Benson arrested for May 30th assault (1 Viewer)

[Multiple Scores]

CH,

I fail to see how you can suggest that VY and Benson both get off with warnings. Did Pac Man Jones, Tank Johnson or Michael Vick get off with warnings. It goes far beyond Big Ben.... but what Goodell did with Big Ben was to not just imply but tell the league that if you are involved in bad publicity you will be suspended. Despite whatever your personal opinion on Big Ben is (and yes you implying rape and assault is an opinion and not fact) that is the precedent set. I do not have a problem with your opinion on Big Ben, he put himself in that position and he is paying the price for it. I fail to remember anyone tossing him or the Steelers sympathy over the suspension nor do I expect any. What I do expect is for Goodell to treat other players in the same respect and not just because ESPN comes crying over a player.

Hold the CH crucifixion for a second. First off, go back and read post 46 - it will explain the bolded. There has already been a precedent set by the league in minor assault cases (again, read post 46 for examples).Comparing this case to Ben or Vick is ludicrous from a discipline standpoint. Both Ben and Vick were charged with (or going to be charged with) felonies. Benson is going to be charged with (assuming the accuser continues to press the issue) a misdemeanor. Not all bad PR is equal. A misdemenaor vs. a felony is a big difference - legally and in the eyes of the public. What Ben was alleged to have done and what Vick was proven to have done are far worse than what Benson was alleged to have done, both legally and by most people's views, ethically.

IMHO, anyone touting a multi-game suspension for Benson given what we know at this point is either ignoring the facts of the situation or hoping to drive Benson's value down to trade for him.

I'm just a simple guy. I have done the things Cedric is accused of, however I have not done the things that Ben or Vick are accused of. The majority of my friends have punched a person, the majority of my friends have not been accused of rape or running dog fighting rings. Ethically I am in full agreement with your post.

You might want to diversify the friends you keep...

Seriously?You seriously know people who have never thrown a punch in their life? I think a huge majority of people have thrown a punch by the time they enter high school. I'm just talking about a punch, it could be a punch because you were punched. I remember punching a kid in third grade who punched me first, I really didn't think there were many people in their late 20's that have not punched someone. I would also think that siblings have punched eachother, I know I did on many occassions over nonsense.

You must run with the amish or something.

 

[Avery]

CH,

I fail to see how you can suggest that VY and Benson both get off with warnings. Did Pac Man Jones, Tank Johnson or Michael Vick get off with warnings. It goes far beyond Big Ben.... but what Goodell did with Big Ben was to not just imply but tell the league that if you are involved in bad publicity you will be suspended. Despite whatever your personal opinion on Big Ben is (and yes you implying rape and assault is an opinion and not fact) that is the precedent set. I do not have a problem with your opinion on Big Ben, he put himself in that position and he is paying the price for it. I fail to remember anyone tossing him or the Steelers sympathy over the suspension nor do I expect any. What I do expect is for Goodell to treat other players in the same respect and not just because ESPN comes crying over a player.

Hold the CH crucifixion for a second. First off, go back and read post 46 - it will explain the bolded. There has already been a precedent set by the league in minor assault cases (again, read post 46 for examples).Comparing this case to Ben or Vick is ludicrous from a discipline standpoint. Both Ben and Vick were charged with (or going to be charged with) felonies. Benson is going to be charged with (assuming the accuser continues to press the issue) a misdemeanor. Not all bad PR is equal. A misdemenaor vs. a felony is a big difference - legally and in the eyes of the public. What Ben was alleged to have done and what Vick was proven to have done are far worse than what Benson was alleged to have done, both legally and by most people's views, ethically.

IMHO, anyone touting a multi-game suspension for Benson given what we know at this point is either ignoring the facts of the situation or hoping to drive Benson's value down to trade for him.

I'm just a simple guy. I have done the things Cedric is accused of, however I have not done the things that Ben or Vick are accused of. The majority of my friends have punched a person, the majority of my friends have not been accused of rape or running dog fighting rings. Ethically I am in full agreement with your post.

You might want to diversify the friends you keep...

Seriously?You seriously know people who have never thrown a punch in their life? I think a huge majority of people have thrown a punch by the time they enter high school. I'm just talking about a punch, it could be a punch because you were punched. I remember punching a kid in third grade who punched me first, I really didn't think there were many people in their late 20's that have not punched someone. I would also think that siblings have punched eachother, I know I did on many occassions over nonsense.

You must run with the amish or something.

I'll have to inquire, but most of the girls I know in my circle of friends haven't gotten into fist fights.But more seriously, when we're talking about "throwing punches" and equating it to getting arrested I assume you're not talking about a scuffle in third grade but adult sorta fisticuffs. To that extent, I would say most of my friends haven't been in bar brawls. Sure there are some guys, but mostly we don't go to bars, throw down and get arrested and very few of us are Amish.

Make sense there, Enlgish?

 

[Multiple Scores]

I'll have to inquire, but most of the girls I know in my circle of friends haven't gotten into fist fights.But more seriously, when we're talking about "throwing punches" and equating it to getting arrested I assume you're not talking about a scuffle in third grade but adult sorta fisticuffs. To that extent, I would say most of my friends haven't been in bar brawls. Sure there are some guys, but mostly we don't go to bars, throw down and get arrested and very few of us are Amish.Make sense there, Enlgish?

We're on the same page, most girls I know also haven't gotten into fist fights. Also most of my friends have not been arrested or in bar fights either. The whole point I was making is that punching a person is more commonplace than rape accusations or Vicks criminal convictions. I would even go so far as to say it is more common (at least I hope so) to be arrested for throwing a punch than it is to even be accused of rape.

