1911, was used as a nursing home in the film.

Ed Garland earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Georgia and has practiced law since 1965.

His resume reads as might be expected for someone selected as one of the "Best Lawyers in America" since 1983. He has been on the State Bar of Georgia's board of governors since 1988.

Samuel made the best lawyers list 19 times. He has been with the firm since 1982 and has written three books on criminal law.

In addition to celebrity athletes, the two have represented:

• Clifford Harris Jr., known as rapper T.I., who in 2009 pleaded guilty to federal weapons charges and received a year-and-a-day prison term instead of the 15 years he faced.

• Jim Williams, the Savannah antiques dealer whose murder trial was chronicled in the book "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil." Williams was acquitted after four trials.

• James Vincent Sullivan, a millionaire who in 2006 avoided the death penalty after a jury convicted him of hiring a hitman to kill his wife in 1987.

"They're about as good as they get," said Atlanta attorney Maubir "Manny" Arora, who spent six years at Garland, Samuel & Loeb. "Ed is the dean of the criminal bar down here. Ron is the scholar."

Arora declined to say what Garland's firm typically charges celebrity clients.

"It's not going to be cheap," Arora said.

"They work incredibly hard, and they are incredibly bright," Arora said. "Because of their skills, they often get favorable outcomes (for) their clients. ... Roethlisberger couldn't do any better."

stlrz d
03-09-2010, 08:40 AM
So much reason and logic by Chadman...nicely done.

Holier-than-thou is exactly what it is.

ANPSTEEL
03-09-2010, 08:44 AM
Chadman-

here is something to consider in respect to this situation.

The Pittsburgh Steelers, as an organization, hold themselves to a higher level.

A higher level of play
And a higher level of behavior.
A higher level of performance across the board.

-As an organization, as a coaching staff, as players, and I suppose- as fans.

I know that many of us life long fans, are so ardent in our support for the team, in large part because of this elevated standard and the expectations that go along with it.

You can be certain this attitude starts with the Rooneys.

“That is not how we do things here.” Should be the company mantra.

When two very well connected reporters, Shefter & Clayton, are indicating that the Steelers organization is very upset and disappointed regarding this latest incident, you can be sure this includes the Rooneys.

The team that holds itself to a higher standard- now has its $100mil QB, being referred to as Ben Rapelessburger- How do you think that is going over??

None of us know exactly what happened in that bar.

But almost everthing to come into light so far, would indicate- that something did take place.

Her behavior in going to the police- right away.
Her reported behavior / emotional state while with the police.
Being treated and presumably evidence collection.
Her continued lack of public statement- indicating she doesn't want the media attention or spotlight.
His being brought back in for questioning, and a dna sample.
His hiring the most prominent defense attorney he could find in that jurisdiction.

Lets just agree- something happened.

How he interpreted the event, and how she interpreted the event- would clearly seem to be different.

Whatever the case-

At bare minimum, BR show extraordinarily poor judgment.
At worst, he committed sexual assault, and will pay for it.

Either way- his behavior, once again has put himself and the organization in the spotlight for a negative reason. And- once again, his behavior will jeopardize the team and the upcoming season. That is the crux of the problem.

Ben's poor choices don't just impact him. They impact every other player on that team. Every coach. And the entire organization.

That is why he is being held to a higher standard.

stlrz d
03-09-2010, 08:53 AM
ANP - with all due respect it is Ben's job to play football. Period.

All those things you mentioned in your "bullet points" are pretty much standard given the circumstances.

Like I posted, the authorities will be going over every bit of security camera footage available to them. If they do see that she was all over him it's going to be damn tough for them to charge him with anything.

stlrz d
03-09-2010, 09:04 AM
And also, I'm pretty sure that even though she came forward "right away" she can still take a cash grab and drop the charges.

Hopefully Pennypacker can shed some light on that.

ANPSTEEL
03-09-2010, 09:10 AM
And also, I'm pretty sure that even though she came forward "right away" she can still take a cash grab and drop the charges.

Hopefully Pennypacker can shed some light on that.

I would imagine that is being negotiated
before Ben even gets to the evidence collection.

Chadman
03-09-2010, 09:21 AM
I understand that, as fans, we are disappointed to see a Steelers player, any player, in trouble with the law.

That has never been a question in my mind.

BUT...

We have all basically accepted that Ben is guilty. Even if he isn't found guilty, we believe he's guilty. We are blaming him for poor judgement, poor morals, poor thought process, poor regard to his teammates, his bosses, the NFL, God, the world as a whole & worst of all- us, the fans.

And we base all this disappointment, all this nay-saying on what?

An accusation from someone none of us know?

My WHOLE POINT here has been this- there is no justice done in this to Ben. He might be COMPLETELY INNOCENT and yet we sit here & vilefy him for his poor actions. Even if he gets off, we'll still hear tut-tutting from the media, the fans of other teams & worse- US. "Big Ben is a bone head that doesn't think of his team" blah blah.

Ben's responsibility to the Steelers organisation rests in his actions regarding the details stipulated in his contract. I'm sure it has clauses in regards to not bringing the franchise into disrepute. And some of you are using this case as an example of him doing just that.

BUT...it's the off season, it wasn't a team run event, it didn't involve the Steelers at all in fact. It wasn't even in Pittsburgh.

Do the Steelers OWN Ben Roethlisberger? I mean, can they control what car he drives? Who his friends are? Where he shops? What if he buys a Hummer. Do we all complain because Ben doesn't value the Earth's atmosphere? And does this directly impact the Steelers?

If Ben wants to go to clubs in the off season, have some fun, even get blind drunk- so far as I can tell, so long as he isn't committing crimes, he's free to do as he pleases.

And now, after that last paragraph, everyone's eyes light up ready to say "He committed a crime Chadman!"

But again, I'll ask you this- did he? Who says?

If he doesn't get ACCUSED of committing a crime, is his night out in Georgia newsworthy? A disgrace to the Steeler nation? No?

If we truly believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', take away the accusation & tell me Ben acted poorly. That he was displaying poor judgement. If you can HONESTLY read the events as they are chronicled, and see fault with Ben's actions once the ACCUSATION is removed from the events, I want to hear why.

SteelAbility
03-09-2010, 09:25 AM
The fact that there is a civil case alleging rape pending, ALONE, shows that Ben has poor judgment, innocent or not.

In a real court of law - presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion - vice-versa. That's how this world is, unfortunately. Ben should be able to think that through at the very least. And, yes, he owes it to the Steelers to keep himself out of situations where the possibility of false accusation becomes strong.

Chadman
03-09-2010, 09:30 AM
The fact that there is a civil case alleging rape pending, ALONE, shows that Ben has poor judgment, innocent or not.

In a real court of law - presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion - vice-versa. That's how this world is, unfortunately. Ben should be able to think that through at the very least. And, yes, he owes it to the Steelers to keep himself out of situations where the possibility of false accusation becomes strong.

