T1B

Yep. Just "fell" and "hit her head" while having some undisclosed "sexual contact."

Move along....

mvscal wrote:Yep. Just "fell" and "hit her head" while having some undisclosed "sexual contact."

Move along....

Did you miss the part about her being falling down drunk? Or are you deliberately ignoring that?

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Yep. Just "fell" and "hit her head" while having some undisclosed "sexual contact."

Move along....

Did you miss the part about her being falling down drunk? Or are you deliberately ignoring that?

Did you miss the part about the locked door and the body guard not allowing her friend inside? If she's drunk, she can't give legal consent. So I guess your admitting that Ben, at the very least, sexually assaulted her?

jiminphilly wrote:If she's drunk, she can't give legal consent.

Really?

You're actually going to try to run with this one?


Really?


Gee, wonder how many "sexual assaults" are going to take place at about 2:30AM tomorrow morning?


Why don't you go ahead and hook me up a link to this "statute" or whateverthefuck it is you just made up?


Because ddddddaaaaaaammmmmnnnnnn, Imma gonna be rich after I file a few dozen "sexual assualt" claims in civil court.

How long are we going to beat this subject to death?

When is the draft??????????????

Felix wrote:

Van wrote: It's none of your goddamn business what Ben does in his free time, not if what he does is perfectly legal. Until he's ever actually charged with something, much less convicted, here's a novel idea: STFU.

standard "morals" clause in NFL contracts says the commissioner can ask Ben into his office anytime he perceives a player's behavior as potentially detrimental to the NFL

So? There's nothing in Ben's proven behavior which violates a single tenet of any morals clause. They can invite him in all they want, and once he's there, he can ask for proof of any violations he's committed. He may request the specific article in his contract that forbids him from going to a nightclub, accompanied by local policemen.

When they inevitably fail to produce a single violation with which they can charge him, he can thank them for the fine lunch, before heading out on his merry way.

If they have nothing on him...they have nothing.

Dins, if a chick can't give legal consent while shitfaced, dude, you best hop on that Roman Polanski charter to Marseilles, like, yesterday!

Dude, it's typically me who's the one whose consent is in question.

Because frankly, I'm quite the skankmagnet. I believe it's the combination of rugged good looks, silky-smooth game, and a liver that ain't what it used to be.

Van wrote: So? There's nothing in Ben's proven behavior which violates a single tenet of any morals clause. They can invite him in all they want, and once he's there, he can ask for proof of any violations he's committed. He may request the specific article in his contract that forbids him from going to a nightclub, accompanied by local policemen. When they inevitably fail to produce a single violation with which they can charge him, he can thank them for the fine lunch, before heading out on his merry way.

the commissioner can call him into his office anytime he wants if he perceives rothlisberger's behavior as being potentially detrimental to the NFL....that's a part of the standard morals clause...while rothlisberger's behavior may or may not violate the law (unlike you apparently, I'm not ready to give him a sweeping dismissal), the commissioner has every right to ask him about any reported violations....the commissioners office isn't making judgments on the validity of any particular case, that's the job of law enforcement/judiciary...he just wants to know why rothlisberger keeps putting himself into these situations

Felix, the point is that the Commish can call him in and ask him all the shit he wants, and all it'll amount to is a nice lunch for Ben. The Commish will ask questions, and Ben will answer them. At the end of the day, what can the NFL say?

"Ben, umm, we want you to stop doing perfectly legal things in perfectly legal nightclubs. We think that rather than trolling for pussy in clubs, it'd be a good idea for you to look for a nice girl on match.com."

"Yeah? Well, this is still America, isn't it? We do still have a players' union, right? There's nothing in my contract or in the NFL's guidelines that prohibits its players from going to nightclubs during their free time...correct? Hmm. So, yeah, I think I'll go to nightclubs.

"Oh, by the way, my steak was a little overcooked."

See, it's not me who's dismissing Ben as not having violated the law...it's the law who's dismissing him as not having violated the law. Until such time that Ben is charged with something...anything...the Commish can invite Ben in all he wants, but the league has nothing to say. Ben is not in violation of any NFL morals clauses merely by going to a nightclub. Ben is not in violation of any NFL morals clauses merely by having his name show up in the paper as a result of a drunken skank trying to earn a payday off him.

Until Ben is ever charged with something, he is no more in violation of the NFL's morals clause than Peyton Manning. In fact, with all the deadbeat dads peopling the rosters of NFL teams, Ben is well ahead of the morals-clause curve.

Bottom line, you gotta have something on the guy before you can say anything to him that has any teeth.

Van wrote:a drunken skank trying to earn a payday off him.

You don't know that she was planning this, that's some bullshit knee jerk reaction you're pulling out your ass while comically trying to play devils advocate here. At least Bri has an excuse for defending Rapistberger, what's yours?

