PDA

View Full Version : Why Roger Goodell Will Cut Big Ben's Suspension Short



hawaiiansteel
07-03-2010, 06:07 PM
Why Roger Goodell Will Cut Ben Roethlisbergers Suspension Short.

by Nick Signorelli


http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/365/98624050_display_image.jpg?1278133560


When Roger Goodell decided to suspend Ben Roethlisberger for violating the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy, the suspension was set for six games.

Goodell then added that Ben Roethlisberger would have to undergo counseling, and if there were no problems found, then he would be able to return to the Steelers for the rest of training camp.

Goodell then added that if Roethlisberger were to stay out of trouble prior to the season, that the suspension could be reduced to as few as four games.

So, why would Roger Goodell reduce the suspension to four games? Here is why.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/367/98544391_display_image.jpg?1278133795

He did what he was told.

Ben Roethlisberger immediately spoke with the counselor that the NFL wanted him to speak with.

He was even asked to come back for additional sessions, and he did so, even though it was not required by the league.

No Appeal?

Ben Roethlisberger was hit with the largest suspension for a player that was never even charged with a crime.

Many people believe that if Ben Roethlisberger would have appealed the suspension, then the league would have had to over turn the suspension, or at least reduce it.

If nothing else, they could have gotten the suspension down to four games, which is exactly where Goodell said he could take it down to.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/525/98676805_display_image.jpg?1278168845

Suspension is excessive

If a player is caught taking PED's (performance enhancing drugs), they are not even suspended the first time. They are fined, and counselling.

On the second offense, they are suspended for four games.

The only thing that is certain in the Ben Roethlisberger situation is that he had bad judgement.

Why should a player, that makes mistakes off the field be suspended longer than players that cheat on the field?

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/495/91534005_display_image.jpg?1278167307

Shaun Rogers

In late March, Shaun Rogers was arrested for allegedly attempting to bring a loaded weapon onto an airplane.

The gun was loaded, cocked, and ready to fire.

This is not Rogers first discrepancy with the NFL. In 2006, Rogers was suspended for four games by the NFL for violating the leagues PED policy.

Though the official suspension from the NFL has not come down, Rogers was arrested and charged, which neither happened to Roethlisberger.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/492/95595485_display_image.jpg?1278166891

Vince Young

In early June, Vince Young was with friends at a strip club. One of the clubs security guards showed Young an upside down Longhorn symbol, which was seen by Young as a sign of disrespect to Texas University, Youngs old school.

Young proceeded to get into a fight with the man, and the entire incident was caught on camera.

Some people think that this was the first offense of Young, and technically, they are wrong.

At the beginning of the 2009 season, while Young was the back up, he was not taking it very well.

He left the Titans facility in a poor state of mind, and Jeff Fisher and Youngs family were worried that he was going to hurt himeslf.

Matters were made worse when it was found out that Young had a loaded gun with him.
Remember, under the PCP, the player does not have to be arrested or charged with a crime. If they do anything that would view the NFL to be seen in a bad light, that is just cause for suspension.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/472/95674333_display_image.jpg?1278163411

Mike Vick

Mike Vick was the first player that was severly punished by the NFL under the the Personal Conduct Policy.

The suspension to Vick was one of the most severe the NFL has ever dished out.

At Vicks birthday in late June, one of his formes associates Quanis Phillips, that was also found guilty, was shot.

Vick was told that he was not permitted to associate with any of his "Bad Newz Kennels" partners.

Vick has stated that he was long gone from the club when Phillips was shot, however, video shows that Vick left less than five minutes before the shooting.

The longer the suspension to Roethlisberger, the worse this is going look if Vick is not suspended again.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/498/95673366_display_image.jpg?1278167816

Cedric Benson

On May 3, 2008, Benson was arrested for DUI, when he failed a sobriety test while boating in Austin, TX. In the incident, the police found in necessary to use pepper spray on Benson when he resisted arrest.

On June 7, 2008, Benson was again arrested for DUI.

During the end of May, 2010, Benson again was in Austin, TX. And again, Benson has been arrested. This time, for allegedly punching a bar tender in the face while being asked to leave a club.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/513/91885735_display_image.jpg?1278168235

Robaire Smith

Less than three months after Shaun Rogers was arrested for having a concealed weapon in an airport, another Cleveland Brown has been charged with the same crime.

Robaire Smith has been charged with the same crime as Shaun Rogers. Smith was actually with Rogers when Rogers was arrested earlier this year.

Smith was found to have the loaded weapone with him, and has been charged with having a firearm at a commercial airport.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/514/95554398_display_image.jpg?1278168428

Issues with other players

Prior to suspending Roethlisberger, Goodell allowed the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to complete their inquiry.

The GBI stated that there is not enough evidence to get a conviction against Roethlisberger.

Goodell stated that it did not matter if a players is charged or not. Any actions that will make the NFL look bad, are actions that he is going to suspend people for.

Yes, crimes against women are unacceptable. But the reality is, there is no evidence that Roethlisberger did anything illegal in the first place.

Shaun Rogers - Weapon was found on him.

Vince Young - Video evidence shows that he was in the fight.

Mike Vick - Evidence proves he violated the terms of his reinstatement.

Cedric Benson - Third alcohol involved incident in two years.

Robaire Smith - Weapon found on him.

In all of these cases, it is obvious that there is more evidence against all of these players.

When Goodell makes his ruling against any and all of these men, he is going to have to use the Roethlisberger suspension as the basis of their suspensions.

If, none of these men are suspended, the there will be legal issues based on the fact that there was not enough evidence to even charge Roethlisberger, and all of the other men were caught with irrefutable evidence.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/283/528/95554401_display_image.jpg?1278169041

The truth

When suspending Roethlisberger, Roger Goodell stated that if Ben did all of the things that the NFL was asking him to do and he stayed out of trouble, that his suspension could be reduced.

There is no question that the intention of Goodell was to suspend Roethlisberger for four games, and the proof is in his actions.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the Steelers' bye week is in week five?

Do you think that the schedule coming out almost two weeks late had nothing to do with it?

Do you really think that Roethlisberger was not going to do everything the NFL had asked him to do?

Goodell wanted to make an example out of Roethlisberger, so that other players in the NFL would see that Goodell would suspend one of the NFL's premier players.

Apparently, that did not work at all, as you see that other players have not stayed out of trouble.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...-short#page/10

Crash
07-03-2010, 06:17 PM
If Goodell wanted to prove he can admit a mistake he'll cut it to two games.

Vincent Jackson and his three convictions since 2006 CAN'T get less than an uncharged player. That simply isn't fair.

BURGH86STEEL
07-03-2010, 07:28 PM
If Goodell wanted to prove he can admit a mistake he'll cut it to two games.

Vincent Jackson and his three convictions since 2006 CAN'T get less than an uncharged player. That simply isn't fair.

Comparing it to other player's situations is pointless, it is what it is.

Maybe Goodell did not want to suspend Ben for 4 or 6 games? The organization played a role in the 4 to 6 game suspension. If you are going to blame Goodell, point the figure at the organization also. They probably felt that Ben needed a suspension of that magnitude to wake him up and prove they were serious. I can't say that I blame them. If this is what it takes to help Ben straighten himself out, so be it. It might be just what he needed. These players that get themselves into trouble have no one to blame but themselves, Ben included.

In any event, I believe Ben's suspension gets reduced to 4 games.

Djfan
07-03-2010, 11:37 PM
Goodell proved to me he is a loser when he mishandled the spygate thing, confirmed it with the games in other countries, and did it again with Ben.

I can't stand what he is to the NFL.

hawaiiansteel
07-04-2010, 01:17 AM
Goodell proved to me he is a loser when he mishandled the spygate thing, confirmed it with the games in other countries, and did it again with Ben.

I can't stand what he is to the NFL.



I lost a lot of respect for Goodell after the way he handled Spygate, how in the name of fairness did the Cheatriots not get punished more severely?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2229/2241555092_1835b868ea_o.jpghttp://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6061/bradyasteriskth6.jpghttp://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6418/bellinc7.jpg

feltdizz
07-04-2010, 01:29 PM
Goodell proved to me he is a loser when he mishandled the spygate thing, confirmed it with the games in other countries, and did it again with Ben.