For the record, I saw SteelAbility accept a bribe to keep quiet about ANPSteeler cheating on a test.

See how easy it is to sling mud?

Two key words to keep in mind before you dump on Ben- ALLEGED & ACCUSED.

Two words ommitted- CONVICTED & PROOF.

There is no way in the world that ANYONE can keep themselves out of situations where false accusations can be made. None whatsoever. And if you honestly believe there is, you are naive. As I gave the example earlier- if Ben was at home & ordered pizza, delivery girl turned up, and two hours later said Ben sexually assaulted her at his home- can we blame Ben for putting himself in a position where he had contact with the outside world & the possibility of a false accusation?

Chadman
03-09-2010, 09:38 AM
Just for the record- don't for a second think I'm condoning sexual assault.

If Ben IS guilty, I want him cut there & then. I want him out of the NFL.

Much like Michael Vick was, and still should be.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
03-09-2010, 09:53 AM
If you owned a $1 billion company, and your CEO was accused of sexual assault, and it was splashed all over the media, oh and he happened to be wearing a T-shirt with your company logo on it loud and proud... how would you feel?

And then within a year it happened again, this time while drinking in a bar at 2:30 AM. And again, he's wearing the company logo front and center, and it's visible in all the news photos and clips.

And then the media starts referring to him as a rapist. Your company, which has built it's reputation on it's good name and good ethics, starts getting a reputation for the opposite.

Would you be upset with that CEO? Woud you think he made bad decisions, exhibited poor judgement, whether he was found guilty or not? If all charges were DROPPED, would you say - "Hey, he didn't do anything wrong, he doesn't need to change what he does in his off time".

In my world, I would expect to be fired if I was that CEO, as someone above posted earlier. That's the basis for my viewpoint. And no, it's not a "holier-than-thou" attitude. And Ben doesn't need to wear a Steelers' T-shirt for people to get that he works for the Steelers. He needs to wake up and act like the face of a $ billion dollar company should - whether he's twenty eight, fun-loving, or otherwise.

MaxAMillion
03-09-2010, 09:58 AM
I was listening to a lawyer today on the radio and he said that the rape kit will tell most of the story. I know this is a small town in Georgia, but hopefully they have a trained nurse on staff who is familiar with sexual assault. He or she would be able to administer the test correctly and help ensure proper evidence is gathered. Those results will probably come out within the next week

I doubt Ben goes to jail even if the accusation is accurate. High priced lawyers tend to be able to get clients off in a much higher rate than state appointed lawyers for people with low income. Hopefully it won't come to that.

Chadman
03-09-2010, 10:00 AM
In my world, I would expect to be fired if I was that CEO

Honestly, with the scenario you played out, if it was me & I was found not guilty but I had been fired for being ACCUSED of something I didn't do- I'd be going to the Unfair Dismissal Tribunal & demanding a massive payout.

If that is justice in your view, then I guess I see where we are going to disagree. You are basically telling me that, if you ever get accused of something, regardless of how guilty you are of it, you are stupid for putting yourself in a 'situation' that COULD lead to a false accusation. And my response to that is simple- every damn situation has the potential to lead to a false accusation.

Everyone keeps harping on about the money side of things as if it makes all this more important- it doesn't.

We've crucified Ben for something he MAY have done.

Seems fair.

MaxAMillion
03-09-2010, 10:06 AM
In my world, I would expect to be fired if I was that CEO

Honestly, with the scenario you played out, if it was me & I was found not guilty but I had been fired for being ACCUSED of something I didn't do- I'd be going to the Unfair Dismissal Tribunal & demanding a massive payout.

If that is justice in your view, then I guess I see where we are going to disagree. You are basically telling me that, if you ever get accused of something, regardless of how guilty you are of it, you are stupid for putting yourself in a 'situation' that COULD lead to a false accusation. And my response to that is simple- every damn situation has the potential to lead to a false accusation.

Everyone keeps harping on about the money side of things as if it makes all this more important- it doesn't.

We've crucified Ben for something he MAY have done.

Seems fair.

That is a generalization. Some people have crucified Ben for what he has done and others have basically implied that the girl is a liar. None of us knows what happened that night. Saying "we" have crucified Ben is incorrect. I am not drawing any conclusion either way. I am waiting until more information is made available.

Chadman
03-09-2010, 10:08 AM
In my world, I would expect to be fired if I was that CEO

Honestly, with the scenario you played out, if it was me & I was found not guilty but I had been fired for being ACCUSED of something I didn't do- I'd be going to the Unfair Dismissal Tribunal & demanding a massive payout.

If that is justice in your view, then I guess I see where we are going to disagree. You are basically telling me that, if you ever get accused of something, regardless of how guilty you are of it, you are stupid for putting yourself in a 'situation' that COULD lead to a false accusation. And my response to that is simple- every damn situation has the potential to lead to a false accusation.

Everyone keeps harping on about the money side of things as if it makes all this more important- it doesn't.

We've crucified Ben for something he MAY have done.

Seems fair.

That is a generalization. Some people have crucified Ben for what he has done and others have basically implied that the girl is a liar. None of us knows what happened that night. Saying "we" have crucified Ben is incorrect. I am not drawing any conclusion either way. I am waiting until more information is made available.


EDIT- Max is officially removed from the collective 'WE'... :D

Until further notice....

SanAntonioSteelerFan
03-09-2010, 10:22 AM
[quote:2nt7v28w]In my world, I would expect to be fired if I was that CEO

Honestly, with the scenario you played out, if it was me & I was found not guilty but I had been fired for being ACCUSED of something I didn't do- I'd be going to the Unfair Dismissal Tribunal & demanding a massive payout.

If that is justice in your view, then I guess I see where we are going to disagree. You are basically telling me that, if you ever get accused of something, regardless of how guilty you are of it, you are stupid for putting yourself in a 'situation' that COULD lead to a false accusation. And my response to that is simple- every damn situation has the potential to lead to a false accusation.

Everyone keeps harping on about the money side of things as if it makes all this more important- it doesn't.

We've crucified Ben for something he MAY have done.

Seems fair.[/quote:2nt7v28w]

Not saying it's justice, but I do think it's reality ... that owner of the $1 Billion dollar company is going to look around at all the other companys' CEO's who DON'T get accused of sexual assault twice in one year. And he's going to wonder why he wound up hiring this guy who is putting his company in such a bad light. And he's probably going to wonder if the damage to the company identity is worth whatever excellent skills this guy has as a CEO.

Hey, didn't we have a backup RB a few years back who was accused of beating his wife/girlfriend? How do some of these things just fade away, and others have such legs?

Chadman
03-09-2010, 10:28 AM
I think I'm going to stop trying to make my point as it only makes me look like a radical who is in full support of Ben.

Some of you got what I was saying, some didn't. No biggie.

Hope I didn't get too 'pointed' with my arguments.

I just hope that it all proves to be nothing.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
03-09-2010, 10:42 AM
I think I'm going to stop trying to make my point as it only makes me look like a radical who is in full support of Ben.