On the other hand, it's quite plausible that Ben and his crew of thugs premeditated something exactly like this going down... except the part where she objects to being sexually assaulted and goes to the police with her complaint.

No, I don't know, and neither do you, trev or mvscal. For that matter, neither does the NFL. That's the whole point. Until charges are brought against Ben, all we know is that he has committed no crimes, and he's not in violation of either his contract or any NFL morals clauses.

Last I heard, this country operates under the legal premise of innocent until proven guilty, and Ben has never even been charged with a crime, much less found guilty of one.

Other athletes and celebrities have been charged with and convicted of crimes, so I'm not buying that Ben is exempt from criminal prosecution, or that he's somehow protected.

Felix's point is that the NFL will want to bring him in for talks. My point is, so what if they do? There's nothing they can do to Ben. They can't ban him or even fine him. They can't suspend him or fire him. They can't do shit, not if Ben reports for work and does his job, as he's always done. As long as Ben is under contract, that contract is binding, and to date Ben has done nothing under NFL guidelines or the specific provisions of his contract that's in violation of...anything.

Can you dispute this at all?

Just because he hasn't been charged or convicted of a crime, doesn't make him any less of a piece of shit.

The NFL wants, expects, no... demands that its players, especially marquee players, be role models and thus are held to a higher standard.

or to put it another way Van, I wouldn't want my daughter hanging out with that punk.

You're right, Whitey. You'd be paying her to not have a job.

War Wagon wrote:Just because he hasn't been charged or convicted of a crime, doesn't make him any less of a piece of shit.

Just because you may think he's a piece of shit based on nonsense you've read that you don't even know to be true, it doesn't mean he's a piece of shit.

It could just be that you're gullible as hell, and your kneejerk reaction is to believe every 'sensational' thing you read in the paper.

It could also mean that you're just hating on him because he's a Steeler and not a Chief. Fuck, if he were Derrick Thomas or George Brett, you'd be screaming from the hilltops, "Show me the proof!"

Then again, he may in fact be a piece of shit, but I guarantee you that no one on this board knows, one way or the other.

The NFL wants, expects, no... demands that its players, especially marquee players, be role models and thus are held to a higher standard.

WGARA? They're in no position to make such vague, ill-defined demands. 'Demands' made along those lines are pure puffery, and solely for the sake of the media. Making a demand while having no ability to back it up with consequences isn't making a demand at all; it's merely a statement of desire. Unless their desires are contractually mandated, they ain't worth the paper they weren't written on. Until Ben runs afoul of their stated guidelines, he is behaving as a role model, and he is living up to their higher standard; as evidenced by his spotless criminal record, the complete absence of team or league disciplinary actions taken against him over his career...oh, and his two rings.

Otherwise, besides one motorcycle crash for which he wasn't charged with anything, his off-the-field behavior has been exemplary. That's all the NFL knows, and that's all you know too.

Van wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Just because he hasn't been charged or convicted of a crime, doesn't make him any less of a piece of shit.

Just because you may think he's a piece of shit based on nonsense you've read that you don't even know to be true, it doesn't mean he's a piece of shit.

It could just be that you're gullible as hell, and your kneejerk reaction is to believe every 'sensational' thing you read in the paper.

It could also mean that you're just hating on him because he's a Steeler and not a Chief. Fuck, if he were Derrick Thomas or George Brett, you'd be screaming from the hilltops, "Show me the proof!"

Then there's this, from a Pittsburgh sportswriter:

http://nationalsportsreview.com/sports/ ... %E2%80%A6/

Van wrote: It could just be that you're gullible as hell, and your kneejerk reaction is to believe every 'sensational' thing you read in the paper.

On the contrary, one would have to be gullible as hell to not know that where there's smoke, there's fire. Had this been the first incident reported, I might have blown it off as boys being boys.

But with repeated instances, a pattern becomes established. Lord knows how many times he's been in similar circumstances that weren't reported, for the same reasons you use to defend him. "It was just a drunken skank trying to score a payday, she probably had it coming" yadda, yadda, etc. So you blame the accuser and place the scrutiny and burden of proof on her.

It could also mean that you're just hating on him because he's a Steeler and not a Chief. Fuck, if he were Derrick Thomas or George Brett, you'd be screaming from the hilltops, "Show me the proof!"

Nonsense. DT was also a piece of shit off the field, as was/is Larry Johnson and Jared Allen. George Brett was beyond reproach.

...his off-the-field behavior has been exemplary.

I may be gullible, but I'm not that gullible.

War Wagon wrote:Nonsense. DT was also a piece of shit off the field, as was/is Larry Johnson and Jared Allen. George Brett was beyond reproach.

George might have been full of shit though.

Goober McTuber wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Nonsense. DT was also a piece of shit off the field, as was/is Larry Johnson and Jared Allen. George Brett was beyond reproach.

George might have been full of shit though.