 

[treat88]

I don't think there has to be any moral equivalency drawn amongst cases to have a consistently applied discipline policy.

Is rape worse than punching someone in the face in self defense? Sure it is, but that isn't the question.

The question is, is the negative publicity an accusation of a crime generates enough PR damage to warrant a suspension.

The Roeth case sets the precedent that a simple accusation or accusations and the attention it draws is a suspendable offense.

I disagree with that standard, but would also applaud it, if it is now consistently applied.

 

[DoubleG]

I don't think there has to be any moral equivalency drawn amongst cases to have a consistently applied discipline policy.

Is rape worse than punching someone in the face in self defense? Sure it is, but that isn't the question.

The question is, is the negative publicity an accusation of a crime generates enough PR damage to warrant a suspension.

The Roeth case sets the precedent that a simple accusation or accusations and the attention it draws is a suspendable offense.

I disagree with that standard, but would also applaud it, if it is now consistently applied.

I guess we're going to have to simply agree to disagree on this point. IMHO (and, incidentally, the opinion of several media outlets and FF "experts"), the degree of negative PR between Roeth & Vick compared to that of Benson is not even close. I think the Roeth incident is a very bad example as there was tons of smoke, but when it came down to it, no one wanted to pursue the case. (IIRC, Roeth was asked to undergo counselling as part of his suspension - hardly necessary if he was innocent of any wrong-doing in the eyes of the NFL).

I also think there has to be some actual crime - bad PR as a result of an accusation isn't (nor should it ever be) grounds for suspension. As I said, the Roeth case had enough smoke that Goodell obviously felt Roeth had done something wrong (and possibly illegal) to warrant discipline.

And no, I don't applaud the blind application of a policy that would be that "zero-tolerant" and wasn't based in guilt or innocence, but merely on the amount of negative media coverage. While justice should be impartial, that doesn't mean brainless.

 

[massraider]

I also think there has to be some actual crime - bad PR as a result of an accusation isn't (nor should it ever be) grounds for suspension.

That's exactly what happened in Ben's case. And this was considered part of a pattern, but if you go back to that Reno thing, that girl/accusation could not have been flimsier, and the cops didn't want anything to do with that case. I am not defending him, just the idea that there HAS to be a crime committed. Ben isn't guilty of anything, and was still hit with a big suspension. No matter what anyone thinks, that is the fact.

 

[treat88]

I don't think there has to be any moral equivalency drawn amongst cases to have a consistently applied discipline policy.

Is rape worse than punching someone in the face in self defense? Sure it is, but that isn't the question.

The question is, is the negative publicity an accusation of a crime generates enough PR damage to warrant a suspension.

The Roeth case sets the precedent that a simple accusation or accusations and the attention it draws is a suspendable offense.

I disagree with that standard, but would also applaud it, if it is now consistently applied.

I guess we're going to have to simply agree to disagree on this point. IMHO (and, incidentally, the opinion of several media outlets and FF "experts"), the degree of negative PR between Roeth & Vick compared to that of Benson is not even close. I think the Roeth incident is a very bad example as there was tons of smoke, but when it came down to it, no one wanted to pursue the case. (IIRC, Roeth was asked to undergo counselling as part of his suspension - hardly necessary if he was innocent of any wrong-doing in the eyes of the NFL).

I also think there has to be some actual crime - bad PR as a result of an accusation isn't (nor should it ever be) grounds for suspension. As I said, the Roeth case had enough smoke that Goodell obviously felt Roeth had done something wrong (and possibly illegal) to warrant discipline.

And no, I don't applaud the blind application of a policy that would be that "zero-tolerant" and wasn't based in guilt or innocence, but merely on the amount of negative media coverage. While justice should be impartial, that doesn't mean brainless.

I don't think we disagree at all. In fact, the bolded sums up my opinion nicely.But, unfortunately, the precedent was set by Goodell. Accusation and it's attendant negative press is all that's warranted for suspension apparently.

My take is that the players deserve to let the justice system run it's course before being disciplined and if the justice system finds them innocent of the accusations levied then they should be treated as if they were innocent regardless of the press coverage. Once found guilty then gradations of consequences can be more fairly discussed.

People yammer about the "legal" standard versus the standard of public opinion, but we have a system set up, no matter how imperfect, to determine if people committed a crime or not. The fact is that no matter how imperfect that system is, it is infinitely more perfect than public opinion or Roger Goodell's opinion. I believe that is the only fair standard to which players or anyone should be held.

I know enough to know that the DA in Benson's case, Foster's case, Roeth's case, or any other case has far more facts at hand and is far more qualified than I in determining if an individual committed a crime.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

CH,

I fail to see how you can suggest that VY and Benson both get off with warnings. Did Pac Man Jones, Tank Johnson or Michael Vick get off with warnings. It goes far beyond Big Ben.... but what Goodell did with Big Ben was to not just imply but tell the league that if you are involved in bad publicity you will be suspended. Despite whatever your personal opinion on Big Ben is (and yes you implying rape and assault is an opinion and not fact) that is the precedent set. I do not have a problem with your opinion on Big Ben, he put himself in that position and he is paying the price for it. I fail to remember anyone tossing him or the Steelers sympathy over the suspension nor do I expect any. What I do expect is for Goodell to treat other players in the same respect and not just because ESPN comes crying over a player.