I can't stand what he is to the NFL.



I lost a lot of respect for Goodell after the way he handled Spygate, how in the name of fairness did the Cheatriots not get punished more severely?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2229/2241555092_1835b868ea_o.jpghttp://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6061/bradyasteriskth6.jpghttp://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6418/bellinc7.jpg

I HATE the Pats. The tuck rule, the cheating.. the destroyed tapes.

The reality is the Patriots TV market is huge... I think that is the reason the punishment was weak. taking away a first round pick when they had 2 was a joke.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
07-04-2010, 03:02 PM
OK guys, think before you answer this:

Deep in your heart, do you WANT Goodell to cut the suspension to 4 games (or heck, even less)?

I'm asking because some people think that it was the severity of the suspension that snapped Ben's head around and woke him up, made him realize if he doesn't truly change his ways he may find himself packing groceries at the Giant Eagle (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).

Do these same people think that dropping it to four games, or less, would make Ben more likely to do things that would ultimately get him fired?

I'm not sure how I would answer this. Yeah, we could use him for as many games as possible this year. But, whatever it takes, all I know is I really really really want Ben to stay out of the TMZ-type headlines forever.

Crash
07-04-2010, 03:27 PM
Goodell gave more leeway to federal criminals and twice convicted DUI drivers than he did to a guy who wasn't charged.

It's not about waking Ben up. It's about Goodell's ego.

Vick and Jackson, with their 4 convictions between them got 5 games combined while uncharged Ben got six.

That's crap. Give Ben the two games Vick got if Ben"woke up" and complied with what Goodell asked of him.

pittpete
07-04-2010, 03:45 PM
I think Rooney had a lot of influence on the suspension
Just saying

Sugar
07-04-2010, 04:08 PM
OK guys, think before you answer this:

Deep in your heart, do you WANT Goodell to cut the suspension to 4 games (or heck, even less)?

I'm asking because some people think that it was the severity of the suspension that snapped Ben's head around and woke him up, made him realize if he doesn't truly change his ways he may find himself packing groceries at the Giant Eagle (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).

Do these same people think that dropping it to four games, or less, would make Ben more likely to do things that would ultimately get him fired?

I'm not sure how I would answer this. Yeah, we could use him for as many games as possible this year. But, whatever it takes, all I know is I really really really want Ben to stay out of the TMZ-type headlines forever.

Deep in my heart I believe that Ben shouldn't have been suspended at all. The NFL should keep it's nose out of people's business if there is not even a charge. It's not their job to nanny any player into "changing his ways."

I think that the Steelers may have had something to do with this and that would be yet another bone-headed move that they've had this off-season- so yes, I do hold them partially liable for this miscarriage of justice.

BURGH86STEEL
07-04-2010, 05:04 PM
OK guys, think before you answer this:

Deep in your heart, do you WANT Goodell to cut the suspension to 4 games (or heck, even less)?

I'm asking because some people think that it was the severity of the suspension that snapped Ben's head around and woke him up, made him realize if he doesn't truly change his ways he may find himself packing groceries at the Giant Eagle (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).

Do these same people think that dropping it to four games, or less, would make Ben more likely to do things that would ultimately get him fired?

I'm not sure how I would answer this. Yeah, we could use him for as many games as possible this year. But, whatever it takes, all I know is I really really really want Ben to stay out of the TMZ-type headlines forever.

Deep in my heart I believe that Ben shouldn't have been suspended at all. The NFL should keep it's nose out of people's business if there is not even a charge. It's not their job to nanny any player into "changing his ways."

I think that the Steelers may have had something to do with this and that would be yet another bone-headed move that they've had this off-season- so yes, I do hold them partially liable for this miscarriage of justice.

Would feel this way if you had millions of dollars invested in a player that put himself in situations where he could possibly end up in jail? Just something for you to think about. This is one of several issues the organization has to take into account. Only thing most fans worry about is their fandom.

The NFL has some responsibility for what its employees do off the field. The NFL provides its employees with huge sums of money and fame. Any company that employs professional people has some responsibility for its employees actions. There are standards that people have to abide by to be employees of most, if not all companies.

I know that Ben was not charged. I believe he was very close to being charged by the nature of the incident and situation he placed himself into. He was very fortunate that one of several factors did not lead to being charged. What happens if Ben put himself into a similar situation in the future with a woman and gets charged? At the very least, the league and organization attempted to do what they could within the structure of their policies to help move Ben in the right direction.

I believe the Steelers had something to do with the suspension. They did what they thought was necessary to help their multi million dollar investment. Whatever happens from this day forward will be on Ben. Will he continue to be dumb and stubborn Ben? or Will he learn, grow, and consider himself fortunate after this incident?

Djfan
07-04-2010, 05:13 PM
I think the league should have done nothing, and the Rooneys hit him with a huge dollar fine and counseling. His getting suspended is a slap to the team and the fans.

Someone WAY over reacted.

Now the team and the fans pay the price.

Goodell WAY UNDER reacted to spygate. They got little less than a "Bad dog!" and it was over. It was WAY under investigated, too.

Ben's actions were stupid to the Nth degree. That jeapordizes the Rooney's investment, to be sure. His actions were not illegal, else charges would have been charged.

A good, firm "Do it again and you're fined" from the league is understandable. This is more than that.

BURGH86STEEL
07-04-2010, 06:19 PM
I think the league should have done nothing, and the Rooneys hit him with a huge dollar fine and counseling. His getting suspended is a slap to the team and the fans.

Someone WAY over reacted.

Now the team and the fans pay the price.

Goodell WAY UNDER reacted to spygate. They got little less than a "Bad dog!" and it was over. It was WAY under investigated, too.

Ben's actions were stupid to the Nth degree. That jeapordizes the Rooney's investment, to be sure. His actions were not illegal, else charges would have been charged.

A good, firm "Do it again and you're fined" from the league is understandable. This is more than that.

I guess the league felt the need to step in since it was the 2nd accusation. Maybe Goodell would had given him 2 to 3 games at the most without collaborating with the organization?

I believe the organization talked to Ben about the situations he places himself into after the first accusation. Wouldn't you if you had millions invested in Ben? Up to this latest incident, it did not appear that Ben needed any counseling. Ben probably does not need any counseling now. Maybe all he needed was a dose of reality? Only time will tell. We've seen athletes that can't learn from their own and others mistakes.

Unfortunate that some people can't let go of spy gate. Spy gate is water under bridge. Just like Ben's issue will be water under the bridge some day.

So what if Ben did not learn from a good do it again and you're fined? Fined money, how much? 25,000 50,000 100,000? He has that coming out of his ears. He was fined, so to speak, by the attorneys defending him in the Mcnaulty case. Did not learn from that. It also appears he did not learn from the advice of people around him or in the organization. I believe that's why the organization wanted a little more harsh punishment placed on Ben. A 4/6 game suspension speaks volumes. It says, do it again and you could face a year ban by the league. Do it again, you will no longer be a Steeler. Do it again, you might end up in jail the next time. It may or may not work. At least, it will give Ben something to think about before he places himself into questionable situations.

People are so concerned with the short term(4/6 games this season) or whining about the unfairness of the suspension, they fail to consider how the suspension might change Ben for the long term. The organization and league took this stance for reasons. The organization and league want to have Ben around for the long term. They are intelligent business people. Ben is a star in the league. It is in their best interest to have Ben around for as long as possible.

Djfan
07-04-2010, 11:13 PM
Burgh,

You're a great poster. I just disagree with almost every point you just made.

No offense. I just do.

Crash
07-05-2010, 02:43 AM
I believe he was very close to being charged by the nature of the incident and situation he placed himself into.

Yeah he was close to being charged, that's why DA Bright said he didn't even have enough probable cause to arrest Ben.

BURGH86STEEL
07-05-2010, 07:01 AM
Burgh,

You're a great poster. I just disagree with almost every point you just made.

No offense. I just do.

It's cool, that's what this place is for.

