Favre could end the season on suspension (1 Viewer)

[Carolina Hustler]

How long is it going to be before a topic about an NFL player who might be in trouble with Goodell isn't interrupted with "But Ben did....." and "No Ben didn't" ?

Exactly^!!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

1) The first accuser was in her 30s and was not drinking with Ben in a VIP room. She alleged that he called her to his room to fix the TV and then made unwelcome advances. We don't know what really happened because she never went to the police but her story was pretty bizarre.

2) The second accuser was 20 and had a fake ID. Based on the facts released we don't know what, if anything, happened in the bathroom.

The point is that Goodell can suspend any player he feels is tarnishing the image of the league, regardless if a legal complaint is made or charges are filed.

I never disagreed with the bold-ed portion.. I disagree with every issue another player gets in trouble for, being compared to Ben's issue by Steelers fans... And the continued whinging about unfair treatment...

Actually it was a Packer's fan that brought up the comparison. And never in this thread did I whine about unfair treatment. All I was doing was correcting inaccurate information.

Not Whining... Whinging... And not you, just in general...

Nobody knows what Goodell knows, they assume there has been no proof.. And it's rather irritating to me because Ben gets off, most likely because that girl found 500k in an envelope, not because he wasn't guilty..

A friend of mine was attacked by an NFL player for doing his job as a bouncer/door man at a upper class restaurant/dance club, (I witnessed) and the charges were dropped because my friend was paid off... Anyone claiming Ben was innocent because he was not found guilty is silly..

 

[CutlerToCutler]

Looks like rockin out with your #### out wasn't such a good idea, Brent.

 

[Das Boot]

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP)—Brett Favre has apologized to the Minnesota Vikings for the distraction caused by an NFL investigation into allegations that he sent racy messages and lewd photos to a Jets game hostess in 2008.

Vikings coach Brad Childress said on Saturday that the reports have not been a distraction,.

 

[basher]

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP)—Brett Favre has apologized to the Minnesota Vikings for the distraction caused by an NFL investigation into allegations that he sent racy messages and lewd photos to a Jets game hostess in 2008.

Vikings coach Brad Childress said on Saturday that the reports have not been a distraction,.

You need to call "opposite day" on about 90% of what chilly has to say.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

favre might be retiring tomorrow morning.

 

[Das Boot]

2007: Deanna Favre on Good Morning America talking about her book "Don't Bet Against Me"

!

 

[TobiasFunke]

Assuming he's found guilty

Of what?

Would you consider sending Sexually explicit text messages to an unwilling recipient a crime?The most likely issue he will be suspended for is Sexual Harrasment. The NFL can't allow players to do this sort of thing to teams employees. They don't have to do a witch hunt, but they have to investigate and punish reported cases in order to avoid being targeted by a class action law suit.

When you listen to the voice mails he left, from his tone it sounds like they have a relationship. He is very casual and doesn't sound pushy or anything like that. She allegedly kept everything, yet didn't come forward with sexual harrassment until after he left NY. Maybe he did harrass her, but it's also not out of the question that she was smitten with him and kept everything, he ended the relationship, and she became a woman scorned.

It's not out of the question that she is just milking this story for cash and publicity. This is an old story that is suddenly getting the spotlight on the heels of the Ines story. If I were a betting man, I'd gamble that they had a tryst or she was at least letting him think she might be open to one. And being the calculating gal she is, she kept the right pieces of evidence to make for a juicy tell-all down the road. She's reportedly sold her story to a tabloid blog rather than filing a complaint against him with the league or the Jets.

Look at her career path. It doesn't mean she deserves to be harassed, but it means she might not have been.

It's amazing how many people here are throwing up the ridiculous "money-grubbing whore" line. Anyone who's a regular Deadspin reader- heck, anyone who feels like spending two minutes reading up on this thing, or even just reading Maurile's post- knows she's been fighting the public release of this stuff ever since she made the ill-fated decision to have a conversation about it off the record a couple years ago, I believe somewhat soon after it happened. They didn't pay her for the story- in fact I think the offered to and she refused them. She also didn't wait until the right time to release this stuff- Deadspin did. Nobody has an obligation to look into that stuff. But I'd like to think people would spend two minutes looking into it or at least read the rest of the thread before accusing a complete stranger of being a money-grubbing whore on a message board.

 

[JamesTheScot]

It's not out of the question that she is just milking this story for cash and publicity. This is an old story that is suddenly getting the spotlight on the heels of the Ines story. If I were a betting man, I'd gamble that they had a tryst or she was at least letting him think she might be open to one. And being the calculating gal she is, she kept the right pieces of evidence to make for a juicy tell-all down the road. She's reportedly sold her story to a tabloid blog rather than filing a complaint against him with the league or the Jets.Look at her career path. It doesn't mean she deserves to be harassed, but it means she might not have been.

