PDA

View Full Version : 75% chance Roethlisberger suspended



BigRob
04-02-2010, 06:05 PM
Just my opinion, but GBI doesn't come out and make a statement like they did about the media unless they are going to charge and arrest Big Ben. If no charges were going to be filed, then they wouldn't be gloating.

I am not saying that Roethlisberger is guilty, just that I do believe charges are going to come down.

Once he is arrested, he will be suspended indefinitely by the NFL. I just have a horrible feeling that we are going to be without Big Ben this year.

Shawn
04-02-2010, 06:12 PM
Just my opinion, but GBI doesn't come out and make a statement like they did about the media unless they are going to charge and arrest Big Ben. If no charges were going to be filed, then they wouldn't be gloating.

I am not saying that Roethlisberger is guilty, just that I do believe charges are going to come down.

Once he is arrested, he will be suspended indefinitely by the NFL. I just have a horrible feeling that we are going to be without Big Ben this year.

This makes zero sense. If the GBI was saying alot of media members would be eating crow...then it likely means they would be eating crow about beating up on Ben without any evidence. Why else would they be eating crow?

NKySteeler
04-02-2010, 06:12 PM
4 weeks without any charges being filed.... That's a fairly long time, even with a case such as this.

... I share your concern, though.

hawaiiansteel
04-02-2010, 06:17 PM
I know Florio is an idiot, but here is what he thinks the Steelers should do:

doesn't make any sense to me, why give up anything for Leftwich when we all know he will be cut later on?

and if Ben is indeed in trouble, is Leftwich really the long-term solution?




Steelers should trade for Byron Leftwich


It wouldn't be a jaw-dropping move, and it wouldn't take much to make it happen. But the Steelers need to be prepared for the possibility that Ben Roethlisberger won't be around in 2010 -- and the Steelers need to send a message to their fans that they plan to take the situation seriously if Roethlisberger ultimately is indicted for sexual assault.

Byron Leftwich did well for the Steelers as the primary backup to Big Ben in 2008, and Leftwich is the odd man out on the Tampa depth chart. Sure, the Steelers have Dennis Dixon and Charlie Batch. But if Roethlisberger ultimately isn't available and Dixon gets hurt, Leftwich would be a much more viable alternative to Batch.

Besides, making a move for Leftwich now would let the football-following world know that the Steelers truly regard the Roethlisberger situation as grave, and that they're making their plans accordingly.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article ... -nfl-draft (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/article/2010-04-02/five-moves-should-be-made-before-nfl-draft)

BigRob
04-02-2010, 06:17 PM
Just my opinion, but GBI doesn't come out and make a statement like they did about the media unless they are going to charge and arrest Big Ben. If no charges were going to be filed, then they wouldn't be gloating.

I am not saying that Roethlisberger is guilty, just that I do believe charges are going to come down.

Once he is arrested, he will be suspended indefinitely by the NFL. I just have a horrible feeling that we are going to be without Big Ben this year.

This makes zero sense. If the GBI was saying alot of media members would be eating crow...then it likely means they would be eating crow about beating up on Ben without any evidence. Why else would they be eating crow?

Eating crow about the case being mishandled. I'm sorry, I am a lawyer in the South and I handle criminal cases. It may go either way, but down here when a law enforcement official goes public to say the media is going to eat crow, its not because they are going to refuse to press charges in the case.

In my experience the delay is in regards to them wanting to make sure they have their ducks in a row and don't let this thing slip through the cracks. I am not saying Big Ben is guilty, but their may be enough circumstantial evidence available to the prosecution to pull a conviction.

Shawn
04-02-2010, 06:22 PM
Just my opinion, but GBI doesn't come out and make a statement like they did about the media unless they are going to charge and arrest Big Ben. If no charges were going to be filed, then they wouldn't be gloating.

I am not saying that Roethlisberger is guilty, just that I do believe charges are going to come down.

Once he is arrested, he will be suspended indefinitely by the NFL. I just have a horrible feeling that we are going to be without Big Ben this year.

This makes zero sense. If the GBI was saying alot of media members would be eating crow...then it likely means they would be eating crow about beating up on Ben without any evidence. Why else would they be eating crow?

Eating crow about the case being mishandled. I'm sorry, I am a lawyer in the South and I handle criminal cases. It may go either way, but down here when a law enforcement official goes public to say the media is going to eat crow, its not because they are going to refuse to press charges in the case.

In my experience the delay is in regards to them wanting to make sure they have their ducks in a row and don't let this thing slip through the cracks. I am not saying Big Ben is guilty, but their may be enough circumstantial evidence available to the prosecution to pull a conviction.

When did the media say this case was being mishandled? I must have missed that. Do you have a link?

hawaiiansteel
04-02-2010, 06:23 PM
Just my opinion, but GBI doesn't come out and make a statement like they did about the media unless they are going to charge and arrest Big Ben. If no charges were going to be filed, then they wouldn't be gloating.

I am not saying that Roethlisberger is guilty, just that I do believe charges are going to come down.

Once he is arrested, he will be suspended indefinitely by the NFL. I just have a horrible feeling that we are going to be without Big Ben this year.

This makes zero sense. If the GBI was saying alot of media members would be eating crow...then it likely means they would be eating crow about beating up on Ben without any evidence. Why else would they be eating crow?

Eating crow about the case being mishandled. I'm sorry, I am a lawyer in the South and I handle criminal cases. It may go either way, but down here when a law enforcement official goes public to say the media is going to eat crow, its not because they are going to refuse to press charges in the case.

In my experience the delay is in regards to them wanting to make sure they have their ducks in a row and don't let this thing slip through the cracks. I am not saying Big Ben is guilty, but their may be enough circumstantial evidence available to the prosecution to pull a conviction.



unfortunately, i am in full agreement with you.

charges are going to be filed.

BigRob
04-02-2010, 06:28 PM
Just my opinion, but GBI doesn't come out and make a statement like they did about the media unless they are going to charge and arrest Big Ben. If no charges were going to be filed, then they wouldn't be gloating.

I am not saying that Roethlisberger is guilty, just that I do believe charges are going to come down.

Once he is arrested, he will be suspended indefinitely by the NFL. I just have a horrible feeling that we are going to be without Big Ben this year.

This makes zero sense. If the GBI was saying alot of media members would be eating crow...then it likely means they would be eating crow about beating up on Ben without any evidence. Why else would they be eating crow?