Hold the CH crucifixion for a second. First off, go back and read post 46 - it will explain the bolded. There has already been a precedent set by the league in minor assault cases (again, read post 46 for examples).Comparing this case to Ben or Vick is ludicrous from a discipline standpoint. Both Ben and Vick were charged with (or going to be charged with) felonies. Benson is going to be charged with (assuming the accuser continues to press the issue) a misdemeanor. Not all bad PR is equal. A misdemenaor vs. a felony is a big difference - legally and in the eyes of the public. What Ben was alleged to have done and what Vick was proven to have done are far worse than what Benson was alleged to have done, both legally and by most people's views, ethically.

IMHO, anyone touting a multi-game suspension for Benson given what we know at this point is either ignoring the facts of the situation or hoping to drive Benson's value down to trade for him.

I'm just a simple guy. I have done the things Cedric is accused of, however I have not done the things that Ben or Vick are accused of. The majority of my friends have punched a person, the majority of my friends have not been accused of rape or running dog fighting rings. Ethically I am in full agreement with your post.

You might want to diversify the friends you keep...

I had more friends in college who bought girls drinks (some maybe underage) and wanted to have sex with them while they were both intoxicated (sometimes in a bathroom) than threw punches. Some of them even acted like douchebags. No, none of them were accused of sexual assault...but none of them were an NFL QB. Did it commit sexual assualt? Only Ben and the girl know...but from a legal standpoint, no...he did not. From a legal standpoint Ben has never been EVEN TRIED for anything...not even a misdemeanor. My points: 1. Those who wish to let Ced and Young walk free have concluded that Ben 'did it'. Unfair and legally unsupportable. 2. Goodell has created a very difficult precedent for himself and consistent application is going to be very difficult.

 

[Ksquared]

I don't think there has to be any moral equivalency drawn amongst cases to have a consistently applied discipline policy.

Is rape worse than punching someone in the face in self defense? Sure it is, but that isn't the question.

The question is, is the negative publicity an accusation of a crime generates enough PR damage to warrant a suspension.

The Roeth case sets the precedent that a simple accusation or accusations and the attention it draws is a suspendable offense.

I disagree with that standard, but would also applaud it, if it is now consistently applied.

I guess we're going to have to simply agree to disagree on this point. IMHO (and, incidentally, the opinion of several media outlets and FF "experts"), the degree of negative PR between Roeth & Vick compared to that of Benson is not even close. I think the Roeth incident is a very bad example as there was tons of smoke, but when it came down to it, no one wanted to pursue the case. (IIRC, Roeth was asked to undergo counselling as part of his suspension - hardly necessary if he was innocent of any wrong-doing in the eyes of the NFL).

I also think there has to be some actual crime - bad PR as a result of an accusation isn't (nor should it ever be) grounds for suspension. As I said, the Roeth case had enough smoke that Goodell obviously felt Roeth had done something wrong (and possibly illegal) to warrant discipline.

And no, I don't applaud the blind application of a policy that would be that "zero-tolerant" and wasn't based in guilt or innocence, but merely on the amount of negative media coverage. While justice should be impartial, that doesn't mean brainless.

I don't think we disagree at all. In fact, the bolded sums up my opinion nicely.But, unfortunately, the precedent was set by Goodell. Accusation and it's attendant negative press is all that's warranted for suspension apparently.

My take is that the players deserve to let the justice system run it's course before being disciplined and if the justice system finds them innocent of the accusations levied then they should be treated as if they were innocent regardless of the press coverage. Once found guilty then gradations of consequences can be more fairly discussed.

People yammer about the "legal" standard versus the standard of public opinion, but we have a system set up, no matter how imperfect, to determine if people committed a crime or not. The fact is that no matter how imperfect that system is, it is infinitely more perfect than public opinion or Roger Goodell's opinion. I believe that is the only fair standard to which players or anyone should be held.

I know enough to know that the DA in Benson's case, Foster's case, Roeth's case, or any other case has far more facts at hand and is far more qualified than I in determining if an individual committed a crime.

No those DAs know whether they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury and get 100% to agree. When the a key person involved (the woman affected in the Roeth case for example) decides they do not want to file charges, the DA may feel with certainty the player xxx committed a crime, but convincing 100% of a jury of that is not likely.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

CH,

I fail to see how you can suggest that VY and Benson both get off with warnings. Did Pac Man Jones, Tank Johnson or Michael Vick get off with warnings. It goes far beyond Big Ben.... but what Goodell did with Big Ben was to not just imply but tell the league that if you are involved in bad publicity you will be suspended. Despite whatever your personal opinion on Big Ben is (and yes you implying rape and assault is an opinion and not fact) that is the precedent set. I do not have a problem with your opinion on Big Ben, he put himself in that position and he is paying the price for it. I fail to remember anyone tossing him or the Steelers sympathy over the suspension nor do I expect any. What I do expect is for Goodell to treat other players in the same respect and not just because ESPN comes crying over a player.

Hold the CH crucifixion for a second. First off, go back and read post 46 - it will explain the bolded. There has already been a precedent set by the league in minor assault cases (again, read post 46 for examples).Comparing this case to Ben or Vick is ludicrous from a discipline standpoint. Both Ben and Vick were charged with (or going to be charged with) felonies. Benson is going to be charged with (assuming the accuser continues to press the issue) a misdemeanor. Not all bad PR is equal. A misdemenaor vs. a felony is a big difference - legally and in the eyes of the public. What Ben was alleged to have done and what Vick was proven to have done are far worse than what Benson was alleged to have done, both legally and by most people's views, ethically.