That was fucking hilarious.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Van wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Just because he hasn't been charged or convicted of a crime, doesn't make him any less of a piece of shit.

Just because you may think he's a piece of shit based on nonsense you've read that you don't even know to be true, it doesn't mean he's a piece of shit.

It could just be that you're gullible as hell, and your kneejerk reaction is to believe every 'sensational' thing you read in the paper.

It could also mean that you're just hating on him because he's a Steeler and not a Chief. Fuck, if he were Derrick Thomas or George Brett, you'd be screaming from the hilltops, "Show me the proof!"

Then there's this, from a Pittsburgh sportswriter:

http://nationalsportsreview.com/sports/ ... %E2%80%A6/

Goobs, why'd you even bother posting that? There's nothing of worth in that entire story. He supposedly snubbed a Make-A-Wish kid? He's no longer with Natalie Gulbis? His neighbors reportedly describe him as friendly, though occasionally curt?

Whole buncha BFD. Athletes are accused of snubbing people all the time; it's an unavoidable fact of their public existence.

In that entire poorly written blog there isn't a single piece of proof that Ben has ever broken any laws or violated any morals clauses. Going the mvscal route and showing those same old pics from 2005 or 2006 or whatever, where he's making a stupid face, that does nothing. It has no bearing on what's happening now, and it's not even damning then.

Van wrote:In that entire poorly written blog

Absolutely. That was one of the biggest piles of shit I've ever read since the last time TVO weighed in. On top of the worthless information.

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote: It could just be that you're gullible as hell, and your kneejerk reaction is to believe every 'sensational' thing you read in the paper.

On the contrary, one would have to be gullible as hell to not know that where there's smoke, there's fire.

Right.

Sincerely,
The Duke lacross team, along with every person who was ever falsely accused.

Face it, Wags, when this whole thing is over, and the girl's story vanishes to shit - even if she's forced to admit that there was no sexual assault - you'll hold onto this as more 'proof' of his being a bad guy. You bought it from day one, so you will always see it that way, regardless of whatever else you may learn.

Had this been the first incident reported, I might have blown it off as boys being boys.

But with repeated instances, a pattern becomes established.

Two times is a pattern, when neither of them even resulted in charges being filed?

The only pattern I see there is one of two unsubstantiated charges, which never amounted to shit. There weren't even any civil court remedies involved, where the burden of proof is substantially lower.

Lord knows how many times he's been in similar circumstances that weren't reported, for the same reasons you use to defend him. "It was just a drunken skank trying to score a payday, she probably had it coming" yadda, yadda, etc.

The Lord may know, but you don't, so all your assumptive conjecture rings hollow. Minus any proof, you're damning him because of...what? You have nothing.

Also, no, I never said anything to the effect of "She had it coming." Not even close. I'm more inclined to believe that nothing happened, and she's golddigging. I've never said that something happened, and she had it coming to her.

Dude, don't put words in my mouth. I have enough of them in there already.

So you blame the accuser and place the scrutiny and burden of proof on her.

Umm, Wags? Yes, that's how our legal system works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Innocent until proven guilty, remember; it's not guilty until proven innocent, which is how you're approaching this. The funny thing there, like I said above, is that even if Ben were to be proven innocent, you'd still hold this against him. You'd still call it "smoke", which is your proof of a "fire."

It could also mean that you're just hating on him because he's a Steeler and not a Chief. Fuck, if he were Derrick Thomas or George Brett, you'd be screaming from the hilltops, "Show me the proof!"

Nonsense. DT was also a piece of shit off the field, as was/is Larry Johnson and Jared Allen. George Brett was beyond reproach.

How do you know? You don't.

I do know that had Brett been involved in something like this during the 1980 championship season, you would've defended him 'till the cows came home. You sure as hell wouldn't have taken this 'guilty until proven innocent, and even then I won't be convinced' attitude that you have now.

...his off-the-field behavior has been exemplary.

I may be gullible, but I'm not that gullible.

By the standards set forth by the NFL and the legal statutes of any place where Ben has resided, yes, his behavior has been exemplary. He has zero violations or convictions of any kind, on any level. All he's done is visit nightclubs and have some drinks. He's never had a DUI. He's never been arrested for being impaired in public. He's never been involved in a bar brawl. He's never been fined or suspended by his team or the league.

He's done nothing, as far as you know, and what you know is all that matters. Damning someone based on supposition is ridiculous.

Van, there's all kinds of links I could put up about other people's less than pleasant encounters with Roethlisberger. They're all over the net. Much more so than you'd find for most any other athlete. I just posted one of them. The guy appears to be a total dick. In a lot of people's opinions. Not in yours, obviously. Whatever.

Screwball, if you try to compare me to TVO again, I will beat you about the head with your unwashed jizz-mop. Prick.