Eating crow about the case being mishandled. I'm sorry, I am a lawyer in the South and I handle criminal cases. It may go either way, but down here when a law enforcement official goes public to say the media is going to eat crow, its not because they are going to refuse to press charges in the case.

In my experience the delay is in regards to them wanting to make sure they have their ducks in a row and don't let this thing slip through the cracks. I am not saying Big Ben is guilty, but their may be enough circumstantial evidence available to the prosecution to pull a conviction.

When did the media say this case was being mishandled? I must have missed that. Do you have a link?

Mishandled in one of two ways. Most media outlets fall on the side of (1) The podunk cops in Georgia should have already filed charges and arrested Big Ben, whats taking so long? (2) The podunk cops in Georgia should already came out and said that criminal charges are not being filed against Big Ben (paraphrased).

Shawn
04-02-2010, 06:34 PM
I haven't read that. I must have missed it. I did see alot of convicting Ben of a crime by the media. I was hoping that was what he was speaking about.

WoodleyofTroy
04-02-2010, 06:55 PM
I haven't read that. I must have missed it. I did see alot of convicting Ben of a crime by the media. I was hoping that was what he was speaking about.

If that's what they were referring, it would mean they are sticking up for Ben. Why would they care about doing that?

Ozey74
04-02-2010, 07:01 PM
4 weeks without any charges being filed.... That's a fairly long time, even with a case such as this.

... I share your concern, though.


At this point, I'd be OK with this being the end result. Stick in Dixon, hope we go 2-2 at best, and move on......

Shawn
04-02-2010, 07:05 PM
I haven't read that. I must have missed it. I did see alot of convicting Ben of a crime by the media. I was hoping that was what he was speaking about.

If that's what they were referring, it would mean they are sticking up for Ben. Why would they care about doing that?

Good question. I was hoping they were dismayed by a public trial of a man without any public knowledge of evidence. I was also hoping that the girl ditching second interviews could have been because she was FOS. Maybe I'm seeing what I want to see here but I hadn't remembered reading about the media talking about the mishandling of the case by the GBI. If they have that would certainly change things for the worse.

What did the spokesperson mean by this? "There are a lot of people out there reporting things and repeating things that just are not true," Bankhead said. What did the media report about the GBI that isn't true?

WoodleyofTroy
04-02-2010, 07:20 PM
And why isn't this "news" all over ESPN right now? This is the biggest "break" since the initial accusation.

BlackJackGold
04-02-2010, 07:20 PM
4 weeks without any charges being filed.... That's a fairly long time, even with a case such as this.

... I share your concern, though.


Under 4 weeks by a few days and these cases can take up to 6 months with the average being somewhere around 60 days.

Shawn
04-02-2010, 07:24 PM
And why isn't this "news" all over ESPN right now? This is the biggest "break" since the initial accusation.

I'm starting to feel sick.

WoodleyofTroy
04-02-2010, 07:27 PM
And why isn't this "news" all over ESPN right now? This is the biggest "break" since the initial accusation.

I'm starting to feel sick.

Media feeds off this. They love being called out. It's fuel. Yet it's nowhere on ESPN, NFL Network, yahoo, or cbssports.

ANPSTEEL
04-03-2010, 01:26 PM
And why isn't this "news" all over ESPN right now? This is the biggest "break" since the initial accusation.

I'm starting to feel sick.

Media feeds off this. They love being called out. It's fuel. Yet it's nowhere on ESPN, NFL Network, yahoo, or cbssports.


It is a bit odd just how little attention this situation garners in the mass media. Even the civil suit has been practically ignored. By comparison, recall all the negative press Kobe Bryant or Mike Tyson received.


In respect to the statement and outcome- I really think this indicates that Charges are pending. The only reason for the delay is procedural, imo. The DA likely wants to be certain he has all his ducks in a row.

If no charges were to be filed, why would you make some type of cryptic statement at all??? You'd just come out and say- upon further investigation we have decided there is not enough evidence to indict Mr Roethlisberger. No charges will be filed, and the case is closed.

If charges are filed- it is almost certain Ben will be suspended pending the outcome of the trial. Then, even if found innocent, I would imagine the league would suspend him or continue the suspension for conduct detrimental.

If he is found guilty- he is likely out of the league for a minimum 2 years, imo.

frankthetank1
04-03-2010, 01:55 PM
if no charges are filed or if charges are filed he goes to court and is found not guilty why would he be suspended? maybe im optimistic but i have a good feeling that ben wont go to court.

Shawn
04-03-2010, 02:27 PM
if no charges are filed or if charges are filed he goes to court and is found not guilty why would he be suspended? maybe im optimistic but i have a good feeling that ben wont go to court.

If charges are filed...he is done for the year at minimum.

Mister Pittsburgh
04-03-2010, 02:28 PM
Just my opinion, but GBI doesn't come out and make a statement like they did about the media unless they are going to charge and arrest Big Ben. If no charges were going to be filed, then they wouldn't be gloating.

I am not saying that Roethlisberger is guilty, just that I do believe charges are going to come down.

Once he is arrested, he will be suspended indefinitely by the NFL. I just have a horrible feeling that we are going to be without Big Ben this year.

This makes zero sense. If the GBI was saying alot of media members would be eating crow...then it likely means they would be eating crow about beating up on Ben without any evidence. Why else would they be eating crow?

Eating crow about the case being mishandled. I'm sorry, I am a lawyer in the South and I handle criminal cases. It may go either way, but down here when a law enforcement official goes public to say the media is going to eat crow, its not because they are going to refuse to press charges in the case.

In my experience the delay is in regards to them wanting to make sure they have their ducks in a row and don't let this thing slip through the cracks. I am not saying Big Ben is guilty, but their may be enough circumstantial evidence available to the prosecution to pull a conviction.

When did the media say this case was being mishandled? I must have missed that. Do you have a link?

Mishandled in one of two ways. Most media outlets fall on the side of (1) The podunk cops in Georgia should have already filed charges and arrested Big Ben, whats taking so long? (2) The podunk cops in Georgia should already came out and said that criminal charges are not being filed against Big Ben (paraphrased).

I don't think he would throw out the 'it may taste delicious like Thanksgiving Turkey now but will taste like crow later' would be aimed at the media for saying they are taking too long....and quite frankly, I haven't read an article saying they are. If there is indeed a Thanksgiving feast going on, Ben has definately been cooked and set on the center of the table for everyone to poke a fork at.