Some of you got what I was saying, some didn't. No biggie.

Hope I didn't get too 'pointed' with my arguments.

I just hope that it all proves to be nothing.

Amen to that. And you didn't look like a radical to me. Just a reasonable guy with a reasonable point of view!

frankthetank1
03-09-2010, 10:48 AM
i am so sick of ben getting himself in these situations. i am sure there are plenty of high profile players that go out to bars and clubs on a regular basis without getting themselves into trouble. yeah mcnaulty was a joke and this very well could be as well but it doesnt really matter if ben isnt guilty. the simple fact of him being accused of this for the second time really damages his image. why does ben have to go out to bars and party? why put yourself in bad situations? it makes no sense to me. out of his 100 mil contract he is going to have to pay a good chunk of it to attorneys. the motorcycle accident was his fault as well. why ride a bike if your worth 100 mil? just stupid. i love ben no matter what the outcome is but he needs some common sense.

SteelAbility
03-09-2010, 11:05 AM
The fact that there is a civil case alleging rape pending, ALONE, shows that Ben has poor judgment, innocent or not.

In a real court of law - presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion - vice-versa. That's how this world is, unfortunately. Ben should be able to think that through at the very least. And, yes, he owes it to the Steelers to keep himself out of situations where the possibility of false accusation becomes strong.

For the record, I saw SteelAbility accept a bribe to keep quiet about ANPSteeler cheating on a test.

See how easy it is to sling mud?

Two key words to keep in mind before you dump on Ben- ALLEGED & ACCUSED.

Two words ommitted- CONVICTED & PROOF.

There is no way in the world that ANYONE can keep themselves out of situations where false accusations can be made. None whatsoever. And if you honestly believe there is, you are naive. As I gave the example earlier- if Ben was at home & ordered pizza, delivery girl turned up, and two hours later said Ben sexually assaulted her at his home- can we blame Ben for putting himself in a position where he had contact with the outside world & the possibility of a false accusation?

Honestly, I think plain text and lack of voice intonation and inflection is getting much in the way of the various points being made. My point isn't that Ben is guilty. My point is that we live in a world where accusations and mud-slinging run rampant. When there is a pending civil case alleging rape against you it is easier and easier to sling mud.

You go out partying, philandering (and potentially acting like a total pr*ck, like one girl who said she asked for a photo with Ben with his indicating he was disappointed that was all she wanted, then she rolls here eyes and he calls here an [expletive] and walks off) and you just gave the false accusers not only a motivation, but a perfect cloud of obfuscation to hide behind while they make their accusations, keeping the spotlight on YOU instead of on the truth.

No you can't absolutely remove false accusations but you can sure as !$^!@^!#%! make it easier for them to be made.

As far as the Pizza delivery girl goes, if you want to go to an extreme, you can set up a camera outside your house and record not only your polite demeanor but the fact that you tipped her 75%.

BURGH86STEEL
03-09-2010, 11:12 AM
I think I'm going to stop trying to make my point as it only makes me look like a radical who is in full support of Ben.

Some of you got what I was saying, some didn't. No biggie.

Hope I didn't get too 'pointed' with my arguments.

I just hope that it all proves to be nothing.

I would be extra careful about the things I did and the company I kept if I were any NFL player. I am careful about the company I keep and places I go not being a celebrity. I understand that there are certain people and places that increases the risk of negative things happening. Those risks increase exponentially for athletes and celebrities. The reality is that they are under microscopes. Everything they say and is scrutinized.

ghettoscott
03-09-2010, 12:10 PM
crazy how this appears to have split the board members....wonder how the locker room feels.....

cruzer8
03-09-2010, 01:19 PM
I think I'm going to stop trying to make my point as it only makes me look like a radical who is in full support of Ben.

Some of you got what I was saying, some didn't. No biggie.

Hope I didn't get too 'pointed' with my arguments.

I just hope that it all proves to be nothing.

I would be extra careful about the things I did and the company I kept if I were any NFL player. I am careful about the company I keep and places I go not being a celebrity. I understand that there are certain people and places that increases the risk of negative things happening. Those risks increase exponentially for athletes and celebrities. The reality is that they are under microscopes. Everything they say and is scrutinized.

He went out with friends and bodyguards. He was careful. Reports now are saying that this chick was all over him. If that's the case and it turns out everything that happened was consensual then he did nothing wrong.

Or he could just stay at home whenever he doesn't have something football related going on. :roll:

BURGH86STEEL
03-09-2010, 02:56 PM
I think I'm going to stop trying to make my point as it only makes me look like a radical who is in full support of Ben.

Some of you got what I was saying, some didn't. No biggie.

Hope I didn't get too 'pointed' with my arguments.

I just hope that it all proves to be nothing.

I would be extra careful about the things I did and the company I kept if I were any NFL player. I am careful about the company I keep and places I go not being a celebrity. I understand that there are certain people and places that increases the risk of negative things happening. Those risks increase exponentially for athletes and celebrities. The reality is that they are under microscopes. Everything they say and is scrutinized.

He went out with friends and bodyguards. He was careful. Reports now are saying that this chick was all over him. If that's the case and it turns out everything that happened was consensual then he did nothing wrong.

Or he could just stay at home whenever he doesn't have something football related going on. :roll:

He was so careful he invited people he did not know into the party. If the reports are true, he also put himself in a position where he let a chick he did not know hang all over him. In my book, that is poor judgement knowing he is a target and he has a pending case.

The world is a very different place today then it was 10 or even 5 years ago. These players get counseled on those issues and more. Time and time again we see them put themselves into questionable positions. Situations that ruin careers. Ben is either stubborn, ignorant to the facts, oblivious to the situations, or does not care.

If he continues to put himself into those situations with his fame and fortune, he can expect the same results. It appears that Ray Lewis & Kobe learned from their mistakes, why didn't Ben learn from his first mistake?

No one said Ben has to stay home. I understand that Ben's not been proven guilty of anything. My point, as is others, is that Ben should be more careful. It will cost him more money and headaches if he is not. It my ultimately cost him his career. If you can't understand that simple concept I don't know what to tell you.

You can carry on rolling your eyes.

cruzer8
03-09-2010, 03:01 PM
Or maybe he took all the precautions and the chick still flaked on him?

The bottom line is that until it has been proved that he actually did something against the law then he has done nothing wrong.

This is just for you, per your request :roll:

feltdizz
03-09-2010, 03:39 PM
Ben could do everything right and still get flaked on. With 100 mill and a name attached to a civil suit he has to be twice as right.

SteelAbility
03-09-2010, 03:49 PM
I think I'm going to stop trying to make my point as it only makes me look like a radical who is in full support of Ben.

Some of you got what I was saying, some didn't. No biggie.

Hope I didn't get too 'pointed' with my arguments.

I just hope that it all proves to be nothing.