IMHO, anyone touting a multi-game suspension for Benson given what we know at this point is either ignoring the facts of the situation or hoping to drive Benson's value down to trade for him.

I'm just a simple guy. I have done the things Cedric is accused of, however I have not done the things that Ben or Vick are accused of. The majority of my friends have punched a person, the majority of my friends have not been accused of rape or running dog fighting rings. Ethically I am in full agreement with your post.

You might want to diversify the friends you keep...

I had more friends in college who bought girls drinks (some maybe underage) and wanted to have sex with them while they were both intoxicated (sometimes in a bathroom) than threw punches. Some of them even acted like douchebags. No, none of them were accused of sexual assault...but none of them were an NFL QB. Did it commit sexual assualt? Only Ben and the girl know...but from a legal standpoint, no...he did not. From a legal standpoint Ben has never been EVEN TRIED for anything...not even a misdemeanor. My points: 1. Those who wish to let Ced and Young walk free have concluded that Ben 'did it'. Unfair and legally unsupportable. 2. Goodell has created a very difficult precedent for himself and consistent application is going to be very difficult.

There is a difference between 2 intoxicated people having sex and a guy getting an underage girl drunk so he can have sex with her... A lot of things happen in college that aren't right. And I'm sure that there had been times when your friends could have had charges pressed... I know guys that have done it too... That doesn't make it right.. D-Bags..

Reality is, it's not because he's Ben Roth that he gets in trouble and they didn't.. It's because everyone pays attention and sees what he does, so when he does wrong he's more liable to be caught. Your friends don't have hardly the exposure he does, and for that he should mind his manners better...

I live in Charlotte NC area. I love the panthers, but I can agree that Steve Smith has an anger management problem and he deserved every bit of his 2 day suspension.. And guess what folks, he wasn't arrested or found guilty in a court of law either. But hey, your team, your QB, be a homer if you like, that's expected, I don't fault you for it...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I also think there has to be some actual crime - bad PR as a result of an accusation isn't (nor should it ever be) grounds for suspension.

That's exactly what happened in Ben's case. And this was considered part of a pattern, but if you go back to that Reno thing, that girl/accusation could not have been flimsier, and the cops didn't want anything to do with that case. I am not defending him, just the idea that there HAS to be a crime committed. Ben isn't guilty of anything, and was still hit with a big suspension. No matter what anyone thinks, that is the fact.

You say he isn't guilty of anything... You don't know this, as a matter of fact, most people are guilty of something...The difference would be whether he was proven guilty in court. If you say he hasn't been proven guilty, I agree. To say "Ben isn't guilty of anything" just because he hasn't been proven guilty, is kinda bullish if you ask me.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't think there has to be any moral equivalency drawn amongst cases to have a consistently applied discipline policy.

Is rape worse than punching someone in the face in self defense? Sure it is, but that isn't the question.

The question is, is the negative publicity an accusation of a crime generates enough PR damage to warrant a suspension.

The Roeth case sets the precedent that a simple accusation or accusations and the attention it draws is a suspendable offense.

I disagree with that standard, but would also applaud it, if it is now consistently applied.

I guess we're going to have to simply agree to disagree on this point. IMHO (and, incidentally, the opinion of several media outlets and FF "experts"), the degree of negative PR between Roeth & Vick compared to that of Benson is not even close. I think the Roeth incident is a very bad example as there was tons of smoke, but when it came down to it, no one wanted to pursue the case. (IIRC, Roeth was asked to undergo counselling as part of his suspension - hardly necessary if he was innocent of any wrong-doing in the eyes of the NFL).

I also think there has to be some actual crime - bad PR as a result of an accusation isn't (nor should it ever be) grounds for suspension. As I said, the Roeth case had enough smoke that Goodell obviously felt Roeth had done something wrong (and possibly illegal) to warrant discipline.

And no, I don't applaud the blind application of a policy that would be that "zero-tolerant" and wasn't based in guilt or innocence, but merely on the amount of negative media coverage. While justice should be impartial, that doesn't mean brainless.

I don't think we disagree at all. In fact, the bolded sums up my opinion nicely.But, unfortunately, the precedent was set by Goodell. Accusation and it's attendant negative press is all that's warranted for suspension apparently.

My take is that the players deserve to let the justice system run it's course before being disciplined and if the justice system finds them innocent of the accusations levied then they should be treated as if they were innocent regardless of the press coverage. Once found guilty then gradations of consequences can be more fairly discussed.

People yammer about the "legal" standard versus the standard of public opinion, but we have a system set up, no matter how imperfect, to determine if people committed a crime or not. The fact is that no matter how imperfect that system is, it is infinitely more perfect than public opinion or Roger Goodell's opinion. I believe that is the only fair standard to which players or anyone should be held.

I know enough to know that the DA in Benson's case, Foster's case, Roeth's case, or any other case has far more facts at hand and is far more qualified than I in determining if an individual committed a crime.

There is a difference between knowing an individual committed a crime, and actually being able to prove it in court. I think everyone knows this well...

 

[Idiot Boxer]

As long as YOU know, that should be enough. After all, you were there , right?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

As long as YOU know, that should be enough. After all, you were there , right?

I don't think I know what happened. I think I know what he is capable of. I think I know what kind of person he is.And ultimately, no one knows what was discussed between he and Goodell. And we only get the PR version of what has transpired. They could have had a come to Jesus meeting right there in his office for all we know. And it seems like there had at least been some public admission by Ben to have been at the very least acting inappropriately by plying young women with alcohol.