Sugar
07-05-2010, 07:56 AM
OK guys, think before you answer this:

Deep in your heart, do you WANT Goodell to cut the suspension to 4 games (or heck, even less)?

I'm asking because some people think that it was the severity of the suspension that snapped Ben's head around and woke him up, made him realize if he doesn't truly change his ways he may find himself packing groceries at the Giant Eagle (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).

Do these same people think that dropping it to four games, or less, would make Ben more likely to do things that would ultimately get him fired?

I'm not sure how I would answer this. Yeah, we could use him for as many games as possible this year. But, whatever it takes, all I know is I really really really want Ben to stay out of the TMZ-type headlines forever.

Deep in my heart I believe that Ben shouldn't have been suspended at all. The NFL should keep it's nose out of people's business if there is not even a charge. It's not their job to nanny any player into "changing his ways."

I think that the Steelers may have had something to do with this and that would be yet another bone-headed move that they've had this off-season- so yes, I do hold them partially liable for this miscarriage of justice.

Would feel this way if you had millions of dollars invested in a player that put himself in situations where he could possibly end up in jail? Just something for you to think about. This is one of several issues the organization has to take into account. Only thing most fans worry about is their fandom.

The NFL has some responsibility for what its employees do off the field. The NFL provides its employees with huge sums of money and fame. Any company that employs professional people has some responsibility for its employees actions. There are standards that people have to abide by to be employees of most, if not all companies.

I know that Ben was not charged. I believe he was very close to being charged by the nature of the incident and situation he placed himself into. He was very fortunate that one of several factors did not lead to being charged. What happens if Ben put himself into a similar situation in the future with a woman and gets charged? At the very least, the league and organization attempted to do what they could within the structure of their policies to help move Ben in the right direction.

I believe the Steelers had something to do with the suspension. They did what they thought was necessary to help their multi million dollar investment. Whatever happens from this day forward will be on Ben. Will he continue to be dumb and stubborn Ben? or Will he learn, grow, and consider himself fortunate after this incident?

If my multi-million dollar investment was frog-marched out in front of the camera's or charged with a criminal offense there would certainly be an interest. If there were viral video or something of a crime, there would be an interest. Other than that, no, it doesn't change anything.

If Ben does anything to get himself charged with a crime than that is a different proposition entirely. Again, it's not the NFL or the Steeler's job to nanny anyone into moving in the "right direction."

Northern_Blitz
07-05-2010, 12:54 PM
The suspension will be cut short because that was the design.

This way the fact that Ben went to councelling and is changing his life will be in the public eye. The variable length of the suspension actually begins the Big Ben redemption project. From the beginning, I've thought of the 6 --> 4 suspension as a marketing tool.

feltdizz
07-05-2010, 02:25 PM
OK guys, think before you answer this:

Deep in your heart, do you WANT Goodell to cut the suspension to 4 games (or heck, even less)?

I'm asking because some people think that it was the severity of the suspension that snapped Ben's head around and woke him up, made him realize if he doesn't truly change his ways he may find himself packing groceries at the Giant Eagle (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).

Do these same people think that dropping it to four games, or less, would make Ben more likely to do things that would ultimately get him fired?

I'm not sure how I would answer this. Yeah, we could use him for as many games as possible this year. But, whatever it takes, all I know is I really really really want Ben to stay out of the TMZ-type headlines forever.

Deep in my heart I believe that Ben shouldn't have been suspended at all. The NFL should keep it's nose out of people's business if there is not even a charge. It's not their job to nanny any player into "changing his ways."

I think that the Steelers may have had something to do with this and that would be yet another bone-headed move that they've had this off-season- so yes, I do hold them partially liable for this miscarriage of justice.

Would feel this way if you had millions of dollars invested in a player that put himself in situations where he could possibly end up in jail? Just something for you to think about. This is one of several issues the organization has to take into account. Only thing most fans worry about is their fandom.

The NFL has some responsibility for what its employees do off the field. The NFL provides its employees with huge sums of money and fame. Any company that employs professional people has some responsibility for its employees actions. There are standards that people have to abide by to be employees of most, if not all companies.

I know that Ben was not charged. I believe he was very close to being charged by the nature of the incident and situation he placed himself into. He was very fortunate that one of several factors did not lead to being charged. What happens if Ben put himself into a similar situation in the future with a woman and gets charged? At the very least, the league and organization attempted to do what they could within the structure of their policies to help move Ben in the right direction.

I believe the Steelers had something to do with the suspension. They did what they thought was necessary to help their multi million dollar investment. Whatever happens from this day forward will be on Ben. Will he continue to be dumb and stubborn Ben? or Will he learn, grow, and consider himself fortunate after this incident?

If my multi-million dollar investment was frog-marched out in front of the camera's or charged with a criminal offense there would certainly be an interest. If there were viral video or something of a crime, there would be an interest. Other than that, no, it doesn't change anything.

If Ben does anything to get himself charged with a crime than that is a different proposition entirely. Again, it's not the NFL or the Steeler's job to nanny anyone into moving in the "right direction."

The video from the club being "damaged" wasn't a good thing. The stories about the phones being scrubbed of photo's with Ben don't help either.

The NFL definitely has a responsibility to nanny their investments in the right direction. Moving in the wrong direction isn't good for business.

I have no idea why some people feel as though a person can cost their employer millions of dollars without receiving some sort of punishment or counseling.

Crash
07-05-2010, 03:41 PM
The local police viewed the tapes. That didn't get reported much because it's not juicy enough.

They didn't want photos of Ben with booze in his hand. No different than bar flyers for Jeff Reed's appearances to ask not to post pics on the internet.

feltdizz
07-05-2010, 05:13 PM
The local police viewed the tapes. That didn't get reported much because it's not juicy enough.

They didn't want photos of Ben with booze in his hand. No different than bar flyers for Jeff Reed's appearances to ask not to post pics on the internet.


And now the videotape has disappeared:

The attorney for a nightclub where Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger is accused of “sexually assaulted or sexually manipulated” a college student told ESPN that there is no remaining video from the night of the alleged incident.

Carl Cansino, the attorney for the Capital City nightclub in Milledgeville, Ga., said that he learned Thursday there is no remaining video. It was recorded over after detectives and the club’s manager, Rocky Duncan, had watched it.

Cansino said that Milledgeville detectives tried to retrieve the video after it was recorded over, but were unable to. A Georgia Bureau of Investigations forensics team tried to retrieve it as well, but was also unsuccessful.

Cansino said the GBI told him Thursday that nothing on the tape is available at the present time.

Earlier Thursday, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review also reported that — according to Cansino — the GBI was unable to retrieve the footage as potential evidence.

A source told ESPN’s Kelly Naqi that there was no camera inside the nightclub pointed toward the bathroom where the woman said the assault took place.

The source told Naqi that many of the club’s security cameras are focused on the main dance floor area. The value of any footage obtained from those recordings would have been to see the demeanor of the accuser and her friends as they made their exit from the club, the source told Naqi.

More and more events point towards Ben Roethlisberger walking away unscathed from whatever occurred at the Capital Club in Miledgeville, Georgia.

Crash
07-05-2010, 05:32 PM
Carl Cansino, the attorney for the Capital City nightclub in Milledgeville, Ga., said that he learned Thursday there is no remaining video. It was recorded over after detectives and the club’s manager, Rocky Duncan, had watched it.

Right. But you don't see the part about the local detectives and the club manager watching it reported hardly at all. They don't tell you it was the GBI who LATER wanted to view the tapes after the locals had already done so.

The media makes it appear as if no one watched the tapes, and it just vanished.


A source told ESPN’s Kelly Naqi that there was no camera inside the nightclub pointed toward the bathroom where the woman said the assault took place.

That quote above has also seen little print as well. The media once again made it appear as if they had camera's fixated on the bathroom and the hall way. They did not.

feltdizz
07-05-2010, 05:32 PM
Now who knows how damaging or clearing this tape could have been for the parties involved but taping over it???

When evidence is taped over why would anyone believe there was nothing on it or it was viewed at all?