Goobs, I have no opinion on whether the guy is a dick, because I can't possibly know. Reading anecdotal internet garbage tells me nothing. Lacking any real knowledge of the guy, how can I form an opinion?

All I know is that he's looking kinda fat.

Van wrote:Goobs, I have no opinion on whether the guy is a dick, because I can't possibly know. Reading anecdotal internet garbage tells me nothing. Lacking any real knowledge of the guy, how can I form an opinion?

'anecdotal internet garbage' aside, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

T1B -"the sky is blue and roses are red"

Van - "Prove it"

Wags, you've got it completely backwards. The duck that Ben walks and quacks like is the one that's never been in any trouble whatsoever. So, if I were to make an ignorant assumption about the guy, I'd have to conclude that he's a perfectly normal, solid, dependable person. The overwhelming preponderence of evidence over his entire career would point to his not being a dick, an alcoholic or a rapist.

Van wrote:At the end of the day, what can the NFL say?

It can say, "You're a fucking embarassment. Take a few weeks off without pay and pull your head out of your drunken ass, you stupid fuckwit."

No, it can't. They cannot withhold pay without cause, and lacking even a single charge against him, or a single violation of NFL policy, they have no cause.

What the fuck is wrong with you? You've never heard of the players' union, or lawyers? They're not going to let a player be punished based solely on unsubstantiated claims from a twenty year old whose supposed .20 was over twice the legal limit.

The NFL isn't a group of parents, and Ben isn't their child. They can't just withhold his allowance. He has a contract, and the provisions within his contract are both clearly stated and inviolate. There is nothing in the NFL charter which states that they can withhold player payments merely because they didn't like something they heard about a given player.

Van wrote:No, it can't.

Yes they can, idiot. Check back in when you get a clue.

Sorry. Your word ain't gonna cut it.

I'm not responsible for your ignorance, tard, so fuck off.

"It is important that the NFL be represented consistently by outstanding people as well as great football players, coaches, and staff," Goodell said. "We hold ourselves to higher standards of responsible conduct because of what it means to be part of the National Football League. We have long had policies and programs designed to encourage responsible behavior, and this policy is a further step in ensuring that everyone who is part of the NFL meets that standard. We will continue to review the policy and modify it as warranted."

The strengthened standards apply to all NFL employees: players, coaches, officials, owners, front-office and league personnel. And Goodell emphasized in the new policy that those standards will be considerably tighter than outside the league.

"It is not enough to simply avoid being found guilty of a crime," the new policy says. "Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values upon which the league is based, and is lawful.

"Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime."

Thanks for proving my point. Nowhere in his little puff-piece is there any mention of withholding pay without due cause.

Merely being accused of something is not enough for Goodell to withhold payment. It's one thing for Goodell to say that a conviction will not be his only criteria; it's quite another for him to attempt to breach a contract when no charges were even brought against the player.

If Ben is found to be guilty of nothing more than being in a nightclub, then Goodell has no leg to stand on, and Ben will never lose a dime of pay.

Embarassing the league is due cause, you stupid fuckwit.

I think I may be with Van on this one. The way I read, some sort of charges have to be brought in order for him to act. A conviction is not necessary.

General policy

Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the League depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator.

Unless he's charged with a crime, I don't see how Goodell can do anything.

However. Even if there's no sexual assault. Wasn't she blowing him in the bathroom?

Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

Loophole?

Van wrote:...unsubstantiated claims from a twenty year old whose supposed .20 was over twice the legal limit.

.20 would make her passed out drunk and quite unable to talk to the cops.

Nevermind her BAC content at the time, it's not relevant.

You're valiantly trying to swim upstream here Van.

Screw_Michigan wrote:You're right, Whitey. You'd be paying her to not have a job.

I just noticed you'd been made a mod of the NFL forum. While I find that laughable, put down the jizzmop and unsticky the top two threads. Make yourself useful for a change.

mvscal wrote:Embarassing the league is due cause, you stupid fuckwit.

No, it isn't, and you're a goddamned imbecile. Being accused of something is nothing more than being accused of something. Minus anything more, it's non-actionable. Anytime someone merely trots out an accusation against an NFL player, Goodell doesn't get to withhold their pay.

Are you truly that fucking stupid?

If merely embarrassing the league were all it takes, then half the guys in the NFL would get fined every time someone puts a mic in their face.

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote:...unsubstantiated claims from a twenty year old whose supposed .20 was over twice the legal limit.

.20 would make her passed out drunk and quite unable to talk to the cops.

Nevermind her BAC content at the time, it's not relevant.

You're valiantly trying to swim upstream here Van.

From earlier in this thread...

According to Cansino, authorities told him the woman's blood alcohol level was above 0.20 percent — more than 10 times the legal limit for drivers younger than 21 in Georgia and more than twice the limit for older motorists.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... tml?feed=9

which part of "not relevant" did you not understand?