Seems curious that the accuser has given the GBI a tough time in their investigation.

Shawn
04-03-2010, 05:22 PM
MP...yeah I have to agree about the accuser. After the accuser sobered up she has been less than cooperative with authorities. I find that curious. What I also find curious is the fact that they didn't want a DNA sample...meaning they didn't have anything to swab. This makes it much less likely that intercourse took place...which means lesser charges. So, what is the GBI being sooo smug about? They have rock solid evidence that Ben gave this girl a "shocker" in the bathroom? That he forced himself on her? What kind of evidence could they possibly have?

feltdizz
04-03-2010, 07:38 PM
The GBI could be throwing out this quote to get a few headlines. I do find it odd the media hasn't responded to this but maybe it's because this is what the GBI wants.

If the girl isn't cooperating it could mean Ben is willing to pay so she has shut down but te GBI s trying to move forward regardless of her wishes. Ben is a Yankee.... and Georgia has some very archaic laws on the book regarding sex... this is a cash cow for a county who may be in the red. I wouldn't be surprised if they milked this.

feltdizz
04-03-2010, 07:42 PM
Quick question... what are the local papers in Georgia saying? What if he is talking about one or 2 local vocals in the media?

Shawn
04-03-2010, 08:07 PM
Quick question... what are the local papers in Georgia saying? What if he is talking about one or 2 local vocals in the media?

Good question. That's certainly a possibility.

frankthetank1
04-03-2010, 09:24 PM
if no charges are filed or if charges are filed he goes to court and is found not guilty why would he be suspended? maybe im optimistic but i have a good feeling that ben wont go to court.

If charges are filed...he is done for the year at minimum.

why is that? just charges filed?? it doesnt matter if he is guilty or not done for the year? i dont think so. maybe a few games but an entire season is a lot. vick got half of a season and he was found guilty of killing dogs. if the steelers suspend him for the year and then deal him or something that is one thing. no way goodell suspends him for the whole season though

Shawn
04-03-2010, 11:13 PM
if no charges are filed or if charges are filed he goes to court and is found not guilty why would he be suspended? maybe im optimistic but i have a good feeling that ben wont go to court.

If charges are filed...he is done for the year at minimum.

why is that? just charges filed?? it doesnt matter if he is guilty or not done for the year? i dont think so. maybe a few games but an entire season is a lot. vick got half of a season and he was found guilty of killing dogs. if the steelers suspend him for the year and then deal him or something that is one thing. no way goodell suspends him for the whole season though

Will Goodell allow Ben to play pending trial? I would think not. And I know there is alot of feelings for dogs...I get that. But, if Ben is brought to trial for sexual assault that is alot more serious. Who knows...Ben's career could be over.

SteelCrazy
04-04-2010, 01:25 AM
Charges will be filed against Big Ben. A case like this only takes 4 weeks if they are gathering every little piece of evidence and turning over every rock looking for something to build a case with......They also said they wished to speak with Ben again, but know it'll not happen.

They are looking to file charges and will be giving the DA everything they possibly can.......

I'm getting really worried about our future at QB.

spyboots
04-04-2010, 01:38 AM
Small town police are more apt to try to prove a point and do all they can to get an indictment. Just like if you speed going through their little town -- they'll try to make you pay.

kindlecatsb'ng
04-04-2010, 07:19 AM
http://unionrecorder.com/

this is the local newspaper where alleged incident occurred. Haven't perused it lately.

Happy Easter All & praying for a good outcome for Ben/Steelers.

snarky
04-04-2010, 05:15 PM
Quick question... what are the local papers in Georgia saying? What if he is talking about one or 2 local vocals in the media?

I've wondered about this too. I also wondered if maybe he was making an awkward reference to Ben's attorney who said something about no crime occurring. I know Ben's atty is not a member of the media, but he said it to/in the media.

Either way, I don't think you wuold see a quote like this unless this guy felt charges were going to be filed.

Shawn
04-04-2010, 05:21 PM
Quick question... what are the local papers in Georgia saying? What if he is talking about one or 2 local vocals in the media?

I've wondered about this too. I also wondered if maybe he was making an awkward reference to Ben's attorney who said something about no crime occurring. I know Ben's atty is not a member of the media, but he said it to/in the media.

Either way, I don't think you wuold see a quote like this unless this guy felt charges were going to be filed.

The question remains...charges against who? With no tapes...no witnesses...no DNA...just a very drunk accuser...good luck winning that case.

snarky
04-04-2010, 05:50 PM
There is a witness...the alleged victim. That may or may not be enough to convict. And DNA is somewhat moot since Ben is not disputing the notion that there was contact of a sexual nature.

So, would it be an airtight case against Ben? No. But could charges be filed and it go to trial, of course. As long as she is willing to testify, then I think there would have to be some contravening evidence that would

Shawn
04-04-2010, 06:15 PM
There is a witness...the alleged victim. That may or may not be enough to convict. And DNA is somewhat moot since Ben is not disputing the notion that there was contact of a sexual nature.

So, would it be an airtight case against Ben? No. But could charges be filed and it go to trial, of course. As long as she is willing to testify, then I think there would have to be some contravening evidence that would

Ya know I agree to an extent. But, would that shakey case (and yes without physical evidence of penetration it's a shakey case) be enough to get the GBI to make a bold and pretty cocky statement about the media eating crow? I would think not.

What did Ben really say? He said something about unconsummated sexual contact...whatever the heck that means. So, we know there was a bathroom and some sexual contact (if that's what Ben meant...and I'm sure the lawyer could spin that) and a very drunk accuser. With what we know...the worst case scenerio for Ben is a he said/she said. I can't imagine the GBI getting a hard on over that. If they are to press charges I assure you...they will need more than that to get a conviction. And unless the GBI are a bunch of cowboy morons they wouldn't get cocky over a shakey case.

So...either they found some real supporting evidence for the accusers claims...or they found out Ben was being set up. With all the digital records out there...they surely could find a way to prove that. I think many people might be very surprised when the truth comes out.

BlackJackGold
04-04-2010, 07:04 PM
This 'very drunk accuser' is one of the things being reported in the media that may very well not be true.

Consider the source of the claim...an atty for the bar quoting unnamed sources he refers to as 'authorities'.

That is the very definition of hearsay.

People have been claiming that the victim is uncooperative because pig bens atty claimed it.