 

[treat88]

I don't think there has to be any moral equivalency drawn amongst cases to have a consistently applied discipline policy.

Is rape worse than punching someone in the face in self defense? Sure it is, but that isn't the question.

The question is, is the negative publicity an accusation of a crime generates enough PR damage to warrant a suspension.

The Roeth case sets the precedent that a simple accusation or accusations and the attention it draws is a suspendable offense.

I disagree with that standard, but would also applaud it, if it is now consistently applied.

I guess we're going to have to simply agree to disagree on this point. IMHO (and, incidentally, the opinion of several media outlets and FF "experts"), the degree of negative PR between Roeth & Vick compared to that of Benson is not even close. I think the Roeth incident is a very bad example as there was tons of smoke, but when it came down to it, no one wanted to pursue the case. (IIRC, Roeth was asked to undergo counselling as part of his suspension - hardly necessary if he was innocent of any wrong-doing in the eyes of the NFL).

I also think there has to be some actual crime - bad PR as a result of an accusation isn't (nor should it ever be) grounds for suspension. As I said, the Roeth case had enough smoke that Goodell obviously felt Roeth had done something wrong (and possibly illegal) to warrant discipline.

And no, I don't applaud the blind application of a policy that would be that "zero-tolerant" and wasn't based in guilt or innocence, but merely on the amount of negative media coverage. While justice should be impartial, that doesn't mean brainless.

I don't think we disagree at all. In fact, the bolded sums up my opinion nicely.But, unfortunately, the precedent was set by Goodell. Accusation and it's attendant negative press is all that's warranted for suspension apparently.

My take is that the players deserve to let the justice system run it's course before being disciplined and if the justice system finds them innocent of the accusations levied then they should be treated as if they were innocent regardless of the press coverage. Once found guilty then gradations of consequences can be more fairly discussed.

People yammer about the "legal" standard versus the standard of public opinion, but we have a system set up, no matter how imperfect, to determine if people committed a crime or not. The fact is that no matter how imperfect that system is, it is infinitely more perfect than public opinion or Roger Goodell's opinion. I believe that is the only fair standard to which players or anyone should be held.

I know enough to know that the DA in Benson's case, Foster's case, Roeth's case, or any other case has far more facts at hand and is far more qualified than I in determining if an individual committed a crime.

There is a difference between knowing an individual committed a crime, and actually being able to prove it in court. I think everyone knows this well...

If one is in the position to know those things sure there can be a difference. I think it is far more rare than apparently you do, but it happens without question.That's not the point, the point is the legal system is far more capable of making that discretionary judgment than any other entity in society.

It also provides for a standard than can be consistently applied and makes the disciplinary decision making process more consistent and transparent.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't think there has to be any moral equivalency drawn amongst cases to have a consistently applied discipline policy.

Is rape worse than punching someone in the face in self defense? Sure it is, but that isn't the question.

The question is, is the negative publicity an accusation of a crime generates enough PR damage to warrant a suspension.

The Roeth case sets the precedent that a simple accusation or accusations and the attention it draws is a suspendable offense.

I disagree with that standard, but would also applaud it, if it is now consistently applied.

I guess we're going to have to simply agree to disagree on this point. IMHO (and, incidentally, the opinion of several media outlets and FF "experts"), the degree of negative PR between Roeth & Vick compared to that of Benson is not even close. I think the Roeth incident is a very bad example as there was tons of smoke, but when it came down to it, no one wanted to pursue the case. (IIRC, Roeth was asked to undergo counselling as part of his suspension - hardly necessary if he was innocent of any wrong-doing in the eyes of the NFL).

I also think there has to be some actual crime - bad PR as a result of an accusation isn't (nor should it ever be) grounds for suspension. As I said, the Roeth case had enough smoke that Goodell obviously felt Roeth had done something wrong (and possibly illegal) to warrant discipline.

And no, I don't applaud the blind application of a policy that would be that "zero-tolerant" and wasn't based in guilt or innocence, but merely on the amount of negative media coverage. While justice should be impartial, that doesn't mean brainless.

I don't think we disagree at all. In fact, the bolded sums up my opinion nicely.But, unfortunately, the precedent was set by Goodell. Accusation and it's attendant negative press is all that's warranted for suspension apparently.

My take is that the players deserve to let the justice system run it's course before being disciplined and if the justice system finds them innocent of the accusations levied then they should be treated as if they were innocent regardless of the press coverage. Once found guilty then gradations of consequences can be more fairly discussed.

People yammer about the "legal" standard versus the standard of public opinion, but we have a system set up, no matter how imperfect, to determine if people committed a crime or not. The fact is that no matter how imperfect that system is, it is infinitely more perfect than public opinion or Roger Goodell's opinion. I believe that is the only fair standard to which players or anyone should be held.

I know enough to know that the DA in Benson's case, Foster's case, Roeth's case, or any other case has far more facts at hand and is far more qualified than I in determining if an individual committed a crime.

There is a difference between knowing an individual committed a crime, and actually being able to prove it in court. I think everyone knows this well...

If one is in the position to know those things sure there can be a difference. I think it is far more rare than apparently you do, but it happens without question.That's not the point, the point is the legal system is far more capable of making that discretionary judgment than any other entity in society.

It also provides for a standard than can be consistently applied and makes the disciplinary decision making process more consistent and transparent.