I would be extra careful about the things I did and the company I kept if I were any NFL player. I am careful about the company I keep and places I go not being a celebrity. I understand that there are certain people and places that increases the risk of negative things happening. Those risks increase exponentially for athletes and celebrities. The reality is that they are under microscopes. Everything they say and is scrutinized.

He went out with friends and bodyguards. He was careful. Reports now are saying that this chick was all over him. If that's the case and it turns out everything that happened was consensual then he did nothing wrong.

Or he could just stay at home whenever he doesn't have something football related going on. :roll:

Ok, so the innocence/guilt issue aside and let's say it was totally consensual. What if she has AIDS? Ben is still taking unnecessary risks potentially on the Steelers' tab. Ok, so there is a low probability that she does. Apparently he's doing this a lot. The probability of N independent events (each having a success rate of P) all coming up "successful" is P to the power N. Take a simple case ...

P = 0.999 (1 in 1000 chance of failure)
N = 100

For 100 tries, the odds of success are 0.999 to the power 100, 90.4%. For 1000 tries, the odds of success are not 1/1000 as natural intuition would seem to dictate. It would be 0.999 to the power 1000 = 36.7%.

Obviously AIDS is much lower than 1/1000. But this illustrates the idea. I would also argue that the kind of girl who throws herself at guys is more likely than the average to have aids, making that P number less favorable.

eniparadoxgma
03-09-2010, 03:55 PM
So much reason and logic by Chadman...nicely done.

Holier-than-thou is exactly what it is.

:Agree

eniparadoxgma
03-09-2010, 04:02 PM
I think I'm going to stop trying to make my point as it only makes me look like a radical who is in full support of Ben.

Some of you got what I was saying, some didn't. No biggie.

Hope I didn't get too 'pointed' with my arguments.

I just hope that it all proves to be nothing.

I would be extra careful about the things I did and the company I kept if I were any NFL player. I am careful about the company I keep and places I go not being a celebrity. I understand that there are certain people and places that increases the risk of negative things happening. Those risks increase exponentially for athletes and celebrities. The reality is that they are under microscopes. Everything they say and is scrutinized.

He went out with friends and bodyguards. He was careful. Reports now are saying that this chick was all over him. If that's the case and it turns out everything that happened was consensual then he did nothing wrong.

Or he could just stay at home whenever he doesn't have something football related going on. :roll:

Ok, so the innocence/guilt issue aside and let's say it was totally consensual. What if she has AIDS? Ben is still taking unnecessary risks potentially on the Steelers' tab. Ok, so there is a low probability that she does. Apparently he's doing this a lot. The probability of N independent events (each having a success rate of P) all coming up "successful" is P to the power N. Take a simple case ...

P = 0.999 (1 in 1000 chance of failure)
N = 100

For 100 tries, the odds of success are 0.999 to the power 100, 90.4%. For 1000 tries, the odds of success are not 1/1000 as natural intuition would seem to dictate. It would be 0.999 to the power 1000 = 36.7%.

Obviously AIDS is much lower than 1/1000. But this illustrates the idea. I would also argue that the kind of girl who throws herself at guys is more likely than the average to have aids, making that P number less favorable.

I really don't get it. Why do you get to decide what's an unnecessary risk and what isn't? And why is it more important that it's on the Steeler's tab or whatever? Shouldn't we, as human beings, care more about the fact that he might die if he got AIDS?

...

snarky
03-09-2010, 04:14 PM
I know this is sort of out of the blue but I would just like to point out that we have zero info about this woman (and I'm not suggesting that we should). There are indeed cases of women filing false rape claims because they feel jilted, ashamed of their own behavior or they fear their boyfriend will find out they had sex with another man.

I'm not suggesting that I know any of these to be at work here -- but I'm just saying that the public knows very little right now in terms of what will eventually settle guilt or innocence.

As far as this being the second allegation. The first allegation is obviously bunk so I see no reason to even include it in the conversation. Although I will say that Ben might have a hit it and quit it mentality in the extreme. That's his choice and it's his life. There's no law against it. And as for how it might affect his football -- that really is between him and the FO.

Sugar
03-09-2010, 04:54 PM
I know this is sort of out of the blue but I would just like to point out that we have zero info about this woman (and I'm not suggesting that we should). There are indeed cases of women filing false rape claims because they feel jilted, ashamed of their own behavior or they fear their boyfriend will find out they had sex with another man.

I'm not suggesting that I know any of these to be at work here -- but I'm just saying that the public knows very little right now in terms of what will eventually settle guilt or innocence.

As far as this being the second allegation. The first allegation is obviously bunk so I see no reason to even include it in the conversation. Although I will say that Ben might have a hit it and quit it mentality in the extreme. That's his choice and it's his life. There's no law against it. And as for how it might affect his football -- that really is between him and the FO.

:Agree

There really isn't much to discuss right now. We know so very little about the whole situation.

hawaiiansteel
03-09-2010, 06:01 PM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

Chadman
03-09-2010, 06:10 PM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

That's not what the Rooney's said..


Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II issued the following statement regarding the allegations made against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger:

“All of us in the Steelers family are concerned about the recent incident involving Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia. We cannot comment on any of the specifics until law enforcement’s investigation is concluded. Certainly, we will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

That is what they said...it is somewhat different, don't you agree?

hawaiiansteel
03-09-2010, 06:12 PM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

That's not what the Rooney's said..


Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II issued the following statement regarding the allegations made against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger:

“All of us in the Steelers family are concerned about the recent incident involving Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia. We cannot comment on any of the specifics until law enforcement’s investigation is concluded. Certainly, we will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

That is what they said...it is somewhat different, don't you agree?


I was referring to what Adam Schefter from ESPN said on the radio, per Schefter the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation...

ANPSTEEL
03-09-2010, 06:13 PM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

That's not what the Rooney's said..


Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II issued the following statement regarding the allegations made against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger:

“All of us in the Steelers family are concerned about the recent incident involving Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia. We cannot comment on any of the specifics until law enforcement’s investigation is concluded. Certainly, we will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

That is what they said...it is somewhat different, don't you agree?


I believe what he was referring to, was an espn segment with Shefter, where Shefter greatly emphasized the level of anger held by the organization.

Clayton did something similar.

BURGH86STEEL
03-09-2010, 06:17 PM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

That's not what the Rooney's said..


Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II issued the following statement regarding the allegations made against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger:

“All of us in the Steelers family are concerned about the recent incident involving Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia. We cannot comment on any of the specifics until law enforcement’s investigation is concluded. Certainly, we will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

That is what they said...it is somewhat different, don't you agree?


I was referring to what Adam Schefter from ESPN said on the radio, per Schefter the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation...

I heard the interview on the radio with Bob Smizik. He said that Dan was in town and was extremely upset about the situation.

snarky
03-09-2010, 06:19 PM
Chadman, I actually read the org's statement as lukewarm at best.

Chadman
03-09-2010, 06:20 PM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

That's not what the Rooney's said..


Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II issued the following statement regarding the allegations made against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger:

“All of us in the Steelers family are concerned about the recent incident involving Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia. We cannot comment on any of the specifics until law enforcement’s investigation is concluded. Certainly, we will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

That is what they said...it is somewhat different, don't you agree?


I was referring to what Adam Schefter from ESPN said on the radio, per Schefter the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation...

Ahh...my bad.

The advantage of actually living in the USA as compared to Australia gets me on this one.. :tt2

SteelAbility
03-09-2010, 06:28 PM
I think I'm going to stop trying to make my point as it only makes me look like a radical who is in full support of Ben.

Some of you got what I was saying, some didn't. No biggie.

Hope I didn't get too 'pointed' with my arguments.

I just hope that it all proves to be nothing.

I would be extra careful about the things I did and the company I kept if I were any NFL player. I am careful about the company I keep and places I go not being a celebrity. I understand that there are certain people and places that increases the risk of negative things happening. Those risks increase exponentially for athletes and celebrities. The reality is that they are under microscopes. Everything they say and is scrutinized.

He went out with friends and bodyguards. He was careful. Reports now are saying that this chick was all over him. If that's the case and it turns out everything that happened was consensual then he did nothing wrong.

Or he could just stay at home whenever he doesn't have something football related going on. :roll:

Ok, so the innocence/guilt issue aside and let's say it was totally consensual. What if she has AIDS? Ben is still taking unnecessary risks potentially on the Steelers' tab. Ok, so there is a low probability that she does. Apparently he's doing this a lot. The probability of N independent events (each having a success rate of P) all coming up "successful" is P to the power N. Take a simple case ...

P = 0.999 (1 in 1000 chance of failure)
N = 100

For 100 tries, the odds of success are 0.999 to the power 100, 90.4%. For 1000 tries, the odds of success are not 1/1000 as natural intuition would seem to dictate. It would be 0.999 to the power 1000 = 36.7%.

Obviously AIDS is much lower than 1/1000. But this illustrates the idea. I would also argue that the kind of girl who throws herself at guys is more likely than the average to have aids, making that P number less favorable.

I really don't get it. Why do you get to decide what's an unnecessary risk and what isn't? And why is it more important that it's on the Steeler's tab or whatever? Shouldn't we, as human beings, care more about the fact that he might die if he got AIDS?

...

"If I don't screw this girl then picking up AIDS from her is impossible. If I do and she has AIDS, then I introduce a chance of picking it up as compared to laying off." How exactly is that my usurping the right to declare unnecessary risk? The unnecessary risk here is pretty much self-evident. :roll:

I said nothing about the Steelers' tab being more important than Ben dying from AIDS. I made a point that Ben's choices there would directly harm the organization that honored him with a $100M contract. By the way, the dying from AIDS idea is even more reason to indict Ben, at the very least, for poor judgment.

Ok, put the shoe on the other foot. You spent a 1st round draft pick on a guy and gave him a $100M contract. Are you happy about this kind of behavior?

ikestops85
03-09-2010, 06:30 PM
I know this is sort of out of the blue but I would just like to point out that we have zero info about this woman (and I'm not suggesting that we should). There are indeed cases of women filing false rape claims because they feel jilted, ashamed of their own behavior or they fear their boyfriend will find out they had sex with another man.

I'm not suggesting that I know any of these to be at work here -- but I'm just saying that the public knows very little right now in terms of what will eventually settle guilt or innocence.

As far as this being the second allegation. The first allegation is obviously bunk so I see no reason to even include it in the conversation. Although I will say that Ben might have a hit it and quit it mentality in the extreme. That's his choice and it's his life. There's no law against it. And as for how it might affect his football -- that really is between him and the FO.

We certainly don't know if he did anything criminal but John Q. Public knows he is a rapist. Go talk to them and they will tell you that. The same way many on here call Ray Lewis a murderer. It doesn't matter whether he is innocent or not. Ben will be thought of as a rapist for years to come by many.

I don't like it but that's the way it will be. :(

eniparadoxgma
03-09-2010, 06:40 PM
"If I don't screw this girl then picking up AIDS from her is impossible. If I do and she has AIDS, then I introduce a chance of picking it up as compared to laying off." How exactly is that my usurping the right to declare unnecessary risk? The unnecessary risk here is pretty much self-evident. :roll:

I said nothing about the Steelers' tab being more important than Ben dying from AIDS. I made a point that Ben's choices there would directly harm the organization that honored him with a $100M contract. By the way, the dying from AIDS idea is even more reason to indict Ben, at the very least, for poor judgment.

Ok, put the shoe on the other foot. You spent a 1st round draft pick on a guy and gave him a $100M contract. Are you happy about this kind of behavior?

First off, keep the little rolly eyes bull**** to yourself. I don't think I've crossed any lines and I appreciate you doing the same. Rolling your eyes at someone during a conversation is impolite and IMO effeminate.

Your point here is that Ben is taking unnecessary risks and your example is him possibly having protected consensual sex with a chick from a bar because she might have AIDS? I don't know if you're aware of this so I'll just tell you: It only takes one time of having sex to get AIDS. The risk is just about always there unless you've been with someone for years that regularly gets tested... Sure, the chance is higher if you're a homosexual, practice unprotected sex with multiple partners, and share needles when shooting a lot of drugs...but because a girl is at a bar she all of a sudden is more likely to have AIDS? What about Ben? Is he more likely to have AIDS because he's in a bar? What. Exactly. Is. Your. Point.

So he shouldn't have sex anymore because he might catch AIDS and dang it we'll be out a quarterback? Is that really what you're saying here?

To put the shoe on the other foot, if I invested 100 million dollars in someone I'd hope that they were locked away in a cubicle training and learning and never saw the light of day except to make me some damn money. HOWEVER, people are people. Going to a club w/bodyguards on your birthday isn't an unnecessary risk in my book. The Rooneys have a right to be upset at the situation, and if the facts come out and Ben is to blame then they have a right to be upset with him. However, if the facts come out and he did nothing wrong then they don't have a right to be upset with him IMO.

A girl in a bar = whore with AIDS? Ben is taking unnecessary risks by having premarital sex? Don't get ya.

feltdizz
03-09-2010, 09:25 PM
"If I don't screw this girl then picking up AIDS from her is impossible. If I do and she has AIDS, then I introduce a chance of picking it up as compared to laying off." How exactly is that my usurping the right to declare unnecessary risk? The unnecessary risk here is pretty much self-evident. :roll:

I said nothing about the Steelers' tab being more important than Ben dying from AIDS. I made a point that Ben's choices there would directly harm the organization that honored him with a $100M contract. By the way, the dying from AIDS idea is even more reason to indict Ben, at the very least, for poor judgment.

Ok, put the shoe on the other foot. You spent a 1st round draft pick on a guy and gave him a $100M contract. Are you happy about this kind of behavior?

First off, keep the little rolly eyes bad word to yourself. I don't think I've crossed any lines and I appreciate you doing the same. Rolling your eyes at someone during a conversation is impolite and IMO effeminate.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

now that's funny...

and Ben has AIDS now?

feltdizz
03-09-2010, 09:27 PM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

That's not what the Rooney's said..


Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II issued the following statement regarding the allegations made against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger:

“All of us in the Steelers family are concerned about the recent incident involving Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia. We cannot comment on any of the specifics until law enforcement’s investigation is concluded. Certainly, we will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

That is what they said...it is somewhat different, don't you agree?


I believe what he was referring to, was an espn segment with Shefter, where Shefter greatly emphasized the level of anger held by the organization.

Clayton did something similar.

Why is the organization mad? Ben did nothing wrong...



right? :HeadBanger

Chadman
03-09-2010, 09:28 PM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

That's not what the Rooney's said..


Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II issued the following statement regarding the allegations made against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger:

“All of us in the Steelers family are concerned about the recent incident involving Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia. We cannot comment on any of the specifics until law enforcement’s investigation is concluded. Certainly, we will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

That is what they said...it is somewhat different, don't you agree?


I believe what he was referring to, was an espn segment with Shefter, where Shefter greatly emphasized the level of anger held by the organization.

Clayton did something similar.

Why is the organization mad? Ben did nothing wrong...



right? :HeadBanger


As of right now, that's what the law says.

To blame him for nothing seems harsh.

feltdizz
03-09-2010, 09:35 PM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

That's not what the Rooney's said..


Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II issued the following statement regarding the allegations made against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger:

“All of us in the Steelers family are concerned about the recent incident involving Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia. We cannot comment on any of the specifics until law enforcement’s investigation is concluded. Certainly, we will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

That is what they said...it is somewhat different, don't you agree?


I believe what he was referring to, was an espn segment with Shefter, where Shefter greatly emphasized the level of anger held by the organization.

Clayton did something similar.

Why is the organization mad? Ben did nothing wrong...



right? :HeadBanger


As of right now, that's what the law says.

To blame him for nothing seems harsh.

The Rooneys shouldn't be mad...
Ben and the Steelers are sitting pretty right now.

hawaiiansteel
03-10-2010, 12:57 AM
Adam Shefter of ESPN reported recently that the Steelers FO (ownership in particular) are extremely upset over Ben’s latest situation.



guess the Steelers' owners have no right to be upset over this, huh?

per request: :roll: :roll:

That's not what the Rooney's said..


Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II issued the following statement regarding the allegations made against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger:

“All of us in the Steelers family are concerned about the recent incident involving Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia. We cannot comment on any of the specifics until law enforcement’s investigation is concluded. Certainly, we will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

That is what they said...it is somewhat different, don't you agree?


I believe what he was referring to, was an espn segment with Shefter, where Shefter greatly emphasized the level of anger held by the organization.

Clayton did something similar.

Why is the organization mad? Ben did nothing wrong...



right? :HeadBanger


As of right now, that's what the law says.

To blame him for nothing seems harsh.



the folks who make Big Ben Beef Jerky are not happy with Ben -



Big Ben Beef Jerky could go bye-bye

Posted by Mike Florio on March 9, 2010


Though the full impact of a second sexual assault allegation against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisbeger remains to be determined, one of his sponsors is getting nervous.

Michael McCarthy of USA Today reports that the folks who make "Big Ben Beef Jerky" have spoken out regarding the latest development.

"It's just very concerning," PLB Sports president and CEO Ty Ballou told McCarthy. ""Ben is a single guy. He has every right to be out doing what he's doing. But when you're the quarterback of any team, especially the Steelers, you have to take extra measures. . . . Obviously, this is very concerning for all parties. This is the second time this has come out. . . .

"It's troubling," Ballou added. "You want the offseason to be quiet. You have to put yourself in a good positions. And Ben unfortunately hasn't. You even go back to the motorcycle accident. Whatever happened down there [in Georgia], I hope this will truly be the last time something like this happens. Ben's a good person. He does a lot for charity. But for his career, his fans and his family, you have to make good decisions."

feltdizz
03-10-2010, 01:48 AM
Is this Bens only endorsement? I don't remember him having too many.

Shawn
03-10-2010, 01:51 AM
"If I don't screw this girl then picking up AIDS from her is impossible. If I do and she has AIDS, then I introduce a chance of picking it up as compared to laying off." How exactly is that my usurping the right to declare unnecessary risk? The unnecessary risk here is pretty much self-evident. :roll:

I said nothing about the Steelers' tab being more important than Ben dying from AIDS. I made a point that Ben's choices there would directly harm the organization that honored him with a $100M contract. By the way, the dying from AIDS idea is even more reason to indict Ben, at the very least, for poor judgment.

Ok, put the shoe on the other foot. You spent a 1st round draft pick on a guy and gave him a $100M contract. Are you happy about this kind of behavior?

First off, keep the little rolly eyes bad word to yourself. I don't think I've crossed any lines and I appreciate you doing the same. Rolling your eyes at someone during a conversation is impolite and IMO effeminate.
Your point here is that Ben is taking unnecessary risks and your example is him possibly having protected consensual sex with a chick from a bar because she might have AIDS? I don't know if you're aware of this so I'll just tell you: It only takes one time of having sex to get AIDS. The risk is just about always there unless you've been with someone for years that regularly gets tested... Sure, the chance is higher if you're a homosexual, practice unprotected sex with multiple partners, and share needles when shooting a lot of drugs...but because a girl is at a bar she all of a sudden is more likely to have AIDS? What about Ben? Is he more likely to have AIDS because he's in a bar? What. Exactly. Is. Your. Point.

So he shouldn't have sex anymore because he might catch AIDS and dang it we'll be out a quarterback? Is that really what you're saying here?

To put the shoe on the other foot, if I invested 100 million dollars in someone I'd hope that they were locked away in a cubicle training and learning and never saw the light of day except to make me some damn money. HOWEVER, people are people. Going to a club w/bodyguards on your birthday isn't an unnecessary risk in my book. The Rooneys have a right to be upset at the situation, and if the facts come out and Ben is to blame then they have a right to be upset with him. However, if the facts come out and he did nothing wrong then they don't have a right to be upset with him IMO.

A girl in a bar = whore with AIDS? Ben is taking unnecessary risks by having premarital sex? Don't get ya.

:roll:


:mrgreen:

hawaiiansteel
03-10-2010, 03:12 AM
Is this Bens only endorsement? I don't remember him having too many.




later in the article it says,


"other sponsors have remained non-committal. Nike, for example, declined comment and Dick's Sporting Goods did not return any of our calls and e-mails."

eniparadoxgma
03-10-2010, 04:42 AM
The Rooneys shouldn't be mad...
Ben and the Steelers are sitting pretty right now.

There's an undeniable irony here.