The GBI and her atty have denied that claim.

People claim that there is no DNA to compare because pig bens atty announced to the press that the GBI withdrew their request for a DNA sample.

Very well may be that the GBI withdrew their request for a voluntary DNA sample because Garland wanted a condition that pig ben wouldn't be charged, or would only agree to it being given in some manner that would be immiscible in court under a chain of evidence scrutiny.

pig ben's house in Pgh is now on the market.

Obviously he doesn't think he will be a 'Burger much longer.....

He hired a criminal atty the day after the incident.

He has been effectively suspended from the team by being banned from OTAs.

He has refused to give a voluntary DNA sample or a submit to a second interrogation by the GBI without preconditions that Garland has imposed and tried to negotiate.

Ya'll need to accept that he is done.

He is most likely facing charges that carry a 25 yr minimum sentence.

Shawn
04-04-2010, 07:11 PM
This 'very drunk accuser' is one of the things being reported in the media that may very well not be true.

Consider the source of the claim...an atty for the bar quoting unnamed sources he refers to as 'authorities'.

That is the very definition of hearsay.

People have been claiming that the victim is uncooperative because pig bens atty claimed it.

The GBI and her atty have denied that claim.

People claim that there is no DNA to compare because pig bens atty announced to the press that the GBI withdrew their request for a DNA sample.

Very well may be that the GBI withdrew their request for a voluntary DNA sample because Garland wanted a condition that pig ben wouldn't be charged, or would only agree to it being given in some manner that would be immiscible in court under a chain of evidence scrutiny.

pig ben's house in Pgh is now on the market.

Obviously he doesn't think he will be a 'Burger much longer.....

He hired a criminal atty the day after the incident.

He has been effectively suspended from the team by being banned from OTAs.

He has refused to give a voluntary DNA sample or a submit to a second interrogation by the GBI without preconditions that Garland has imposed and tried to negotiate.

Ya'll need to accept that he is done.

He is most likely facing charges that carry a 25 yr minimum sentence.

It's pretty obvious that you are a troll. Which of the various names have you posted under in the past?

BlackJackGold
04-04-2010, 07:17 PM
rotflmao

You're an idiot.

I'm a realist, not a troll.

This is my one & only ID here.

I have a static IP so any moderator or admin can verify that for themselves.

snarky
04-04-2010, 07:23 PM
He is most likely facing charges that carry a 25 yr minimum sentence.

Umm...no. At the most he is facing a charge that would be punished as an aggravated misdemeanor.


17-10-4. Punishment for misdemeanors of a high and aggravated nature.
A person who is convicted of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated
nature shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $5,000.00 or by
confinement in the county or other jail, county correctional
institution, or such other places as counties may provide for
maintenance of county inmates, for a term not to exceed 12 months, or
both. In all cases of a conviction of a misdemeanor of a high and
aggravated nature, the sentencing court shall retain jurisdiction to
amend, modify, alter, suspend, or probate sentences imposed under this
Code section at any time; but in no instance shall a sentence under this
Code section be modified in such a manner as to place a county inmate
under the jurisdiction of the Board of Corrections.
Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, a person sentenced for a
misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature shall be entitled to only
four days per month earned time allowance.

I think the only way it could be more than this is if there is some sort of false imprisonment charge.

BlackJackGold
04-04-2010, 07:35 PM
Sexual assault covers everything from groping to rape in Georgia.

Georgia law defines rape as the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by the genitals or a foreign object.

If pig ben stuck his penis in this girl's mouth, he is looking at a 25 yr minimum sentence as that is the minimum sentence for rape in Georgia.

Shawn
04-04-2010, 07:36 PM
rotflmao

You're an idiot.

I'm a realist, not a troll.

This is my one & only ID here.

I have a static IP so any moderator or admin can verify that for themselves.

You are obviously looking for some sort of emotional response. Continually calling Ben...pig Ben. Saying he will get 25 years for an accused crime of which you have no details. You are not a realist. You are a troll.

Shawn
04-04-2010, 07:39 PM
Sexual assault covers everything from groping to rape in Georgia.

Georgia law defines rape as the penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by the genitals or a foreign object.

If pig ben stuck his penis in this girl's mouth, he is looking at a 25 yr minimum sentence as that is the minimum sentence for rape in Georgia.

So you believe Ben raped this girl now? And they didn't want DNA evidence? Part of my job involves collecting DNA evidence for cases just like this...believe me if they felt that there was a rape they would want Ben's DNA. Maybe you are not a troll. Maybe you are just ignorant.

BlackJackGold
04-04-2010, 07:42 PM
Once he is charged they can take a sample without having to agree to preconditions as set forth by Garland.

Besides, he has already made a statement that there was contact, so they don't need a match to convince a DA to prosecute.

Shawn
04-04-2010, 07:50 PM
Once he is charged they can take a sample without having to agree to preconditions as set forth by Garland.

Besides, he has already made a statement that there was contact, so they don't need a match to convince a DA to prosecute.

Wrong. He said unconsummated sexual contact. So, if they want to prove vaginal, anal, or oral penetration it is crucial they collect DNA evidence. If they needed DNA they wouldn't have withdrawn their request. They going to go off the accusers word? The same girl who was caught using fake documentation to obtain alcohol? And if that girl was sober I would literally ish myself. She was just at the club chillin eh? So we have a drunk liar who might have wiped her recent cyber activity clean. Sounds like a credible witness to me. So, yeah they will need something a little more than her say so.

If they just want to say he touched her without her consent...that's a different story. But, even then they will need more than her word. They just won't need DNA.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
04-04-2010, 08:36 PM
...
pig ben's house in Pgh is now on the market.

Obviously he doesn't think he will be a 'Burger much longer...

Anybody know if that is true? I couldn't find that info on a quick google search.

Shawn
04-04-2010, 08:56 PM
...
pig ben's house in Pgh is now on the market.

Obviously he doesn't think he will be a 'Burger much longer...

Anybody know if that is true? I couldn't find that info on a quick google search.

Just from the authors m.o. I would assume that was made up.

BlackJackGold
04-04-2010, 09:02 PM
Once he is charged they can take a sample without having to agree to preconditions as set forth by Garland.

Besides, he has already made a statement that there was contact, so they don't need a match to convince a DA to prosecute.