The legal system is easily manipulated by the rich and powerful.. I have a friend that was assaulted during his duties as a Bar Bouncer, by a player that no longer plays in Charlotte, but still plays in the NFL, he was payed off and the guy was off scott free.. I saw the assault... In that case, I know for a fact, my friend was hit without provocation. The guy was guilty of assault but bought his way out of it. When that is far more likely to happen, why should Goodell base his decisions on the Judicial system?

 

[treat88]

The legal system is easily manipulated by the rich and powerful.. I have a friend that was assaulted during his duties as a Bar Bouncer, by a player that no longer plays in Charlotte, but still plays in the NFL, he was payed off and the guy was off scott free.. I saw the assault... In that case, I know for a fact, my friend was hit without provocation. The guy was guilty of assault but bought his way out of it. When that is far more likely to happen, why should Goodell base his decisions on the Judicial system?

Like I say, I have no doubt that happens. However, also like I say, I think that is the absolute exception not the rule. It's unfortunate what happened to your friend, but you have obviously let it color your entire perception of the judicial system.At the end of the day, if Benson is legally determined to have done what he is accused of he should be subject to league punishment. If he's not, he shouldn't be.At least, that's my take.

 

[Scooby1974]

Maybe this has already been said, but Goodell and his office seem to be trying to put the "fear of God" into the NFL. I for one am glad that there are consequences for these guys actions, both for their own sake as well as the general public. As a Dad, I don't wait for my son to commit a crime before I discipline him, I discipline right out of the gate, as soon as he knows the difference between right and wrong. Then by the time he is a 23 year old Professional Football Player, he'll have learned enough wisdom and developed enough character to know that driving drunk, screwing underaged girls, and killing dogs isn't the right thing to do AND he'll know that he's going to get CAUGHT and PUNISHED for it.

Props to Goodell and his goons, although we continue to see dopes like Benson still trying to ruin their lives...hopefully we DIDN'T hear about many more guys considering doing foolish things, that actually thought about having to sit in Goodell's office and decided to do the right thing.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The legal system is easily manipulated by the rich and powerful.. I have a friend that was assaulted during his duties as a Bar Bouncer, by a player that no longer plays in Charlotte, but still plays in the NFL, he was payed off and the guy was off scott free.. I saw the assault... In that case, I know for a fact, my friend was hit without provocation. The guy was guilty of assault but bought his way out of it. When that is far more likely to happen, why should Goodell base his decisions on the Judicial system?

Like I say, I have no doubt that happens. However, also like I say, I think that is the absolute exception not the rule. It's unfortunate what happened to your friend, but you have obviously let it color your entire perception of the judicial system.At the end of the day, if Benson is legally determined to have done what he is accused of he should be subject to league punishment. If he's not, he shouldn't be.At least, that's my take.

You don't think, money and power OFTEN get the rich and famous out of trouble? Seriously?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't think there has to be any moral equivalency drawn amongst cases to have a consistently applied discipline policy.

Is rape worse than punching someone in the face in self defense? Sure it is, but that isn't the question.

The question is, is the negative publicity an accusation of a crime generates enough PR damage to warrant a suspension.

The Roeth case sets the precedent that a simple accusation or accusations and the attention it draws is a suspendable offense.

I disagree with that standard, but would also applaud it, if it is now consistently applied.

I guess we're going to have to simply agree to disagree on this point. IMHO (and, incidentally, the opinion of several media outlets and FF "experts"), the degree of negative PR between Roeth & Vick compared to that of Benson is not even close. I think the Roeth incident is a very bad example as there was tons of smoke, but when it came down to it, no one wanted to pursue the case. (IIRC, Roeth was asked to undergo counselling as part of his suspension - hardly necessary if he was innocent of any wrong-doing in the eyes of the NFL).

I also think there has to be some actual crime - bad PR as a result of an accusation isn't (nor should it ever be) grounds for suspension. As I said, the Roeth case had enough smoke that Goodell obviously felt Roeth had done something wrong (and possibly illegal) to warrant discipline.

And no, I don't applaud the blind application of a policy that would be that "zero-tolerant" and wasn't based in guilt or innocence, but merely on the amount of negative media coverage. While justice should be impartial, that doesn't mean brainless.

I don't think we disagree at all. In fact, the bolded sums up my opinion nicely.But, unfortunately, the precedent was set by Goodell. Accusation and it's attendant negative press is all that's warranted for suspension apparently.

My take is that the players deserve to let the justice system run it's course before being disciplined and if the justice system finds them innocent of the accusations levied then they should be treated as if they were innocent regardless of the press coverage. Once found guilty then gradations of consequences can be more fairly discussed.

People yammer about the "legal" standard versus the standard of public opinion, but we have a system set up, no matter how imperfect, to determine if people committed a crime or not. The fact is that no matter how imperfect that system is, it is infinitely more perfect than public opinion or Roger Goodell's opinion. I believe that is the only fair standard to which players or anyone should be held.

I know enough to know that the DA in Benson's case, Foster's case, Roeth's case, or any other case has far more facts at hand and is far more qualified than I in determining if an individual committed a crime.

There is a difference between knowing an individual committed a crime, and actually being able to prove it in court. I think everyone knows this well...

If one is in the position to know those things sure there can be a difference. I think it is far more rare than apparently you do, but it happens without question.That's not the point, the point is the legal system is far more capable of making that discretionary judgment than any other entity in society.

It also provides for a standard than can be consistently applied and makes the disciplinary decision making process more consistent and transparent.