In college I was accused of graffiti and said to be on tape. However the cops wouldn't let me watch the tape... yeah right. When they showed me the grafitti I told them as an artist I was offended by the shi.TTY quality of the work. I really tried hard to warn the cop about his mistake but he wanted to make an example out of me... he had to learn the hard way. My uncle is a very popular lawyer.

Cops are people too.. I wouldn't be surprised if they never watched the video or let it be taped over. Cops down there were fired or resigned.

feltdizz
07-05-2010, 05:42 PM
[quote]Carl Cansino, the attorney for the Capital City nightclub in Milledgeville, Ga., said that he learned Thursday there is no remaining video. It was recorded over after detectives and the club’s manager, Rocky Duncan, had watched it.

Right. But you don't see the part about the local detectives and the club manager watching it reported hardly at all. They don't tell you it was the GBI who LATER wanted to view the tapes after the locals had already done so.

The media makes it appear as if no one watched the tapes, and it just vanished.


A source told ESPN’s Kelly Naqi that there was no camera inside the nightclub pointed toward the bathroom where the woman said the assault took place.

That quote above has also seen little print as well. The media once again made it appear as if they had camera's fixated on the bathroom and the hall way. They did not.[/quote:265uodnq]

if there is nothing to hide why tape over the tapes? The local cops screwed up from the jump and were punished.

This is like spygate and the destroyed tapes. He said there was nothing major on them but what do we all say? Why destroy them?

Wouldn't the tapes help Ben if there was nothing on them? If the tapes helped Ben but hurt the club so the club owner scrubbed them it still makes Ben look like he was hiding something. Damaged tapes didn't help Ben with public perception... however it may have helped in hiding his drunk and borish nature. We will never know so speculation and perception won out over cold hard evidence.

Crash
07-05-2010, 05:53 PM
if there is nothing to hide why tape over the tapes?

They run in cycles. They are programmed to tape over them after a certain amount of time. They saw the tapes. If they were damaging they would have taken them with them.


Wouldn't the tapes help Ben if there was nothing on them? If the tapes helped Ben but hurt the club so the club owner scrubbed them it still makes Ben look like he was hiding something.

Ben owns the club?


Damaged tapes didn't help Ben with public perception... however it may have helped in hiding his drunk and borish nature.

Alleged boorish nature. A friend of Ben's shot their own video. It showed Ben and the accuser on it. If it would have made Ben look "bad" do you really think they would have handed it over to the GBI?

No, a witch-hunt by the media won over cold hard facts.

That's why if I'm Ben I tell the media to go to hell.

skyhawk
07-05-2010, 06:22 PM
[quote]if there is nothing to hide why tape over the tapes?

They run in cycles. They are programmed to tape over them after a certain amount of time. They saw the tapes. If they were damaging they would have taken them with them.


Wouldn't the tapes help Ben if there was nothing on them? If the tapes helped Ben but hurt the club so the club owner scrubbed them it still makes Ben look like he was hiding something.

Ben owns the club?


Damaged tapes didn't help Ben with public perception... however it may have helped in hiding his drunk and borish nature.

Alleged boorish nature. A friend of Ben's shot their own video. It showed Ben and the accuser on it. If it would have made Ben look "bad" do you really think they would have handed it over to the GBI?

No, a witch-hunt by the media won over cold hard facts.

That's why if I'm Ben I tell the media to go to hell.[/quote:27jwn2jv]

+1

:Cheers

feltdizz
07-05-2010, 07:17 PM
[quote]if there is nothing to hide why tape over the tapes?

They run in cycles. They are programmed to tape over them after a certain amount of time. They saw the tapes. If they were damaging they would have taken them with them.

doesn't matter.... in the public eye a tape that is damaged or erased is seen as hiding something. Don't you bash Goodell all the time for destroying the Pats tapes? He said there was nothing for us to see? Yeah right.


Wouldn't the tapes help Ben if there was nothing on them? If the tapes helped Ben but hurt the club so the club owner scrubbed them it still makes Ben look like he was hiding something.

Ben owns the club?

I never said Ben owns the club... I said the club may have been protecting themselves by letting the tapes get recorded over. However this still makes it look like the tape recording hid something to protect Ben...


Damaged tapes didn't help Ben with public perception... however it may have helped in hiding his drunk and borish nature.

Alleged boorish nature. A friend of Ben's shot their own video. It showed Ben and the accuser on it. If it would have made Ben look "bad" do you really think they would have handed it over to the GBI?

Without the tapes everyone can speculate and run with it...

I have no idea why you brought up his friends video... what friend would send a tape incriminating his friend?
[/quote:3a4gvuu1]

In closing... the same people screaming about Goodell destroying the spygate tapes are now defending destroyed tapes in this GA gaffe. Sure the locals "looked at them" with the club owner. It's not like the local authorities didn't have policemen who were fired or forced to resign due to not following procedure.

I'm not saying the erased tapes prove Ben is guilty... but I am saying the erased tapes make it very hard to prove Ben did nothing wrong. Proof is everything... and without those tapes plenty of media are thinking :wft he definitely did something.

The tape could have been facing a garbage can all night.. but umm.... if the tape is erased why would anyone in the media believe the local authorities?

Just sayin'

Crash
07-05-2010, 07:26 PM
I'm not saying the erased tapes prove Ben is guilty... but I am saying the erased tapes make it very hard to prove Ben did nothing wrong.

It does? How?

What proves Ben didn't rape her (which he was accused of and investigated for) was the fact that they had no DNA, no proof of intercourse at all.


I have no idea why you brought up his friends video... what friend would send a tape incriminating his friend?

Exactly. The fact that they turned that tape in, and it had the accuser and Ben on it? Would support Ben's versions of events, no?


In closing... the same people screaming about Goodell destroying the spygate tapes are now defending destroyed tapes in this GA gaffe.

Um, no. What we are complaining about is the media acting as if the tapes were destroyed before investigators looked at it. As if Ben (who was flying back to Pittsburgh) somehow orchestrated this to happen.

They didn't report the facts. They never have.

Sugar
07-05-2010, 08:10 PM
I'm not saying the erased tapes prove Ben is guilty... but I am saying the erased tapes make it very hard to prove Ben did nothing wrong. Proof is everything... and without those tapes plenty of media are thinking :wft he definitely did something.


It's not Ben's job to prove he did nothing wrong. It's the prosecutor/accusers job to prove that he did. Proof is indeed important, but the burden is on the one making the accusation, not the accused.

feltdizz
07-05-2010, 08:18 PM
I'm not saying the erased tapes prove Ben is guilty... but I am saying the erased tapes make it very hard to prove Ben did nothing wrong. Proof is everything... and without those tapes plenty of media are thinking :wft he definitely did something.


It's not Ben's job to prove he did nothing wrong. It's the prosecutor/accusers job to prove that he did. Proof is indeed important, but the burden is on the one making the accusation, not the accused.

I'm not talking about guilt of a crime... he wasn't charged so he isn't a criminal.

I'm talking about public perception...

Crash
07-05-2010, 08:25 PM
Public perception is fueled by media. The media for whatever reason lynched Ben and reported half truths, rumors, and innuendos.

feltdizz
07-05-2010, 08:29 PM
[quote]I'm not saying the erased tapes prove Ben is guilty... but I am saying the erased tapes make it very hard to prove Ben did nothing wrong.

It does? How?

What proves Ben didn't rape her (which he was accused of and investigated for) was the fact that they had no DNA, no proof of intercourse at all.


I have no idea why you brought up his friends video... what friend would send a tape incriminating his friend?

Exactly. The fact that they turned that tape in, and it had the accuser and Ben on it? Would support Ben's versions of events, no?


In closing... the same people screaming about Goodell destroying the spygate tapes are now defending destroyed tapes in this GA gaffe.

Um, no. What we are complaining about is the media acting as if the tapes were destroyed before investigators looked at it. As if Ben (who was flying back to Pittsburgh) somehow orchestrated this to happen.

They didn't report the facts. They never have.[/quote:c553s1ds]

I'm not talking rape... I'm talking about violating NFL conduct.
I have no idea why you keep talking about Ben's friends tape. If we are having a great time and it's on film but I slap the sh.it out of you after the camera stops rolling were you slapped?