Wrong. He said unconsummated sexual contact. So, if they want to prove vaginal, anal, or oral penetration it is crucial they collect DNA evidence. If they needed DNA they wouldn't have withdrawn their request. They going to go off the accusers word? The same girl who was caught using fake documentation to obtain alcohol? And if that girl was sober I would literally ish myself. She was just at the club chillin eh? So we have a drunk liar who might have wiped her recent cyber activity clean. Sounds like a credible witness to me. So, yeah they will need something a little more than her say so.

If they just want to say he touched her without her consent...that's a different story. But, even then they will need more than her word. They just won't need DNA.

You're not very good at following along are ya?

They don't need a voluntary sample when they can take one after he is charged.

All you are doing is following along with what Garland wishes public perception to be....

Especially within the potential jurors poll.

Now, in the case that he forced this girl to oral sex there might not be DNA to collect, however it will still be charged as rape under Georgia law.

BlackJackGold
04-04-2010, 09:03 PM
...
pig ben's house in Pgh is now on the market.

Obviously he doesn't think he will be a 'Burger much longer...

Anybody know if that is true? I couldn't find that info on a quick google search.

Just from the authors m.o. I would assume that was made up.

Sure, why not...

You assume a lot of things.

:Blah

Shawn
04-04-2010, 09:05 PM
Once he is charged they can take a sample without having to agree to preconditions as set forth by Garland.

Besides, he has already made a statement that there was contact, so they don't need a match to convince a DA to prosecute.

Wrong. He said unconsummated sexual contact. So, if they want to prove vaginal, anal, or oral penetration it is crucial they collect DNA evidence. If they needed DNA they wouldn't have withdrawn their request. They going to go off the accusers word? The same girl who was caught using fake documentation to obtain alcohol? And if that girl was sober I would literally ish myself. She was just at the club chillin eh? So we have a drunk liar who might have wiped her recent cyber activity clean. Sounds like a credible witness to me. So, yeah they will need something a little more than her say so.

If they just want to say he touched her without her consent...that's a different story. But, even then they will need more than her word. They just won't need DNA.

You're not very good at following along are ya?

They don't need a voluntary sample when they can take one after he is charged.

All you are doing is following along with what Garland wishes public perception to be....

Especially within the potential jurors poll.

Now, in the case that he forced this girl to oral sex there might not be DNA to collect, however it will still be charged as rape under Georgia law.

It's hard to follow ignorance but I do try. What you are not getting...they wouldn't withdraw the request if they still needed one whether they might obtain it later or not. Why would they withdraw the request? It serves no purpose unless they don't need or want one.

As for oral sex...yes we can do oral swabs. His DNA would still be there. Wow...do you just make this stuff up as you go along? What experience do you have in this field?

Shawn
04-04-2010, 09:06 PM
...
pig ben's house in Pgh is now on the market.

Obviously he doesn't think he will be a 'Burger much longer...

Anybody know if that is true? I couldn't find that info on a quick google search.

Just from the authors m.o. I would assume that was made up.

Sure, why not...

You assume a lot of things.

:Blah

Then provide us with a link.

SS Laser
04-04-2010, 10:04 PM
Now, in the case that he forced this girl to oral sex there might not be DNA to collect, however it will still be charged as rape under Georgia law.[/quote]

How can you make some one perform oral sex? You very well could lose a part of you!!
the only way I see is if you have a weapon and the person performing oral is scared for there life!

:wft :HeadBanger

Shawn
04-04-2010, 10:10 PM
Now, in the case that he forced this girl to oral sex there might not be DNA to collect, however it will still be charged as rape under Georgia law.

How can you make some one perform oral sex? You very well could lose a part of you!!
the only way I see is if you have a weapon and the person performing oral is scared for there life!

:wft :HeadBanger[/quote]

I think the troll is getting what he wants...lol.

SS Laser
04-04-2010, 10:19 PM
why is that shawn? I am not freaking out, which I think that is what he wants! I just asked a question.

BlackJackGold
04-04-2010, 10:37 PM
Once he is charged they can take a sample without having to agree to preconditions as set forth by Garland.

Besides, he has already made a statement that there was contact, so they don't need a match to convince a DA to prosecute.

Wrong. He said unconsummated sexual contact. So, if they want to prove vaginal, anal, or oral penetration it is crucial they collect DNA evidence. If they needed DNA they wouldn't have withdrawn their request. They going to go off the accusers word? The same girl who was caught using fake documentation to obtain alcohol? And if that girl was sober I would literally ish myself. She was just at the club chillin eh? So we have a drunk liar who might have wiped her recent cyber activity clean. Sounds like a credible witness to me. So, yeah they will need something a little more than her say so.

If they just want to say he touched her without her consent...that's a different story. But, even then they will need more than her word. They just won't need DNA.

You're not very good at following along are ya?

They don't need a voluntary sample when they can take one after he is charged.

All you are doing is following along with what Garland wishes public perception to be....

Especially within the potential jurors poll.

Now, in the case that he forced this girl to oral sex there might not be DNA to collect, however it will still be charged as rape under Georgia law.

It's hard to follow ignorance but I do try. What you are not getting...they wouldn't withdraw the request if they still needed one whether they might obtain it later or not. Why would they withdraw the request? It serves no purpose unless they don't need or want one.

As for oral sex...yes we can do oral swabs. His DNA would still be there. Wow...do you just make this stuff up as you go along? What experience do you have in this field?


You are assuming that he either climaxed or at least had pre-ejaculatory emissions.

They very well could have withdrawn the request knowing that they would take one after he was arrested.

Garland was trying to stipulate under what terms his client would submit a sample.

There could have been some reason within Garland's terms for the GBI to rather wait it out.

Again, from ben's original statement to the police, they have enough for a DA to proceed.

Shawn
04-04-2010, 11:06 PM
Once he is charged they can take a sample without having to agree to preconditions as set forth by Garland.

Besides, he has already made a statement that there was contact, so they don't need a match to convince a DA to prosecute.

Wrong. He said unconsummated sexual contact. So, if they want to prove vaginal, anal, or oral penetration it is crucial they collect DNA evidence. If they needed DNA they wouldn't have withdrawn their request. They going to go off the accusers word? The same girl who was caught using fake documentation to obtain alcohol? And if that girl was sober I would literally ish myself. She was just at the club chillin eh? So we have a drunk liar who might have wiped her recent cyber activity clean. Sounds like a credible witness to me. So, yeah they will need something a little more than her say so.

If they just want to say he touched her without her consent...that's a different story. But, even then they will need more than her word. They just won't need DNA.