It's amazing how many people here are throwing up the ridiculous "money-grubbing whore" line. Anyone who's a regular Deadspin reader- heck, anyone who feels like spending two minutes reading up on this thing, or even just reading Maurile's post- knows she's been fighting the public release of this stuff ever since she made the ill-fated decision to have a conversation about it off the record a couple years ago, I believe somewhat soon after it happened. They didn't pay her for the story- in fact I think the offered to and she refused them. She also didn't wait until the right time to release this stuff- Deadspin did. Nobody has an obligation to look into that stuff. But I'd like to think people would spend two minutes looking into it or at least read the rest of the thread before accusing a complete stranger of being a money-grubbing whore on a message board.

Cowherd, for the second morning in a row, is saying she was paid. I don't know what his staff knows or thinks it knows, but that's an asertion of fact. It's a bold statment to make without some source behind it. Could Cowherd be full of it? Sure. But so could Jenn and Deadspin.That's why the smell test comes into play.So Jenn, in a momentary lapse of judgment, tells a blogger friend of hers that Favre sent her some creepy photos of his junk and left some stalker-esque voice mails for her. Sure, I could buy that. I can believe Favre is a philandering sleazebag underneath that "aw, shucks" wrangler wearing veneer.But yet somehow the blogger friend not only has her account of what happens, but he also has the pics and the voicemails. I've seen the messages and heard the voicemails on Deadspin. That doesn't look to me like a careless, in-passing disclosure that she's been trying to keep under wraps. The screenshots and voicemails don't sound like the Deadspin guy surreptitiously captured them without her consent while she showed them to him for laughs while knocking down a few brews at the local pub. She actually handed the evidence over to him. She knew what she was doing when she did that.For her (and he) to claim now that he's gone public over her objections and she never intended to let this make it out in the open sounds a bit like cover to me. It's like the inside job where the inside man takes a lump on the head to avoid suspicion. She knows she has a credibility issue given her career arc thanks to fake boobs and Maxim photo sessions. So she gives the Deadspin guy the goods on condition that he gives her cover by claiming she didn't want him to release it and he's doing so over her objections.She's the poor, naive, trusting girl who gave this information...and voicemails...and pics...and facebook access to the bad, untrustworthy blogger because he was such a good friend to her and she thought she could trust him to never let this out. Riiiiiight.Funny that we have facebook messages, Favre's voicemails, pics of his junk, but we haven't seen any sort of "F' off creep!" or "I'm flattered but not interested" response emails from her to Favre. She tells Deadspin that she doesn't roll with old guys or married guys, but yet the only communications she saved were his to her, not hers to him. Hmmm.I have no problem believing Favre is a creep. I have no problem believing he's approached numerous women over the years with a sense of "F' me, I'm Brett Favre" entitlement.But I also know how Jenn Sterger got her shot. And I've seen how catty she was at the Ines story. So I also have no problem believing she could have had some flirtation with Favre, kept the incriminating (to him, not her) evidence for later use - a shrewd, calculating move, and tried to keep it under wraps until she could figure out how to use it. I think she probably played him to some extent back when it was going on. She got to where she is now knowing how to play the game, and knowing how to handle and manipulate men. I don't see how it's crazy to think something of that variety might have been going on here as well.I came across the rumor about her and Favre when the Ines thing broke. I'm guessing she realized she was about to lose control of it and this whole blow-up now is her trying to walk the knife edge of looking like a reluctant victim but still trying to figure an angle for her to get some buzz and attention. Maybe she does the talk show circuit. Maybe she does some interviews. Maybe she tries to become the poster-girl (she'd love that) for workplace sexual harassment.Who knows? I just know we're only hearing half the story and it doesn't seem to completely line up just yet. And the half we aren't hearing, Brett's side, isn't going to help him keep his marriage together. So we probably won't hear about it for a bit until the NFL is done with their investigation and decides whether to circle the wagons around Brett or tie him to a wagon wheel for the firing squad.

 

[fatness]

She knows she has a credibility issue given her career arc thanks to fake boobs and Maxim photo sessions.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's not out of the question that she is just milking this story for cash and publicity. This is an old story that is suddenly getting the spotlight on the heels of the Ines story.

If I were a betting man, I'd gamble that they had a tryst or she was at least letting him think she might be open to one. And being the calculating gal she is, she kept the right pieces of evidence to make for a juicy tell-all down the road. She's reportedly sold her story to a tabloid blog rather than filing a complaint against him with the league or the Jets.

Look at her career path. It doesn't mean she deserves to be harassed, but it means she might not have been.