Once again... without the tapes... people will wonder and speculate what was on the tapes.

How bad was spygate? How many teams did they spy on? How far back did it go?
Without the tapes the public "outside of New England" think spygate was worse than Goodell said it was.

BURGH86STEEL
07-05-2010, 08:41 PM
OK guys, think before you answer this:

Deep in your heart, do you WANT Goodell to cut the suspension to 4 games (or heck, even less)?

I'm asking because some people think that it was the severity of the suspension that snapped Ben's head around and woke him up, made him realize if he doesn't truly change his ways he may find himself packing groceries at the Giant Eagle (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).

Do these same people think that dropping it to four games, or less, would make Ben more likely to do things that would ultimately get him fired?

I'm not sure how I would answer this. Yeah, we could use him for as many games as possible this year. But, whatever it takes, all I know is I really really really want Ben to stay out of the TMZ-type headlines forever.

Deep in my heart I believe that Ben shouldn't have been suspended at all. The NFL should keep it's nose out of people's business if there is not even a charge. It's not their job to nanny any player into "changing his ways."

I think that the Steelers may have had something to do with this and that would be yet another bone-headed move that they've had this off-season- so yes, I do hold them partially liable for this miscarriage of justice.

Would feel this way if you had millions of dollars invested in a player that put himself in situations where he could possibly end up in jail? Just something for you to think about. This is one of several issues the organization has to take into account. Only thing most fans worry about is their fandom.

The NFL has some responsibility for what its employees do off the field. The NFL provides its employees with huge sums of money and fame. Any company that employs professional people has some responsibility for its employees actions. There are standards that people have to abide by to be employees of most, if not all companies.

I know that Ben was not charged. I believe he was very close to being charged by the nature of the incident and situation he placed himself into. He was very fortunate that one of several factors did not lead to being charged. What happens if Ben put himself into a similar situation in the future with a woman and gets charged? At the very least, the league and organization attempted to do what they could within the structure of their policies to help move Ben in the right direction.

I believe the Steelers had something to do with the suspension. They did what they thought was necessary to help their multi million dollar investment. Whatever happens from this day forward will be on Ben. Will he continue to be dumb and stubborn Ben? or Will he learn, grow, and consider himself fortunate after this incident?

If my multi-million dollar investment was frog-marched out in front of the camera's or charged with a criminal offense there would certainly be an interest. If there were viral video or something of a crime, there would be an interest. Other than that, no, it doesn't change anything.

If Ben does anything to get himself charged with a crime than that is a different proposition entirely. Again, it's not the NFL or the Steeler's job to nanny anyone into moving in the "right direction."

I suppose the powers that be feel differently then you do. I can understand why they feel the need to nanny some of the young men with millions of dollars. They invest huge amounts of time and money in players. If it was your money, and the success of your franchise was at stake, I think you would feel differently.

Crash
07-05-2010, 09:08 PM
I'm not talking rape... I'm talking about violating NFL conduct.

I don't see the violation to be honest with you.

A night of bad drinking? If that's a violation then there's a whole lot of players who should be sitting also.

If some ho accuses Goodell of sexual assault tomorrow should he resign?

Goodell jumped the gun trying to be a badass, but now because he's not consistent he looks like a power hungry fool.

feltdizz
07-05-2010, 10:12 PM
I'm not talking rape... I'm talking about violating NFL conduct.

I don't see the violation to be honest with you.

A night of bad drinking? If that's a violation then there's a whole lot of players who should be sitting also.

If some ho accuses Goodell of sexual assault tomorrow should he resign?

Goodell jumped the gun trying to be a badass, but now because he's not consistent he looks like a power hungry fool.

I think getting another accusation of forced sex was the violation. The first charge with Mcnulty was a joke but we saw how much damage a chick like that could do to a guys reputation. Getting another accusation shows Ben isn't taking the warnings of his employers seriously. Sure it could have been a money grab but thats what everyone was warning Ben about.

Those chicks have zero responsibilities to the Steelers...

Now would Goodell resign if accused? I doubt it... but if the tapes were damaged or erased we would wonder how innocent he was? 8)

Crash
07-05-2010, 10:27 PM
Now would Goodell resign if accused? I doubt it... but if the tapes were damaged or erased we would wonder how innocent he was?

Not if the authorities admitted looking at the tapes first.

Their were no cameras in the VIP room, the hallway, or the bathroom. They saw the tapes. If they had any real damage to them they would have released what they saw to the media.

feltdizz
07-06-2010, 12:28 AM
Now would Goodell resign if accused? I doubt it... but if the tapes were damaged or erased we would wonder how innocent he was?

Not if the authorities admitted looking at the tapes first.

Their were no cameras in the VIP room, the hallway, or the bathroom. They saw the tapes. If they had any real damage to them they would have released what they saw to the media.


So the media only gets tapes with real damage?

Sure seems like a tape with no damage would do wonders for Ben's image in the media.

If I'm accused of bad behavior and drunken activity and the tapes show nothing of the sort... wouldn't you want that tape?

I know I would.

Crash
07-06-2010, 01:11 AM
Sure seems like a tape with no damage would do wonders for Ben's image in the media.

The media was told that the local police saw the footgage with nothing on it before they were eraseed. But the headlines of the story the media focused on the footage being "erased" only.

Like I said before now we know why the media "MOVED ON" after the audio's were released.

It exposed the witch-hunt media for what it was.

birtikidis
07-06-2010, 03:46 AM
I'm not talking rape... I'm talking about violating NFL conduct.

I don't see the violation to be honest with you.

A night of bad drinking? If that's a violation then there's a whole lot of players who should be sitting also.

If some ho accuses Goodell of sexual assault tomorrow should he resign?

Goodell jumped the gun trying to be a badass, but now because he's not consistent he looks like a power hungry fool.
Goodell touched me in my naughty place! make him resign!

flippy
07-06-2010, 07:40 AM
Why the anger toward Goodell? Maybe he's just Rooney's puppet and your anger should be directed toward Rooney instead.

Sugar
07-06-2010, 07:56 AM
Why the anger toward Goodell? Maybe he's just Rooney's puppet and your anger should be directed toward Rooney instead.

Fair enough. I'd be just as happy to blame Rooney for this stupidity. That said, Goodell is the one handing out the sentence and making the determination if it's 4 or 6 games, not Rooney. If Rooney is just hiding behind the NFL because he was embarassed, then shame on him for not manning up and doing what he felt needed to be done himself.

ikestops85
07-06-2010, 12:43 PM
Why the anger toward Goodell? Maybe he's just Rooney's puppet and your anger should be directed toward Rooney instead.

Some of my anger is directed at the Rooney's. They are trying to take the moral high ground with this incident and I think that is laughable from a family that made it's money through gambling proceeds. Doesn't anyone else see the hipocracy in this?

Ben can't buy a round of shots for people in a BAR yet the Rooney's can entice John Q. Public to gamble away his rent money or food money on the horses. I'm sorry but that is BS in my book.

feltdizz
07-06-2010, 12:54 PM
Why the anger toward Goodell? Maybe he's just Rooney's puppet and your anger should be directed toward Rooney instead.

Some of my anger is directed at the Rooney's. They are trying to take the moral high ground with this incident and I think that is laughable from a family that made it's money through gambling proceeds. Doesn't anyone else see the hipocracy in this?

Ben can't buy a round of shots for people in a BAR yet the Rooney's can entice John Q. Public to gamble away his rent money or food money on the horses. I'm sorry but that is BS in my book.

No.... I do not.

I know what you are trying to say but the whole sports industry exist for the purpose of gambling...

Ben messed up the money this off season.... so he is punished.

Ghost
07-06-2010, 01:17 PM
Some of my anger is directed at the Rooney's. They are trying to take the moral high ground with this incident and I think that is laughable from a family that made it's money through gambling proceeds. Doesn't anyone else see the hipocracy in this?

Not realy for a couple of reasons. First - you really can't compare gambling to assault or even perceived assault. No one forces another person to gamble. You make that choice on your own. Persoanl responsibility.