In an assault trial, the accuser will claim the accused committed assault, does that mean that it happened? No, the judge or jury has to make a decision after not being there to see the truth. So it's ones word vs the other. (without other witness') who ever tells the most convincing story, right or wrong would probably win, then it might become about which is the more clever and convincing speaker.

That's a tough situation to figure out right?

Now take the accuser out of the situation. Lets say he was assaulted but he was paid a settlement out of court, and the accused has a good lawyer, like we know nfl players typically do. How is justice served in that situation? The court now has no testimony against him. Why try the case? Charges will be dropped...

Where is the Justice system in that situation? Why, when that is so likely to happen, do you think the NFL shouldn't punish a player unless he's found guilty by a court of law? That is not the acceptation to the rule, when it comes to rich, the money makes the rules. Hell, I'm not rich, but I've payed a settlement out of court before to get out of trouble... Happens ALL THE TIME...

 

[treat88]

In an assault trial, the accuser will claim the accused committed assault, does that mean that it happened? No, the judge or jury has to make a decision after not being there to see the truth. So it's ones word vs the other. (without other witness') who ever tells the most convincing story, right or wrong would probably win, then it might become about which is the more clever and convincing speaker. That's a tough situation to figure out right? Now take the accuser out of the situation. Lets say he was assaulted but he was paid a settlement out of court, and the accused has a good lawyer, like we know nfl players typically do. How is justice served in that situation? The court now has no testimony against him. Why try the case? Charges will be dropped... Where is the Justice system in that situation? Why, when that is so likely to happen, do you think the NFL shouldn't punish a player unless he's found guilty by a court of law? That is not the acceptation to the rule, when it comes to rich, the money makes the rules. Hell, I'm not rich, but I've payed a settlement out of court before to get out of trouble... Happens ALL THE TIME...

You obviously have a strong opinion. That's cool, I respect that. I think it's off base but I'm sure you feel the same way about my opinion.In your scenario justice is served because the accuser choose to take a financial settlement versus pursuing legal recourse and has been compensated for whatever damages they incurred.The accused is apparently punished to the satisfaction of the accuser, financially in this case, otherwise they wouldn't accept the settlement right? In which case, why should the league further be involved?Do you have a better alternative to the legal system to determine if a person has done something they are accused of?In Benson's case I don't think the league has any standing to punish him if he didn't do what it's alleged he did. What entity is in the best position to make that determination? The legal system, imperfect or not.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

In an assault trial, the accuser will claim the accused committed assault, does that mean that it happened? No, the judge or jury has to make a decision after not being there to see the truth. So it's ones word vs the other. (without other witness') who ever tells the most convincing story, right or wrong would probably win, then it might become about which is the more clever and convincing speaker. That's a tough situation to figure out right? Now take the accuser out of the situation. Lets say he was assaulted but he was paid a settlement out of court, and the accused has a good lawyer, like we know nfl players typically do. How is justice served in that situation? The court now has no testimony against him. Why try the case? Charges will be dropped... Where is the Justice system in that situation? Why, when that is so likely to happen, do you think the NFL shouldn't punish a player unless he's found guilty by a court of law? That is not the acceptation to the rule, when it comes to rich, the money makes the rules. Hell, I'm not rich, but I've payed a settlement out of court before to get out of trouble... Happens ALL THE TIME...

You obviously have a strong opinion. That's cool, I respect that. I think it's off base but I'm sure you feel the same way about my opinion.In your scenario justice is served because the accuser choose to take a financial settlement versus pursuing legal recourse and has been compensated for whatever damages they incurred.The accused is apparently punished to the satisfaction of the accuser, financially in this case, otherwise they wouldn't accept the settlement right? In which case, why should the league further be involved?Do you have a better alternative to the legal system to determine if a person has done something they are accused of?In Benson's case I don't think the league has any standing to punish him if he didn't do what it's alleged he did. What entity is in the best position to make that determination? The legal system, imperfect or not.

He may have satisfied the accuser, but not the league...The accuser wasn't the only one harmed by the incident, the actions detrimental to the league also have to be answered for.Also, the judicial system doesn't care if the accuser was satisfied or not. If they have proof of crime, even after the accuser is satisfied and decides to not press charges, the accused will then still be tried.The NFL player is answerable to 3 separate entities.The accuser - who may very well be satisfied by money, and typically are in these situationsThe Law - which if can convict of the crime, ie, has enough evidence, they will regardless of the accuser and the NFL.And the NFL - which should by all rights not be pigeon holed by what the other 2 entities decide. Their buisness, their rules, they are the ones that stand to lose.OJ Simpson was found guilty in civil court but not guilty in criminal court... how would you handle that one? NFL buisness is not for the court to decide...

 

[treat88]

In an assault trial, the accuser will claim the accused committed assault, does that mean that it happened? No, the judge or jury has to make a decision after not being there to see the truth. So it's ones word vs the other. (without other witness') who ever tells the most convincing story, right or wrong would probably win, then it might become about which is the more clever and convincing speaker. That's a tough situation to figure out right? Now take the accuser out of the situation. Lets say he was assaulted but he was paid a settlement out of court, and the accused has a good lawyer, like we know nfl players typically do. How is justice served in that situation? The court now has no testimony against him. Why try the case? Charges will be dropped... Where is the Justice system in that situation? Why, when that is so likely to happen, do you think the NFL shouldn't punish a player unless he's found guilty by a court of law? That is not the acceptation to the rule, when it comes to rich, the money makes the rules. Hell, I'm not rich, but I've payed a settlement out of court before to get out of trouble... Happens ALL THE TIME...

