The fact that he isn't being charged with a crime does not in any way preclude a suspension. The NFL player contract explicitly states that players must avoid "conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs or NFL players." Further, it states that "It is not enough to simply avoid being found guilty of a crime. 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." Goodell is not held to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that a DA would be held to. From what we've heard, the police reports have plenty of unsavory details that "put at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs or NFL players," and Goodell is under no obligation to take Ben's word on anything. I will be stunned if he doesn't get a 4-game suspension, and there won't be any appeal of it, either.
the point is there isn't enough evidence to even be charged with the crime, so essentially he would be suspended simply for being accused of something without any proof whatsoever. is that the precedence the NFL is setting, that if you are accused of something that they find upsetting your behavior by simply being in a situation where you can be accused is deserving a suspension? so, all they are doing is attempting to be sympathetic to the victim and rape but don't want to actually address the situation. if they believe he did what he is accused of doing, even if it isn't rape but walking around with his dong hanging out, I think that warrants far more than a 4 game suspension. if they don't believe he did any of those things, than no suspension is warranted. but it is the fact that it is such a minor suspension that reveals the flaw in the suspension itself.
This is the part that you keep repeating that is simply untrue. There are statements from the girl involved, from her friends, from other people in the bar, and even from people in Ben's entourage. That is plenty of evidence beyond an unsupported accusation from one supposed victim. There is also evidence of prior unsavory conduct (which wouldn't be admissible in a court, but is certainly a potential factor for Goodell). This might not be the kind of evidence that a DA would feel would get a criminal conviction, but that's a far higher standard of evidence than is required here. This is precisely why OJ didn't get convicted of murder, but lost a civil suit for wrongful death - the standard of evidence required was much lower (and in this case it's lower still, since this is just workplace discipline, not a civil trial). The NFL player's contract makes clear that the standard of evidence required for discipline is most definitely not the criminal standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what the DA has to consider. Obviously they do think that he's done disreputable things, or else they wouldn't be suspending him. If you want to argue that a 4-game suspension is too short, you'll get no argument from me. You seem to be arguing that there should be no suspension, but that a 4-game suspension would be too short, which seems to me to be a pretty strange argument.
I don't think you grasp what I have said at all so I don't need your advice on suggesting I missed a point I did not. I keep repeating it because the alleged four game suspension is undoubtedly lenient if they actually believe something occurred. are you asserting that they can believe he raped the girl but only believe a 4 game suspension is deserved for that? or even if he didn't rape her but sexually assaulted her in any way, including walking around with his dick out, is behavior that is on par with smoking weed and only warrants a comparable situation? that's what you are defending since I am discussing the rumored lenient suspension of 2-4 games for his behavior. I keep repeating no evidence because I am talking form a legal point of view. I don't mind conceding that POV for the NFL's POV, but that only makes their position weaker by believing he is deserving of a suspension because he is guilty of either a crime or simply bad behavior (which is obviously more than just being at a bar, buying drinks, or trying to pick up chicks unless they are going to punish every player for doing so regardless of whether they are accused of rape since that behavior is either detrimental or not -- and thus are inherently talking about what he is accused of doing, like walking around with his dick out and having body guards prey on drunk chicks). or perhaps you are defending a supposed suspension of 2-4 games for such behavior as appropriate. I'm not talking about these things in isolation, I'm talking about the sum of them all as one complete scenario. I'm not arguing there should be no suspension. I'm arguing that for the NFL to approach the situation honestly and logically they have to take a more absolute position and either not suspend him or suspend him far longer. but they want to take a middle of the road approach when this is a situation where clearly there is no middle.
The comparison with weed is a complete red herring - that penalty is explicitly in the collective bargaining agreement, and isn't subject to any discussion or leniency one way or the other. That can be seen when you remember that Ellis was suspended 1 game for weed, not 4, when it was outside the official testing agreement. That is a far more reasonable comparison. As to how long the suspension should be, assuming what we've heard in the media is supported at a sufficient level by the statements of those involved, I would support at least an 8-game suspension (ultimately the fact that there is no criminal case does have to have an effect; if there was enough evidence that he was actually being charged, I could see him being suspended for a year). To argue, however, that if it's only going to be 4 games it's somehow more "honest" to make it no games strikes me as ridiculous.
Well, didn't Pacman Jones get a year and although he was arrested he was never convicted in court of anything, was he? That would be the better comparison to make.
I disagree. all suspensions are meant to fit the severity of the punishment to the behavior/offense regardless of whether the league and union have agreed on set amounts or the league has an open ended authority on the matter. so, if they suspend Ben for the same amount of games as lenient drug suspension, if that rumored suspension is true, the fact that they are held to a set amount in this situation means they have considered the offense/behavior and find it warrants the same length of punishment as a drug suspension, even if they haven't considered them against one another, and thus inherently believe the two offenses are comparable in severity. I find that quite ludicrous. it isn't ridiculous because you don't seem to grasp what I mean by honest. it is honest because they are addressing the scenario and taking an absolute position on it. this isn't a scenario where there is a middle ground, as I stated, it is a situation that requires an absolute position. even if he isn't a rapist but the league finds his behavior in the charge to be true and that he employs body guards to usher drunk women, who he has gotten drunk, into locked rooms where he accosts them with his dick out, he may not be a rapist but he is certainly a sexual predator. being a sexual predator demands punishment far greater than a few games. the honest part is that it requires the league to outline what behavior they actually find harmful to justify their suspension -- that is honest. if he is just suspended for a few games they can give a vague, meaningless reason why, as they have done so far, and nobody would question it because it won't be a big deal and creates the allusion of actually addressing the situation, and not address exactly what they are punishing -- that is dishonest. if they don't suspend him, they will have to explain why he isn't being suspended and it would require them to be honest. not sure how that is ridiculous.
It is being reported he will get 4-6 games and it will be announced today..gets off easy again. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121614
no surprise to the 4-6 games and I think that will cause controversy. If you look at steelers schedule they don't have a primetime game till week 7. Think they had that planned out?
It's also disgusting that Goodell has the balls to announce this after posting the schedule and the day before the draft so the story gets swept under the rug.
Don, explain how the most important player on the team missing for at least the first month of the season, sweeps it under the rug. It's going to be a story from opening day forward.
ESPN just said they had breaking news about a possible trade with Big Ben and then went to break. Probably normal BS ESPN reporting, but we'll see.
It was just BS, of course. They just talked about the suspension and some speculation. Pittsburgh has been contacting teams for a top 10 pick for Ben.
ESPN reported Steelers open to shopping Ben for a top 10 pick in this years draft. Sweet i hope he gets out of the AFC. Adam_Schefter
Buffalo should offer their 1st this year and see if they bite then. Which would make the AFCE very good. I wouldn't like having to face him 2 times a year.
You have to somewhat admire the Steelers front office. They're willing to ship off not only their #1 WR but also their franchise quarterback because of their inappropriate behavior. Most teams would just make excuses for their players because they're too valuable. The Rooney family are basically telling any player coming to Pittsburgh that, no matter who you are, they won't put up with your bullshit tarnishing the Steeler image.