You're not very good at following along are ya?

They don't need a voluntary sample when they can take one after he is charged.

All you are doing is following along with what Garland wishes public perception to be....

Especially within the potential jurors poll.

Now, in the case that he forced this girl to oral sex there might not be DNA to collect, however it will still be charged as rape under Georgia law.

It's hard to follow ignorance but I do try. What you are not getting...they wouldn't withdraw the request if they still needed one whether they might obtain it later or not. Why would they withdraw the request? It serves no purpose unless they don't need or want one.

As for oral sex...yes we can do oral swabs. His DNA would still be there. Wow...do you just make this stuff up as you go along? What experience do you have in this field?


You are assuming that he either climaxed or at least had pre-ejaculatory emissions.

They very well could have withdrawn the request knowing that they would take one after he was arrested.

Garland was trying to stipulate under what terms his client would submit a sample.

There could have been some reason within Garland's terms for the GBI to rather wait it out.

Again, from ben's original statement to the police, they have enough for a DA to proceed.

I'm not assuming jack ish. Now, I can tell you are stumbling through your wake of nonsense trying to look like you know what you are talking about. The only way Ben's DNA doesn't show up in her mouth is if he wore a condom. You do know cells will be exchanged correct? The top layer of skin is dead DNA which loves to come off. Everything else you said would be extremely atypical for a police investigation.

Shawn
04-04-2010, 11:07 PM
why is that shawn? I am not freaking out, which I think that is what he wants! I just asked a question.

I wasn't saying anything about what you said...just joking that this guy must be getting off to all his own BS.

NJ-STEELER
04-04-2010, 11:24 PM
rotflmao

You're an idiot.

I'm a realist, not a troll.

This is my one & only ID here.

I have a static IP so any moderator or admin can verify that for themselves.

You are obviously looking for some sort of emotional response. Continually calling Ben...pig Ben. Saying he will get 25 years for an accused crime of which you have no details. You are not a realist. You are a troll.

it is pretty interesting to see when this guy joined the board and see how he comments on the situation.

i'm sure its not just a coincidence

Shawn
04-04-2010, 11:30 PM
rotflmao

You're an idiot.

I'm a realist, not a troll.

This is my one & only ID here.

I have a static IP so any moderator or admin can verify that for themselves.

You are obviously looking for some sort of emotional response. Continually calling Ben...pig Ben. Saying he will get 25 years for an accused crime of which you have no details. You are not a realist. You are a troll.

it is pretty interesting to see when this guy joined the board and see how he comments on the situation.

i'm sure its not just a coincidence

$$$...and I hope one of the mods traces the IP. I have a feeling it comes from Cali or TN.

BlackJackGold
04-04-2010, 11:34 PM
I'm not assuming jack ish. Now, I can tell you are stumbling through your wake of nonsense trying to look like you know what you are talking about. The only way Ben's DNA doesn't show up in her mouth is if he wore a condom. You do know cells will be exchanged correct? The top layer of skin is dead DNA which loves to come off. Everything else you said would be extremely atypical for a police investigation.

You are also assuming that she didn't drink anything in between the act and her examination.

I get it.

You loooooooove you some ben and would have serviced him yourself.

Doesn't change the fact that the guy is in a whole lot of trouble and it is nob ody's fault but his own.

NJ-STEELER
04-04-2010, 11:41 PM
rotflmao

You're an idiot.

I'm a realist, not a troll.

This is my one & only ID here.

I have a static IP so any moderator or admin can verify that for themselves.

You are obviously looking for some sort of emotional response. Continually calling Ben...pig Ben. Saying he will get 25 years for an accused crime of which you have no details. You are not a realist. You are a troll.

it is pretty interesting to see when this guy joined the board and see how he comments on the situation.

i'm sure its not just a coincidence

$$$...and I hope one of the mods traces the IP. I have a feeling it comes from Cali or TN.

i dont know who those guys are but i do know a couple of posters on another board who only point out the negaive of ben (yes, even on the SB game winning TD) for the last 6 years...and this guy certainly fits that description

Shawn
04-05-2010, 12:04 AM
I'm not assuming jack ish. Now, I can tell you are stumbling through your wake of nonsense trying to look like you know what you are talking about. The only way Ben's DNA doesn't show up in her mouth is if he wore a condom. You do know cells will be exchanged correct? The top layer of skin is dead DNA which loves to come off. Everything else you said would be extremely atypical for a police investigation.

You are also assuming that she didn't drink anything in between the act and her examination.

I get it.

You loooooooove you some ben and would have serviced him yourself.

Doesn't change the fact that the guy is in a whole lot of trouble and it is nob ody's fault but his own.

:roll:

Yeah...you are right. She was probably dropping shots before she left.

ANPSTEEL
04-05-2010, 05:34 AM
not to get in between this pissing match-

but this may shed some light...

I have read, and watched interviews with various legal experts explaining the "whole" retraction of request for Ben's DNA sample.

What they had to say was- (I'm going to paraphrase here-)

DNA is typically requested in efforts to identify the suspect. In this case, the suspect has previously identified himself- so there is not necessarily a need to get a sample of Ben's dna at this stage.

Of course, if he is charged- I am certain they will take a sample via court order.

Shawn
04-05-2010, 06:18 AM
not to get in between this pissing match-

but this may shed some light...

I have read, and watched interviews with various legal experts explaining the "whole" retraction of request for Ben's DNA sample.

What they had to say was- (I'm going to paraphrase here-)

DNA is typically requested in efforts to identify the suspect. In this case, the suspect has previously identified himself- so there is not necessarily a need to get a sample of Ben's dna at this stage.

Of course, if he is charged- I am certain they will take a sample via court order.

This is the quote...

Page Pate, an Atlanta trial lawyer not involved with the case, took a counter view.

"DNA only becomes important if the person that's been accused said, 'Look I was no where near the girl, we never had any physical contact and she's making all this up,' " said Pate.