Secondly - gambling laws are ridiculously arbitrary. I lived in Vegas for a couple of years and every week during football season I went to a sports book and threw money on 4 to 7 games just for fun (adds a little something to watching the games). Sometimes I watched from a Casino. Perfeclty legal. But now b/c I live in another state it's a crime?

ikestops85
07-06-2010, 03:43 PM
Some of my anger is directed at the Rooney's. They are trying to take the moral high ground with this incident and I think that is laughable from a family that made it's money through gambling proceeds. Doesn't anyone else see the hipocracy in this?

Not realy for a couple of reasons. First - you really can't compare gambling to assault or even perceived assault. No one forces another person to gamble. You make that choice on your own. Persoanl responsibility.

Secondly - gambling laws are ridiculously arbitrary. I lived in Vegas for a couple of years and every week during football season I went to a sports book and threw money on 4 to 7 games just for fun (adds a little something to watching the games). Sometimes I watched from a Casino. Perfeclty legal. But now b/c I live in another state it's a crime?

Ben was not suspended for assault ... they mention him buying drinks for underage adults ( I hate the term minor for a 20 year old) if I remember correctly. Did Ben force them to drink? Wasn't that a personal choice of the underaged adult?

Now let's go to the gambling side of things. Isn't gambling an addiction?
Aren't some people compelled to risk all of their money on a horse race because they just know the next long shot is coming in? Haven't families been kicked out of their homes because the Mom or Dad gambled away all the money? Haven't kids gone without food or had to steal it because Mom or Dad lost the money at the track?

I'm just a person who feels those in glass houses shouldn't throw those stones. It can only come back to bite you in the arse. Aside from boorish behavior I don't think Ben did anything wrong. The first accusation was because Ben had a one nighter. Most single people I know at that age have done that. Male and Female. The second allegation I originally thought he may have acted inappropriate ... until I saw the interview with the accuser. After that my take was NOTHING inappropriate happened. Of course I wasn't there so this is all just my opinion.

Given that I think Ben has proven not to be the sharpest knife in the drawer or not the brightest bulb in the pack or whatever metaphor you might want to come up with. It seems the Steelers attract that type of QB. I put Terry in that category also. However I don't feel he should have been suspended because of some vague clause in the players contract. Ben didn't decide how much publicity this event sustained. The media, the publicity hungry DA in Georgia, and our Commissioner of the NFL did that.

Question: If Brady were to go through an acrimonious divorce from Giselle where they are both slinging mud and she accused him of adultery and emotional abuse should he be suspended?

feltdizz
07-06-2010, 07:02 PM
Infedelity isn't a crime... If Brady had a McNulty incident and a college bar incident he should be punished.

Crash
07-06-2010, 07:16 PM
Question: If Brady were to go through an acrimonious divorce from Giselle where they are both slinging mud and she accused him of adultery and emotional abuse should he be suspended

Brady knocked up Bridget and dumped her (while pregnant) for Giselle.

When he marries Giselle his bodyguards shoot at photographers.

Why hasn't he been suspended? Is that the type of publicity that Goodell wants for the shield?

Ghost
07-07-2010, 08:42 AM
they mention him buying drinks for underage adults ( I hate the term minor for a 20 year old) if I remember correctly.

I don't think we are disagreeing on the suspension. It's absolute horsesh!t. Before I was married, I bought drinks for girls and never once did I ask to see thier ID, no matter how young they looked - not my responsibility and it wasn't Ben's either. If you are in a bar it should be a reasonable assumption that you are of legal age. It's a cop out by Goodell to use that as the reasoning - there should have been NO games lost.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the gambling. I have no moral issues with the Rooney's making thier money that way. While tragic that people bet money they don't have; you can't babysit grown adults. They are responsible for the decisions they make. I bet b/c I could afford to lose the money I placed on games (didn't like it though). Just because someone else comes in and lays huge amounts on games they really can't afford doesn't mean that gambling is inherently wrong.

DrCalculus
07-07-2010, 09:38 AM
So here's the bottom line in all of this:

1. Some would disagree, but if the suspension was what it took to get Ben to wiseup and stop acting like such a tool, then most of us can probably live with that. Four games.

2. However, if the suspension was coming from the league and not the Rooneys, then Goodell needs to be consistent and whack Vick, VJackson, Benson, the two Browns linemen, and Vince Young with equally stringent suspensions. And whack the Lions with draft pick losses for the boorish behavior of their president.

Otherwise, if these other players charged with crimes get NOTHING, then the NFLPA needs to demand Goodell pull the plug on Ben's suspension immediately. I cannot fathom how there is not more outcry from the Player's Assoc.

Rule with CONSISTENCY = respect from the fans and players
Rule arbitrarily = outrage from the fans


Goodell, you're the idiot who set the precedent. Now live up to it or back track and admit you overracted, one or the other.

ikestops85
07-07-2010, 10:14 AM
Infedelity isn't a crime... If Brady had a McNulty incident and a college bar incident he should be punished.

I know infidelity isn't a crime ... neither is anything Ben did. The personal conduct clause allows the commissioner to suspend a player whose conduct brings negative publicity down on the league.

So if you refer back to the question Brady's conduct would bring negative publicity to the league. So what is your answer to the question? Should Brady get suspended because his messy divorce proceedings get a lot of negative air time for the league?

feltdizz
07-07-2010, 11:13 AM
If Brady had a Tiger Woods type divorce with crashed cars and women running to tabloids then he would or should get suspended.

Simply getting a divorce for infidelity is nothing new for an athlete. Plenty of athletes have had divorces and some had a story to go with it but unless it was charlie sheen, car over cliff with drugs, knife to throat and cop cars its not a big deal.

I was surprised the bodyguard shootup at the wedding didn't get more publicity but it was in Brazil. A shoot up wiithout a casulty is considered a shouting match down there.

flippy
07-07-2010, 11:16 AM
If Brady had a Tiger Woods type divorce with crashed cars and women running to tabloids then he would or should get suspended.

Simply getting a divorce for infidelity is nothing new for an athlete. Plenty of athletes have had divorces and some had a story to go with it but unless it was charlie sheen, car over cliff with drugs, knife to throat and cop cars its not a big deal.

I was surprised the bodyguard shootup at the wedding didn't get more publicity but it was in Brazil. A shoot up wiithout a casulty is considered a shouting match down there.

He may also need to play for Rooney.

Ghost
07-07-2010, 01:12 PM
Not that it really mattes but Brady didn't get divorced form his first kid's mom - they were never married. We have no idea what happened there. Who nows if she wanted a booty call and didn't tell him she had come off the pill? Maybe she was trying to trap him. It's her responsibility for birth control as much as his.

He got another girlfriend. Big deal. It's ridiculous to even suggest this somehow goes against the NFL's conduct policy. That's grasping at straws.

feltdizz
07-07-2010, 03:03 PM
Not that it really mattes but Brady didn't get divorced form his first kid's mom - they were never married. We have no idea what happened there. Who nows if she wanted a booty call and didn't tell him she had come off the pill? Maybe she was trying to trap him. It's her responsibility for birth control as much as his.

He got another girlfriend. Big deal. It's ridiculous to even suggest this somehow goes against the NFL's conduct policy. That's grasping at straws.

delusion is setting in due to anger.

jj28west
07-07-2010, 07:41 PM
Do you guys remember this Packer? I guess he was acquitted and now he will be going into the Packers hall of fame.

http://www.joeyblueskies.com/2010/06/di ... layer.html (http://www.joeyblueskies.com/2010/06/did-packers-hire-mark-chmura-as-player.html)

So if he was not guilty would that mean Goodell would not suspend him because he was setup? I think its tough to be objective when comparing each individual incident.

On the flipside Goodell (If Chewy were active today) may have decided he used bad judgement to even be in a hot tub with a 17 year old while the wife is away and this guy would have been subjected to the personel conduct policy.

ikestops85
07-08-2010, 03:52 PM
If Brady had a Tiger Woods type divorce with crashed cars and women running to tabloids then he would or should get suspended.