You're (apparently) upset because you think the damage has already been done to his and the organization's reputation in the court of public opinion, right? Who makes up the court of public opinion? The public... You and I. So by participating in the idea that the damage is already done you are actually the cause of the damage yourself. :)

SteelAbility
03-10-2010, 10:03 AM
"If I don't screw this girl then picking up AIDS from her is impossible. If I do and she has AIDS, then I introduce a chance of picking it up as compared to laying off." How exactly is that my usurping the right to declare unnecessary risk? The unnecessary risk here is pretty much self-evident. :roll:

I said nothing about the Steelers' tab being more important than Ben dying from AIDS. I made a point that Ben's choices there would directly harm the organization that honored him with a $100M contract. By the way, the dying from AIDS idea is even more reason to indict Ben, at the very least, for poor judgment.

Ok, put the shoe on the other foot. You spent a 1st round draft pick on a guy and gave him a $100M contract. Are you happy about this kind of behavior?

First off, keep the little rolly eyes bad word to yourself. I don't think I've crossed any lines and I appreciate you doing the same. Rolling your eyes at someone during a conversation is impolite and IMO effeminate.

Your point here is that Ben is taking unnecessary risks and your example is him possibly having protected consensual sex with a chick from a bar because she might have AIDS? I don't know if you're aware of this so I'll just tell you: It only takes one time of having sex to get AIDS. The risk is just about always there unless you've been with someone for years that regularly gets tested... Sure, the chance is higher if you're a homosexual, practice unprotected sex with multiple partners, and share needles when shooting a lot of drugs...but because a girl is at a bar she all of a sudden is more likely to have AIDS? What about Ben? Is he more likely to have AIDS because he's in a bar? What. Exactly. Is. Your. Point.

So he shouldn't have sex anymore because he might catch AIDS and dang it we'll be out a quarterback? Is that really what you're saying here?

To put the shoe on the other foot, if I invested 100 million dollars in someone I'd hope that they were locked away in a cubicle training and learning and never saw the light of day except to make me some damn money. HOWEVER, people are people. Going to a club w/bodyguards on your birthday isn't an unnecessary risk in my book. The Rooneys have a right to be upset at the situation, and if the facts come out and Ben is to blame then they have a right to be upset with him. However, if the facts come out and he did nothing wrong then they don't have a right to be upset with him IMO.

A girl in a bar = whore with AIDS? Ben is taking unnecessary risks by having premarital sex? Don't get ya.

I put the rolly eyes in to indicate that you are twisting the obvious (unnecessary risk) into my usurping the right to declare what's risky and what's not. Read effeminate or whatever you want into it. IT'S YOUR OPINION RIGHT? I find twisting people's words be very impolite myself.

Thanks for twisting my words again. That was very helpful. What I said was that girl (at a bar) who throws herself at guys is more likely. Impolite gesture #2.

I'm saying unprotected sex with strangers introduces the RISK of picking up AIDS. What's so hard to understand about that?

Third time you twisted my words. Do you understand the difference between definitively asserting that she has AIDS and saying there is a CHANCE she has AIDS? Apparently not.

SteelAbility
03-10-2010, 10:11 AM
A bit of comic relief here ...

Can we all agree Ben probably won't be hanging out in Milledgeville any time soon??

feltdizz
03-10-2010, 12:44 PM
The Rooneys shouldn't be mad...
Ben and the Steelers are sitting pretty right now.

There's an undeniable irony here.

You're (apparently) upset because you think the damage has already been done to his and the organization's reputation in the court of public opinion, right? Who makes up the court of public opinion? The public... You and I. So by participating in the idea that the damage is already done you are actually the cause of the damage yourself. :)

Nice try... LOL!!!

Blame everyone but Ben may work on the field but off the field his "choices" are what caused this.

feltdizz
03-10-2010, 12:46 PM
A bit of comic relief here ...

Can we all agree Ben probably won't be hanging out in Milledgeville any time soon??

It's a bad time to sell a house...
someone may get a mansion at a condo rate...

cruzer8
03-10-2010, 12:59 PM
The Rooneys shouldn't be mad...
Ben and the Steelers are sitting pretty right now.

There's an undeniable irony here.

You're (apparently) upset because you think the damage has already been done to his and the organization's reputation in the court of public opinion, right? Who makes up the court of public opinion? The public... You and I. So by participating in the idea that the damage is already done you are actually the cause of the damage yourself. :)

In the words of Tony Bruno: beauuuuuuuuuutiful!

:Clap

feltdizz
03-10-2010, 01:50 PM
The Rooneys shouldn't be mad...
Ben and the Steelers are sitting pretty right now.

There's an undeniable irony here.

You're (apparently) upset because you think the damage has already been done to his and the organization's reputation in the court of public opinion, right? Who makes up the court of public opinion? The public... You and I. So by participating in the idea that the damage is already done you are actually the cause of the damage yourself. :)

In the words of Tony Bruno: beauuuuuuuuuutiful!

:Clap

yeah he got me...

does the story go away now? :Blah

hawaiiansteel
03-10-2010, 03:22 PM
The Rooneys shouldn't be mad...
Ben and the Steelers are sitting pretty right now.

There's an undeniable irony here.

You're (apparently) upset because you think the damage has already been done to his and the organization's reputation in the court of public opinion, right? Who makes up the court of public opinion? The public... You and I. So by participating in the idea that the damage is already done you are actually the cause of the damage yourself. :)

In the words of Tony Bruno: beauuuuuuuuuutiful!

:Clap

yeah he got me...

does the story go away now? :Blah



unfortunately not, there is still that little part where the nameless accuser wants Ben to give her some money...

kindlecatsb'ng
03-10-2010, 04:16 PM
http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/Ben.R ... 49219.html (http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/Ben.Roethlisberger.Bodyguards.2.1549219.html)


Am not sure how this bodyguard business works with elite athletes, but it would seem to add credibility to have police officers as part of his bodyguards. Don't know if others saw this article.

SteelAbility
03-10-2010, 04:50 PM
A bit of comic relief here ...

Can we all agree Ben probably won't be hanging out in Milledgeville any time soon??

It's a bad time to sell a house...
someone may get a mansion at a condo rate...

Sign me up! 8)

cruzer8
03-10-2010, 05:12 PM
http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/Ben.Roethlisberger.Bodyguards.2.1549219.html


Am not sure how this bodyguard business works with elite athletes, but it would seem to add credibility to have police officers as part of his bodyguards. Don't know if others saw this article.

Nah, he's still doing it wrong. He should just stay home studying the bible if he's not playing football.

eniparadoxgma
03-10-2010, 06:23 PM
I put the rolly eyes in to indicate that you are twisting the obvious (unnecessary risk) into my usurping the right to declare what's risky and what's not. Read effeminate or whatever you want into it. IT'S YOUR OPINION RIGHT? I find twisting people's words be very impolite myself.

There apparently is no "obvious" here. That's kind of what we're debating I believe: What is an "unnecessary" risk? And I'll say this once: I'm not deliberately twisting anyone's words. If you think I'm misinterpreting what you're saying then by all means clarify, okay?


"If I don't screw this girl then picking up AIDS from her is impossible. If I do and she has AIDS, then I introduce a chance of picking it up as compared to laying off."