"If he's saying, 'Yeah, I was there, I was in the restroom with her, I was in the club with her,' the only issue is whether he assaulted her or whether there was consent involved. Then DNA is not that important. If the allegation is basically that he grabbed me without my consent, made sexual moves towards me but didn't actually have intercourse, then providing a DNA sample is not going to really help them determine whether or not he did those things."
--------------------

I think you took the quote out of context. Our resident troll was saying they would have withdrawn the request if they felt rape was involved (25 year prison term). That quote does nothing to support that claim. Nowhere in that quote does it say that if they felt Ben raped this girl they would withdraw the request. If they had DNA they wanted to match...they wouldn't withdraw the request because "they could get it after he was arrested". That just wouldn't happen because it serves no purpose to withdraw the request. The only way they would withdraw the request is if they didn't have DNA to match. This would make anything more than sexual battery very difficult to prove. And sexual battery is a misdemeanor.

aggiebones
04-05-2010, 11:02 AM
Thanksgiving now because they have something to talk about.

Crow later when they say no charges due to no evidence. Thus, everyone go back to work, nothing to see here.

If there are charges, the media will be eating Thanksgiving Turkey EVERY day!
So I suspect no charges.

SteelCrazy
04-05-2010, 11:15 AM
GBI did not withdraw its request for a DNA sample. That was all Garland.......GBI even stated they did not withdraw anything, that it was Garland saying that, not them.

Shawn
04-05-2010, 11:36 AM
GBI did not withdraw its request for a DNA sample. That was all Garland.......GBI even stated they did not withdraw anything, that it was Garland saying that, not them.

Sometimes I wonder if you and black jack read. Garland told the media that the GBI withdrew the request. The GBI would neither confirm or deny...and why would they? Garland isn't in the business of pissing off the investigators by lying about something they said or didn't say.

BlackJackGold
04-05-2010, 11:49 AM
not to get in between this pissing match-

but this may shed some light...

I have read, and watched interviews with various legal experts explaining the "whole" retraction of request for Ben's DNA sample.

What they had to say was- (I'm going to paraphrase here-)

DNA is typically requested in efforts to identify the suspect. In this case, the suspect has previously identified himself- so there is not necessarily a need to get a sample of Ben's dna at this stage.

Of course, if he is charged- I am certain they will take a sample via court order.

This is the quote...

Page Pate, an Atlanta trial lawyer not involved with the case, took a counter view.

"DNA only becomes important if the person that's been accused said, 'Look I was no where near the girl, we never had any physical contact and she's making all this up,' " said Pate.

"If he's saying, 'Yeah, I was there, I was in the restroom with her, I was in the club with her,' the only issue is whether he assaulted her or whether there was consent involved. Then DNA is not that important. If the allegation is basically that he grabbed me without my consent, made sexual moves towards me but didn't actually have intercourse, then providing a DNA sample is not going to really help them determine whether or not he did those things."
--------------------

I think you took the quote out of context. Our resident troll was saying they would have withdrawn the request if they felt rape was involved (25 year prison term). That quote does nothing to support that claim. Nowhere in that quote does it say that if they felt Ben raped this girl they would withdraw the request. If they had DNA they wanted to match...they wouldn't withdraw the request because "they could get it after he was arrested". That just wouldn't happen because it serves no purpose to withdraw the request. The only way they would withdraw the request is if they didn't have DNA to match. This would make anything more than sexual battery very difficult to prove. And sexual battery is a misdemeanor.


I never said anything of the sort.

I said that the GBI stopped seeking a voluntary sample because of Garland's trying to negotiate preconditions.

And you say I can't read.......

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!~

BlackJackGold
04-05-2010, 11:51 AM
GBI did not withdraw its request for a DNA sample. That was all Garland.......GBI even stated they did not withdraw anything, that it was Garland saying that, not them.


Forgetaboudit....

Shawn has a huge man crush and is in a permanent state of denial.

Facts will not change his mind.

He will just string together a bunch of random statements to try and make a point.

SteelCrazy
04-05-2010, 11:55 AM
GBI did not withdraw its request for a DNA sample. That was all Garland.......GBI even stated they did not withdraw anything, that it was Garland saying that, not them.

Sometimes I wonder if you and black jack read. Garland told the media that the GBI withdrew the request. The GBI would neither confirm or deny...and why would they? Garland isn't in the business of pissing off the investigators by lying about something they said or didn't say.

That was one quote, the other was stated just like i wrote.........

Garland is not worried about pissing off GBI...They will find what they find no matter what he says in the papers. Garland is more worried about public perception......

It's obvious that it is working.......

ANPSTEEL
04-05-2010, 12:25 PM
not to get in between this pissing match-

but this may shed some light...

I have read, and watched interviews with various legal experts explaining the "whole" retraction of request for Ben's DNA sample.

What they had to say was- (I'm going to paraphrase here-)

DNA is typically requested in efforts to identify the suspect. In this case, the suspect has previously identified himself- so there is not necessarily a need to get a sample of Ben's dna at this stage.

Of course, if he is charged- I am certain they will take a sample via court order.

This is the quote...

Page Pate, an Atlanta trial lawyer not involved with the case, took a counter view.

"DNA only becomes important if the person that's been accused said, 'Look I was no where near the girl, we never had any physical contact and she's making all this up,' " said Pate.

"If he's saying, 'Yeah, I was there, I was in the restroom with her, I was in the club with her,' the only issue is whether he assaulted her or whether there was consent involved. Then DNA is not that important. If the allegation is basically that he grabbed me without my consent, made sexual moves towards me but didn't actually have intercourse, then providing a DNA sample is not going to really help them determine whether or not he did those things."
--------------------

I think you took the quote out of context. Our resident troll was saying they would have withdrawn the request if they felt rape was involved (25 year prison term). That quote does nothing to support that claim. Nowhere in that quote does it say that if they felt Ben raped this girl they would withdraw the request. If they had DNA they wanted to match...they wouldn't withdraw the request because "they could get it after he was arrested". That just wouldn't happen because it serves no purpose to withdraw the request. The only way they would withdraw the request is if they didn't have DNA to match. This would make anything more than sexual battery very difficult to prove. And sexual battery is a misdemeanor.


Shawn- that was not the article I was referring to- or at least not the primary source.

What I was referencing was an interview- I believe it was on Sports Center- with a "legal expert". The expert explained exactly what I stated.

He didn't get into anything regarding the existence of "foreign" DNA on the accuser- or any other motive. He just explained that the need to obtain a DNA sample from Ben really was not necessary at this stage- because they already had corroboration from both the accuser and the accused - in respect to the parties involved.

He then indicated that should charges be filed - a sample could easily be obtained through court order.

The thing that he did not discuss- was the obvious fact that, if no foreign DNA is found on the accuser- there would be no point in obtaining a sample from Ben - or anyone else for that matter- as it would serve no purpose.