Simply getting a divorce for infidelity is nothing new for an athlete. Plenty of athletes have had divorces and some had a story to go with it but unless it was charlie sheen, car over cliff with drugs, knife to throat and cop cars its not a big deal.

I was surprised the bodyguard shootup at the wedding didn't get more publicity but it was in Brazil. A shoot up wiithout a casulty is considered a shouting match down there.

I realize this is all hypothetical but what I hear you saying is if Brady had pulled a Tiger Woods he SHOULD be suspended? If I have this right could you please explain your reasoning behind your conclusion. I would like to know. Thanks.

feltdizz
07-08-2010, 04:07 PM
If Brady had a Tiger Woods type divorce with crashed cars and women running to tabloids then he would or should get suspended.

Simply getting a divorce for infidelity is nothing new for an athlete. Plenty of athletes have had divorces and some had a story to go with it but unless it was charlie sheen, car over cliff with drugs, knife to throat and cop cars its not a big deal.

I was surprised the bodyguard shootup at the wedding didn't get more publicity but it was in Brazil. A shoot up wiithout a casulty is considered a shouting match down there.

I realize this is all hypothetical but what I hear you saying is if Brady had pulled a Tiger Woods he SHOULD be suspended? If I have this right could you please explain your reasoning behind your conclusion. I would like to know. Thanks.

If Tom Brady was photographed without his shoes on, drugged up on Ambien, lying in the middle of the street with a wrecked vehicle and in the next week 15 women came out talking about his sexual adventures best believe he would or should be suspended..

It's definitely violates the conduct policy... athletes need to keep their garden tools in check. A bunch of boogerheads running to Good Morning America and Larry King talking about Brady's adventures is bad for business.

Do you really think Tiger took a year off from golf because he wanted to? LOL...
He didn't do anything that violated the game of golf. Even the great Tiger Woods was dealt with for his actions.

cruzer8
07-08-2010, 05:38 PM
Tiger took time of to try and get things right with himself and his family.

ikestops85
07-09-2010, 11:00 AM
If Brady had a Tiger Woods type divorce with crashed cars and women running to tabloids then he would or should get suspended.

Simply getting a divorce for infidelity is nothing new for an athlete. Plenty of athletes have had divorces and some had a story to go with it but unless it was charlie sheen, car over cliff with drugs, knife to throat and cop cars its not a big deal.

I was surprised the bodyguard shootup at the wedding didn't get more publicity but it was in Brazil. A shoot up wiithout a casulty is considered a shouting match down there.

I realize this is all hypothetical but what I hear you saying is if Brady had pulled a Tiger Woods he SHOULD be suspended? If I have this right could you please explain your reasoning behind your conclusion. I would like to know. Thanks.

If Tom Brady was photographed without his shoes on, drugged up on Ambien, lying in the middle of the street with a wrecked vehicle and in the next week 15 women came out talking about his sexual adventures best believe he would or should be suspended..

It's definitely violates the conduct policy... athletes need to keep their garden tools in check. A bunch of boogerheads running to Good Morning America and Larry King talking about Brady's adventures is bad for business.

Do you really think Tiger took a year off from golf because he wanted to? LOL...
He didn't do anything that violated the game of golf. Even the great Tiger Woods was dealt with for his actions.
But what if it was only 10 women? or 5? or only 1? Where is that line at? Please show me where the personal conduct clause states that this is wrong and the athlete can be suspended for it.

feltdizz
07-09-2010, 02:00 PM
If Brady had a Tiger Woods type divorce with crashed cars and women running to tabloids then he would or should get suspended.

Simply getting a divorce for infidelity is nothing new for an athlete. Plenty of athletes have had divorces and some had a story to go with it but unless it was charlie sheen, car over cliff with drugs, knife to throat and cop cars its not a big deal.

I was surprised the bodyguard shootup at the wedding didn't get more publicity but it was in Brazil. A shoot up wiithout a casulty is considered a shouting match down there.

I realize this is all hypothetical but what I hear you saying is if Brady had pulled a Tiger Woods he SHOULD be suspended? If I have this right could you please explain your reasoning behind your conclusion. I would like to know. Thanks.

If Tom Brady was photographed without his shoes on, drugged up on Ambien, lying in the middle of the street with a wrecked vehicle and in the next week 15 women came out talking about his sexual adventures best believe he would or should be suspended..

It's definitely violates the conduct policy... athletes need to keep their garden tools in check. A bunch of boogerheads running to Good Morning America and Larry King talking about Brady's adventures is bad for business.

Do you really think Tiger took a year off from golf because he wanted to? LOL...
He didn't do anything that violated the game of golf. Even the great Tiger Woods was dealt with for his actions.
But what if it was only 10 women? or 5? or only 1? Where is that line at? Please show me where the personal conduct clause states that this is wrong and the athlete can be suspended for it.

:nono no no no...

The line was 15 to 20 with Tiger...

cruzer8
07-09-2010, 02:32 PM
Last I checked Tiger's not in the NFL.

feltdizz
07-11-2010, 09:51 AM
Tiger took time of to try and get things right with himself and his family.
Sure he did...

But he isn't in the NFL so why do you care?

Crash
07-11-2010, 12:36 PM
Yeah, Tiger paid her $750 MILLION in hush money.

hawaiiansteel
07-16-2010, 02:06 AM
Yeah, Tiger paid her $750 MILLION in hush money.


that he did...


Elin Nordegren Gets $750M, Custody of Kids in Exchange for Silence in Tiger Woods Divorce


http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/2009/tigerwoodsfamily640_monster_397x224.gif

Tiger Woods, estranged wife Elin and their children in happier times.


Tiger Woods is banned from letting girlfriends near his kids in a divorce deal netting his ex a record $750 million settlement, The Sun reported Wednesday.

The golfer agreed to keep single women away from daughter Sam, three, and son Charlie, one.

He can bring a new flame into their lives only if he marries her. In return, former wife Elin Nordegren ,30, gets the biggest payout ever seen in a celebrity divorce.

But she can never publicly speak out over his alleged flings with socialite Rachel Uchitel, reality star Jaimee Grubbs, porn queen Joslyn James and up to 17 others.

A pal said: "Elin is desperate to protect the children from the womanizing side of their father.

Tiger's alleged mistresses include porn stars, pancake waitresses, bikini models and nightclub hostesses. And they're still coming! Porn star Devon James is the latest to admit to a Tiger tryst.

If Tiger's PGA competitors want to unnerve him on the golf course, these balls might do just the trick.

"Tiger's main fear is her telling her story after he's rebuilt his reputation, sending him back to the gutter."

Swedish ex model Nordegren ended up with double the sum she originally sought, after her lawyers proved Woods, 34, was worth much more than the $1billion she thought.

Her friend explained: "Elin's legal team have done a great job digging up all sorts of assets.

"The price of the huge sum is her silence: no interviews, tell-all books, or TV appearances about this for the rest of her life -- even if Tiger dies first -- or she'll lose the lot."

The friend said: "Everything's signed. Elin is ready to file for divorce at Orlando County Court. She expects to in the next seven days."

Nordegren gets sole physical custody of their kids but they will split legal custody.

That means Woods will share decisions about their future -- so Nordegren will not be able to permanently relocate them to her native Sweden.

Woods -- believed to be building a golf resort in Dubai and investing in the Bahamas -- will be able to see the kids for up to half of each week.

He can renegotiate the custody agreement in five years.

The pal said: "Elin admits that despite everything, Tiger loves his kids and has been a decent dad.

"She is confident he will not pursue seeing the children that much, due to his work and lifestyle."

Under the no-girlfriends deal, only married women not romantically linked to Woods will be allowed around the children -- plus female members of staff known to Nordegren.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... s-divorce/ (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/30/elin-nordegren-gets-m-custody-kids-exchange-silence-tiger-woods-divorce/)

feltdizz
07-16-2010, 09:42 AM
Maybe it's yellow journalism? :stirpot


Forbes says Tiger Woods divorce story is bunk

Forbes magazine says it's absolute bunk that Tiger Woods is about to pay wife Elin Nordegren $750 million in a divorce settlement.