You obviously have a strong opinion. That's cool, I respect that. I think it's off base but I'm sure you feel the same way about my opinion.In your scenario justice is served because the accuser choose to take a financial settlement versus pursuing legal recourse and has been compensated for whatever damages they incurred.The accused is apparently punished to the satisfaction of the accuser, financially in this case, otherwise they wouldn't accept the settlement right? In which case, why should the league further be involved?Do you have a better alternative to the legal system to determine if a person has done something they are accused of?In Benson's case I don't think the league has any standing to punish him if he didn't do what it's alleged he did. What entity is in the best position to make that determination? The legal system, imperfect or not.

He may have satisfied the accuser, but not the league...The accuser wasn't the only one harmed by the incident, the actions detrimental to the league also have to be answered for.

So do you think Benson should be suspended? Before it is even determined he did what he is accused of and simply because his actions are detrimental to the league?Maybe I misunderstood your original position.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

In an assault trial, the accuser will claim the accused committed assault, does that mean that it happened? No, the judge or jury has to make a decision after not being there to see the truth. So it's ones word vs the other. (without other witness') who ever tells the most convincing story, right or wrong would probably win, then it might become about which is the more clever and convincing speaker. That's a tough situation to figure out right? Now take the accuser out of the situation. Lets say he was assaulted but he was paid a settlement out of court, and the accused has a good lawyer, like we know nfl players typically do. How is justice served in that situation? The court now has no testimony against him. Why try the case? Charges will be dropped... Where is the Justice system in that situation? Why, when that is so likely to happen, do you think the NFL shouldn't punish a player unless he's found guilty by a court of law? That is not the acceptation to the rule, when it comes to rich, the money makes the rules. Hell, I'm not rich, but I've payed a settlement out of court before to get out of trouble... Happens ALL THE TIME...

You obviously have a strong opinion. That's cool, I respect that. I think it's off base but I'm sure you feel the same way about my opinion.In your scenario justice is served because the accuser choose to take a financial settlement versus pursuing legal recourse and has been compensated for whatever damages they incurred.The accused is apparently punished to the satisfaction of the accuser, financially in this case, otherwise they wouldn't accept the settlement right? In which case, why should the league further be involved?Do you have a better alternative to the legal system to determine if a person has done something they are accused of?In Benson's case I don't think the league has any standing to punish him if he didn't do what it's alleged he did. What entity is in the best position to make that determination? The legal system, imperfect or not.

He may have satisfied the accuser, but not the league...The accuser wasn't the only one harmed by the incident, the actions detrimental to the league also have to be answered for.

So do you think Benson should be suspended? Before it is even determined he did what he is accused of and simply because his actions are detrimental to the league?Maybe I misunderstood your original position.

If it was found by the commissioner that his actions were indeed detrimental to the league, I assume he will be punished in some manner.In my opinion, if indeed, he was only defending himself, it wasn't his actions that were of detriment, is was the attackers actions... But even if he did hit a guy unprovoked, it certainly isn't nearly as bad in public opinion as someone getting under age girls drunk so they could take advantage... Or god forbid it happened, rape...Just like hitting a woman would be worse than hitting a man.. PR wise...Ben acted recklessly by actually premeditating the offense, and in a bar fight, it's obviously never the initial intention...If Benson did do wrong, we won't know till afterward, It was known at the forefront, regardless of whether an assault or rape took place, that Ben had a problem because he was constantly putting himself in a situation where he at the very least could be looked at as a D-bag for what he does with these young women that are lured into the VIP room.

 

[Multiple Scores]

(Rotoworld) Beat writer Joe Reedy reiterated that Cedric Benson appears unlikely to face punishment from the league for his recent assault charge. Analysis: The league is still looking at the case, but the information coming out of the bar fight appears to leave Benson in the clear. Considering Benson was only charged with a Class-A misdemeanor, it would be a surprise if he ends up suspended.

 

[Sinrman]

Class A or not, it's assault and conduct detrimental to the team and the league. How could he not get suspended at least a game or two?

 

[fatness]

(Rotoworld) Beat writer Joe Reedy reiterated that Cedric Benson appears unlikely to face punishment from the league for his recent assault charge. Analysis: The league is still looking at the case, but the information coming out of the bar fight appears to leave Benson in the clear. Considering Benson was only charged with a Class-A misdemeanor, it would be a surprise if he ends up suspended.

Sounds like Benson's version of events might be what really happened. Previous link in this thread.

 

[Multiple Scores]

Class A or not, it's assault and conduct detrimental to the team and the league. How could he not get suspended at least a game or two?

If he's telling the truth how could he be suspended?

 

[finito]

(KFFL) Cincinnati Bengals RB Cedric Benson will not be suspended for his off-the-field issue in June, reports Adam Schefter, of ESPN.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

(KFFL) Cincinnati Bengals RB Cedric Benson will not be suspended for his off-the-field issue in June, reports Adam Schefter, of ESPN.

 

[ookook]

I do not believe Goodell suspends players for legal accusations; I think he suspends them when has convincing evidence that they engaged in behavior he believes is detrimental to the league. How many indiviudals did NFL-paid private investigators interview accross how many cities in the Ben decision? He also talks to the player.

I can imagine some behavior that might not be illegal but might be considered detrimental.

 

[fatness]

(KFFL) Cincinnati Bengals RB Cedric Benson will not be suspended for his off-the-field issue in June, reports Adam Schefter, of ESPN.

This is when it's fun to go back and read earlier posts in the thread.