Shawn
04-05-2010, 01:48 PM
not to get in between this pissing match-

but this may shed some light...

I have read, and watched interviews with various legal experts explaining the "whole" retraction of request for Ben's DNA sample.

What they had to say was- (I'm going to paraphrase here-)

DNA is typically requested in efforts to identify the suspect. In this case, the suspect has previously identified himself- so there is not necessarily a need to get a sample of Ben's dna at this stage.

Of course, if he is charged- I am certain they will take a sample via court order.

This is the quote...

Page Pate, an Atlanta trial lawyer not involved with the case, took a counter view.

"DNA only becomes important if the person that's been accused said, 'Look I was no where near the girl, we never had any physical contact and she's making all this up,' " said Pate.

"If he's saying, 'Yeah, I was there, I was in the restroom with her, I was in the club with her,' the only issue is whether he assaulted her or whether there was consent involved. Then DNA is not that important. If the allegation is basically that he grabbed me without my consent, made sexual moves towards me but didn't actually have intercourse, then providing a DNA sample is not going to really help them determine whether or not he did those things."
--------------------

I think you took the quote out of context. Our resident troll was saying they would have withdrawn the request if they felt rape was involved (25 year prison term). That quote does nothing to support that claim. Nowhere in that quote does it say that if they felt Ben raped this girl they would withdraw the request. If they had DNA they wanted to match...they wouldn't withdraw the request because "they could get it after he was arrested". That just wouldn't happen because it serves no purpose to withdraw the request. The only way they would withdraw the request is if they didn't have DNA to match. This would make anything more than sexual battery very difficult to prove. And sexual battery is a misdemeanor.


Shawn- that was not the article I was referring to- or at least not the primary source.

What I was referencing was an interview- I believe it was on Sports Center- with a "legal expert". The expert explained exactly what I stated.

He didn't get into anything regarding the existence of "foreign" DNA on the accuser- or any other motive. He just explained that the need to obtain a DNA sample from Ben really was not necessary at this stage- because they already had corroboration from both the accuser and the accused - in respect to the parties involved.

He then indicated that should charges be filed - a sample could easily be obtained through court order.

The thing that he did not discuss- was the obvious fact that, if no foreign DNA is found on the accuser- there would be no point in obtaining a sample from Ben - or anyone else for that matter- as it would serve no purpose.

Is it exactly...or was it a paraphrase? In your original post you stated that you paraphrased it. And if there were no need...why request it...then withdraw that request? I would think if you were to bring this to the grand jury you would need to know what you are charging the man for. Only way to be able to get a grand jury to bite on rape charges is with a witness outside the drunk victim or DNA.

ANPSTEEL
04-05-2010, 02:18 PM
not to get in between this pissing match-

but this may shed some light...

I have read, and watched interviews with various legal experts explaining the "whole" retraction of request for Ben's DNA sample.

What they had to say was- (I'm going to paraphrase here-)

DNA is typically requested in efforts to identify the suspect. In this case, the suspect has previously identified himself- so there is not necessarily a need to get a sample of Ben's dna at this stage.

Of course, if he is charged- I am certain they will take a sample via court order.

This is the quote...

Page Pate, an Atlanta trial lawyer not involved with the case, took a counter view.

"DNA only becomes important if the person that's been accused said, 'Look I was no where near the girl, we never had any physical contact and she's making all this up,' " said Pate.

"If he's saying, 'Yeah, I was there, I was in the restroom with her, I was in the club with her,' the only issue is whether he assaulted her or whether there was consent involved. Then DNA is not that important. If the allegation is basically that he grabbed me without my consent, made sexual moves towards me but didn't actually have intercourse, then providing a DNA sample is not going to really help them determine whether or not he did those things."
--------------------

I think you took the quote out of context. Our resident troll was saying they would have withdrawn the request if they felt rape was involved (25 year prison term). That quote does nothing to support that claim. Nowhere in that quote does it say that if they felt Ben raped this girl they would withdraw the request. If they had DNA they wanted to match...they wouldn't withdraw the request because "they could get it after he was arrested". That just wouldn't happen because it serves no purpose to withdraw the request. The only way they would withdraw the request is if they didn't have DNA to match. This would make anything more than sexual battery very difficult to prove. And sexual battery is a misdemeanor.


Shawn- that was not the article I was referring to- or at least not the primary source.

What I was referencing was an interview- I believe it was on Sports Center- with a "legal expert". The expert explained exactly what I stated.

He didn't get into anything regarding the existence of "foreign" DNA on the accuser- or any other motive. He just explained that the need to obtain a DNA sample from Ben really was not necessary at this stage- because they already had corroboration from both the accuser and the accused - in respect to the parties involved.

He then indicated that should charges be filed - a sample could easily be obtained through court order.

The thing that he did not discuss- was the obvious fact that, if no foreign DNA is found on the accuser- there would be no point in obtaining a sample from Ben - or anyone else for that matter- as it would serve no purpose.

Is it exactly...or was it a paraphrase? In your original post you stated that you paraphrased it. And if there were no need...why request it...then withdraw that request? I would think if you were to bring this to the grand jury you would need to know what you are charging the man for. Only way to be able to get a grand jury to bite on rape charges is with a witness outside the drunk victim or DNA.

Im not disagree with you, just pointing out what I've seen & read.

I did paraphrase that segment- as it was on television, and I dont have any access to it to get the actual quote, but it was a short segment- and the expert didn't say more than 30 seconds to a minutes worth of info.

BlackJackGold
04-06-2010, 01:43 AM
Under Georgia law the DA doesn't have to get an indictment from a grand jury to prosecute this case.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did...

According to the legal experts from Georgia I have both read and watched on TV the McNaulty case can brought into a trial by the prosecution for this case.

Georgia was one of the worst possible places to get into a mess like this....

feltdizz
04-06-2010, 09:42 AM
Georgia has some very old laws on the books when it comes to sexual assault.

Shawn
04-06-2010, 05:43 PM
Georgia has some very old laws on the books when it comes to sexual assault.

Yeah, I believe they are one of the states where you can go to jail for adultery...not that it's ever enforced.

fezziwig
04-07-2010, 11:14 AM
I'm guessing he will get a two to four game suspension. With the slap on the wrist the Cheats got Ben, might even be rewarded, you never know.

I wonder if he will also get a dollar fine from the NFL or the Steelers ?