That figure has been tossed around for a couple of months in reports, with no named sourcing, and the rumor picked up speed this week when an English tabloid, The Sun, recycled the story.

The reason Forbes says Woods can't possibly be paying a $750 million settlement is because his net worth is about $600 million.

Writes Forbes senior editor Kurt Badenhausen:


"We've been tracking Tiger's earnings since he turned pro in 1996. Last year he became the first athlete to earn a cumulative $1 billion through his income from prize money, appearance fees, endorsements and his golf course design business. Nike has been his biggest benefactor paying the world's top golfer in the neighborhood of $250 million since 1996. The relationship has obviously bolstered Nike as its golf division reported annual sales of $638 million last week. Tiger's annual earnings in 2010 will be down at least $30 million after sponsors like Accenture, AT&T and Gatorade walked away. He still earned $105 million over the past 12-months and ranks fifth on our recent list of the most powerful celebrities.

"Yet those earnings are before the tax man and his agents at IMG took their cut. And if you think Tiger made a killing in the stock market, think again. The S&P 500 is at the same level it was at 12 years ago. By our count Woods is worth $600 million and any divorce settlement is likely to be worth a fraction of current reports."

http://www.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/07/tiger-woods-divorce-elin-750-million/1

hawaiiansteel
07-20-2010, 09:12 PM
this is how Ben is planning on getting his starting job back once the suspension is up...


http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm356/Santonio_/TomlinBen.jpg

kiwi_sarah
07-20-2010, 09:17 PM
this is how Ben is planning on getting his starting job back once the suspension is up...


http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm356/Santonio_/TomlinBen.jpg

lmao. Not if Ward has anything to say about it apparently!

grotonsteel
07-20-2010, 10:12 PM
this is how Ben is planning on getting his starting job back once the suspension is up...


http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm356/Santonio_/TomlinBen.jpg


LMAO..... :lol:

Mel Blount's G
07-20-2010, 10:45 PM
Goodell proved to me he is a loser when he mishandled the spygate thing, confirmed it with the games in other countries, and did it again with Ben.

I can't stand what he is to the NFL.
I've been consistently a Goodell-critic since that spygate debacle as well. Some of the rule changes (i.e. the "Hines" rule) to the game have not helped him in my eyes either

hawaiiansteel
07-26-2010, 04:00 PM
Updated: July 26, 2010

Sources: NFL won't discipline Vick

By Sal Paolantonio
ESPN


The NFL has informed Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick that he will not be disciplined in the wake of the shooting at his birthday party in Virginia Beach last month, two league sources told ESPN.

Vick spoke at length to commissioner Roger Goodell over the phone about the latest incident and Vick's progress during the investigation, sources said.

Goodell implored Vick to make better decisions and warned him to take more care in how he conducts his personal life.

A source said Vick has taken the incident as a warning, saying "Michael realizes he may not be so lucky the next time."

Police have said Vick was not the shooter at the party and decided not to file charges in the case. Commonwealth's Attorney Harvey L. Bryant said the investigation also showed that Vick "was not aware of whether or not anyone was going to be shot, was threatened to be shot or anything to do with any of that business."

The victim has not been identified by police, but Vick's attorney, Larry Woodward, said it was Quanis Phillips -- a co-defendant in the federal dogfighting case that landed Vick in federal prison. Phillips, who Woodward said was not invited to the party and did not interact with Vick while there, was treated at a hospital and released the following day.

Sal Paolantonio is a reporter for ESPN. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5411248

Oviedo
07-26-2010, 04:04 PM
Updated: July 26, 2010

Sources: NFL won't discipline Vick

By Sal Paolantonio
ESPN


The NFL has informed Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick that he will not be disciplined in the wake of the shooting at his birthday party in Virginia Beach last month, two league sources told ESPN.

Vick spoke at length to commissioner Roger Goodell over the phone about the latest incident and Vick's progress during the investigation, sources said.

Goodell implored Vick to make better decisions and warned him to take more care in how he conducts his personal life.

A source said Vick has taken the incident as a warning, saying "Michael realizes he may not be so lucky the next time."

Police have said Vick was not the shooter at the party and decided not to file charges in the case. Commonwealth's Attorney Harvey L. Bryant said the investigation also showed that Vick "was not aware of whether or not anyone was going to be shot, was threatened to be shot or anything to do with any of that business."

The victim has not been identified by police, but Vick's attorney, Larry Woodward, said it was Quanis Phillips -- a co-defendant in the federal dogfighting case that landed Vick in federal prison. Phillips, who Woodward said was not invited to the party and did not interact with Vick while there, was treated at a hospital and released the following day.

Sal Paolantonio is a reporter for ESPN. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5411248

Again Goodell's punishment of Ben looks more bias and extreme. Anyone who thinks Goodell didn't give Ben the extreme punishment because of what he is is very naive. Goodell crumbled under pressure from the media to unreasonably target Ben to appease elements in both the media and player ranks.

At least 5 other players have recently had legal run ins and have been more than accused and Goodell remains silent.

cruzer8
07-26-2010, 04:41 PM
Wow. Rog is blowing this big time.

feltdizz
07-26-2010, 06:20 PM
The only people who want/care to see Vick punished are disgruntled Steeler fans and disgruntled Falcon fans...

RuthlessBurgher
07-26-2010, 06:30 PM
The only people who want/care to see Vick punished are disgruntled Steeler fans and disgruntled Falcon fans...

Or people who own and love dogs...but how many of them could there possibly be out there? :wink:

Crash
07-26-2010, 06:59 PM
Are you kidding? Suspend a black player without charges?

You think Goodell wants to deal with Jesse and Al?

Steel Life
07-26-2010, 07:57 PM
Take from this what you will & decide if Goodell has been fair with Ben, despite Vick's history of lying about his activities...

1. Goodell said Vick must show remorse before he would consider reinstating him writing...

"I accept that you are sincere when you say that you want to, and will, turn your life around, and that you intend to be a positive role model for others," Goodell said in his letter to Vick. "I am prepared to offer you that opportunity. Whether you succeed is entirely in your hands."

"Needless to say, your margin for error is extremely limited," the letter said. "I urge you to take full advantage of the resources available to support you and to dedicate yourself to rebuilding your life and your career. If you do this, the NFL will support you."

2. Conditions that Vick had to abide by in order to be reinstated:

--Must abide by the terms of his parole.
--Cannot commit any further crime.
--Must limit whom he associates with.
--Cannot use drugs or alcohol.
--Cannot possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon.
--Cannot own, possess, or be involved with the sale of any dog.

feltdizz
07-26-2010, 08:30 PM
The only people who want/care to see Vick punished are disgruntled Steeler fans and disgruntled Falcon fans...

Or people who own and love dogs...but how many of them could there possibly be out there? :wink:

ehh.... while I do think dog lovers hate Vick I don't think they hate didn't hate him enough to make a stink over this incident. It's not like they were out picketing Goodell to punish Vick. If he had another run in with some dogs he would be done.

feltdizz
07-26-2010, 08:35 PM
The guy showed up, argued with Vick and ended up shot...
It sure seems like Vick isn't trying to associate with his old friends. Sounds to me like he is trying to eliminating them.

feltdizz
07-26-2010, 08:37 PM
Are you kidding? Suspend a black player without charges?

You think Goodell wants to deal with Jesse and Al?

Damn... white Goodell punishing white Ben has you all kinds of pizzed off.

Sugar
07-26-2010, 10:10 PM
Are you kidding? Suspend a black player without charges?

You think Goodell wants to deal with Jesse and Al?

I wouldn't. Those guys are major shake-down artists and with a possible work-stoppage you don't need those kind of con men gumming up the works.

stlrz d
07-26-2010, 10:18 PM
Goodell is going to have a lot of 'splaining to do.

Steel Life
07-27-2010, 12:23 AM
It's not enough that he wasn't a person of interest, Vick's not supposed to be doing these things or hanging with the wrong crowd & he got caught in another lie...first he said he wasn't there & then it was proved that he was. Aside from the fact that a man was SHOT at his function, the lying about his presence there alone should get him a game - face it, his leash should be shorter than others' (yes, pun intended).