How about:

"If I don't have sex ever, then picking up AIDS is impossible. If I do have sex and the girl I have sex with has AIDS, then I introduce a chance of picking it up as compared to laying off."

Or

"If I never leave my house except in a protective man-sized hamster ball, then getting hurt, picking up an STD, or being accused of sexual assault is close to impossible. If I do walk around in public without being encased in a large clear sphere then I introduce a chance of something bad happening as compared to staying in my friggin ball."

Which part of what I'm questioning here don't you understand? You're trying to state what an unnecessary risk is and I'm asking why you get to decide where the line is drawn. Why aren't athletes forced to stay in their homes so they never get hurt?

You have the benefit of hindsight to say that "Ben put himself in a bad situation" because apparently some chick had the ability to accuse him of sexual assault. I'm fairly certain a girl can accuse him of sexual assault if he's not even there. It's more likely to have credibility if he was in a 20 foot distance of the girl, but there doesn't actually have to be something illegal happening for him to be accused. You apparently have a problem with him going to a club for his birthday (or am I twisting your words or whatever here?) because you see it as an unnecessary risk. I'm saying that I don't consider it an unnecessary risk. Regardless of how much money he paid a girl to be quiet, regardless of whatever contract might be signed, regardless of whether or not said girl was his girlfriend, whether he was in his own house or a club, he can still be accused of sexual assault I believe.



Thanks for twisting my words again. That was very helpful. What I said was that girl (at a bar) who throws herself at guys is more likely. Impolite gesture #2.


Okay...you're not saying a girl in a bar has a higher risk of having AIDS but a girl that throws themselves at a celebrity while they're in a bar does? I stand corrected... I don't see the big difference here but okay.


I'm saying unprotected sex with strangers introduces the RISK of picking up AIDS. What's so hard to understand about that?

Unprotected? I don't recall that being part of your "example".

Regardless, I really don't see your point here. Ben should get married and be monogamous so that he doesn't have a greater chance of catching an STD? Should this be in his contract? How about you try to clarify exactly what your point with this whole "girl with STD" thing is so I don't accidentally "twist your words" again and make you break out new font colors.


Third time you twisted my words. Do you understand the difference between definitively asserting that she has AIDS and saying there is a CHANCE she has AIDS? Apparently not.

Why yes, I actually do understand the difference. Thanks for asking.

How about you try again to make your point since it's apparently lost on me. :)

eniparadoxgma
03-10-2010, 06:25 PM
Nice try... LOL!!!

Blame everyone but Ben may work on the field but off the field his "choices" are what caused this.

Not sure if you know, but I'm not the type to "blame everyone but Ben" on or off the field. I have no agenda of the sort here.

I thought my point valid...and still do. :)

hawaiiansteel
03-10-2010, 06:27 PM
Harris: Roethlisberger's troubles give Steelers pause

By John Harris, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, March 9, 2010


Steelers director of football operations Kevin Colbert has been fond of saying that drafting a quarterback isn't in the team's plans.

You couldn't blame Colbert for having second thoughts.

Maybe the Steelers should consider selecting a quarterback in next month's NFL Draft, or signing a veteran signal-caller -- just in case.

Because when it comes to Ben Roethlisberger, you never know.

Of course, the second incident in less than a year linking Roethlisberger with a sexual assault may turn out to be a false alarm if an investigation by Georgia law enforcement officials exonerates him.

But that doesn't mean life should return to normal as Roethlisberger and the Steelers know it.

How much, the Steelers have to be asking, is enough?

Roethlisberger isn't just any quarterback. He's the Steelers' franchise quarterback who won a pair of Super Bowls in his first six NFL seasons. He signed a $102 million contract two years ago, making him the face of the franchise.

That means Roethlisberger is the Steelers' most important player by virtue of his mega-salary and the position he plays on the field.

When people think of the Steelers, they naturally think of Roethlisberger.

What some of them are thinking right now isn't pretty or nice.

A picture taken of Roethlisberger -- wearing a shirt emblazoned with the devil on the night he was accused of sexually assaulting a 20-year old college student last week in Milledgeville, Ga. -- spoke a thousand words.

It was in stark contrast to the image Roethlisberger portrayed upon joining the Steelers as the No. 11 pick in the 2004 draft -- one of a humble young man from a good Midwestern family who points skyward after touchdown passes as a way of honoring his maker.

Yes, Roethlisberger is entitled to live the way he pleases and see who he wants socially.

It's his life, his business.

However, it stops being his exclusive business when those alleged indiscretions have a negative impact on the Steelers, who have made him exceedingly rich and famous.

"The allegations are the allegations. It's the fact of the matter of getting yourself in that situation where the allegations come out," said Pittsburgh-based agent Ralph Cindrich, who has represented hundreds of NFL players in a career spanning more than three decades, including Steelers linebacker James Farrior.

"In my view," Cindrich said as to what he thinks Roethlisberger's next step should be, "you drop what you're doing, you get over to the Steelers offices and you apologize to the Rooney family, the head coach and every one of your teammates."

It's trying times like these when the Steelers must consider if the hefty cost of doing business with Roethlisberger is worth it.

This must surely feel like deja vu to the Steelers' brass, who I'm certain had a serious heart-to-heart discussion with Roethlisberger last offseason after a woman charged him with sexual assault at a Lake Tahoe hotel and casino.

Roethlisberger strongly denied those allegations.

On Monday, Roethlisberger's new criminal defense lawyer, Edward T.M. Garland -- who defended Ray Lewis of the Baltimore Ravens against murder charges in 2000 -- said Roethlisberger is innocent of all charges.

Even if Roethlisberger isn't charged by police, the Steelers should be concerned enough to examine their quarterback situation more closely.

Remember, the civil case against Roethlisberger in Nevada is still pending.

Are the Steelers thoroughly convinced that these two incidents are isolated -- or exhibit a disturbing pattern of behavior displayed by the highest-paid player in franchise history?

Has Dennis Dixon, who started one game in his first two seasons, shown enough to be considered a suitable replacement if legal problems derail Roethlisberger? How comfortable are the Steelers with Dixon leading the offense?

I'm all for the Steelers not rushing to judgment against Roethlisberger. But the NFL is a business, and, like it or not, the Steelers have to prepare for the unknown.

Sending a strong message of disapproval to Roethlisberger by acquiring another quarterback could be the best way to get his attention.

hawaiiansteel
03-10-2010, 09:36 PM
Agent: Colon didn't witness alleged assault

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 10, 2010


The agent for Steelers tackle Willie Colon says his client was with Ben Roethlisberger last week, but not at the time when the quarterback admittedly engaged in "sexual conduct" with the woman alleging he assaulted her.

"Willie, although he was in the building, had no knowledge of the incident and his name
should not be brought up about this incident again," Linta said. "The first knowledge he had was when he was stopped when leaving the place to be asked some questions."

It's unclear if Colon will be interviewed again by police.