It's amazing how many people here are throwing up the ridiculous "money-grubbing whore" line. Anyone who's a regular Deadspin reader- heck, anyone who feels like spending two minutes reading up on this thing, or even just reading Maurile's post- knows she's been fighting the public release of this stuff ever since she made the ill-fated decision to have a conversation about it off the record a couple years ago, I believe somewhat soon after it happened. They didn't pay her for the story- in fact I think the offered to and she refused them. She also didn't wait until the right time to release this stuff- Deadspin did. Nobody has an obligation to look into that stuff. But I'd like to think people would spend two minutes looking into it or at least read the rest of the thread before accusing a complete stranger of being a money-grubbing whore on a message board.

Cowherd, for the second morning in a row, is saying she was paid. I don't know what his staff knows or thinks it knows, but that's an asertion of fact. It's a bold statment to make without some source behind it. Could Cowherd be full of it? Sure. But so could Jenn and Deadspin.That's why the smell test comes into play.

So Jenn, in a momentary lapse of judgment, tells a blogger friend of hers that Favre sent her some creepy photos of his junk and left some stalker-esque voice mails for her. Sure, I could buy that. I can believe Favre is a philandering sleazebag underneath that "aw, shucks" wrangler wearing veneer.

But yet somehow the blogger friend not only has her account of what happens, but he also has the pics and the voicemails. I've seen the messages and heard the voicemails on Deadspin. That doesn't look to me like a careless, in-passing disclosure that she's been trying to keep under wraps. The screenshots and voicemails don't sound like the Deadspin guy surreptitiously captured them without her consent while she showed them to him for laughs while knocking down a few brews at the local pub. She actually handed the evidence over to him. She knew what she was doing when she did that.

For her (and he) to claim now that he's gone public over her objections and she never intended to let this make it out in the open sounds a bit like cover to me. It's like the inside job where the inside man takes a lump on the head to avoid suspicion. She knows she has a credibility issue given her career arc thanks to fake boobs and Maxim photo sessions. So she gives the Deadspin guy the goods on condition that he gives her cover by claiming she didn't want him to release it and he's doing so over her objections.

She's the poor, naive, trusting girl who gave this information...and voicemails...and pics...and facebook access to the bad, untrustworthy blogger because he was such a good friend to her and she thought she could trust him to never let this out. Riiiiiight.

Funny that we have facebook messages, Favre's voicemails, pics of his junk, but we haven't seen any sort of "F' off creep!" or "I'm flattered but not interested" response emails from her to Favre. She tells Deadspin that she doesn't roll with old guys or married guys, but yet the only communications she saved were his to her, not hers to him. Hmmm.

I have no problem believing Favre is a creep. I have no problem believing he's approached numerous women over the years with a sense of "F' me, I'm Brett Favre" entitlement.

But I also know how Jenn Sterger got her shot. And I've seen how catty she was at the Ines story. So I also have no problem believing she could have had some flirtation with Favre, kept the incriminating (to him, not her) evidence for later use - a shrewd, calculating move, and tried to keep it under wraps until she could figure out how to use it. I think she probably played him to some extent back when it was going on. She got to where she is now knowing how to play the game, and knowing how to handle and manipulate men. I don't see how it's crazy to think something of that variety might have been going on here as well.

I came across the rumor about her and Favre when the Ines thing broke. I'm guessing she realized she was about to lose control of it and this whole blow-up now is her trying to walk the knife edge of looking like a reluctant victim but still trying to figure an angle for her to get some buzz and attention. Maybe she does the talk show circuit. Maybe she does some interviews. Maybe she tries to become the poster-girl (she'd love that) for workplace sexual harassment.

Who knows? I just know we're only hearing half the story and it doesn't seem to completely line up just yet. And the half we aren't hearing, Brett's side, isn't going to help him keep his marriage together. So we probably won't hear about it for a bit until the NFL is done with their investigation and decides whether to circle the wagons around Brett or tie him to a wagon wheel for the firing squad.

Your posts in this thread are totally reasonable and rational ... with the exception of actually giving any weight whatsoever to anything Cowherd says, especially when it comes to independent sports bloggers. He's had it in for them for years (google "Schrutebag" for just a taste of it) and he's a bottom of the barrel sleazebag when it comes to journalistic standards (google "Cowherd M Zone" for one of many examples).Anyway, my problem wasn't so much with your posts, which say she might possibly have some financial motivation, as it was with posts concluding that she is just a dumb attention-seeking whore who sat on this info for two years and then decided to profit from it, which is 100% wrong and probably a little misogynistic too.

 

[Godsbrother]

Anyone claiming Ben was innocent because he was not found guilty is silly..

Agreed. And anyone claiming they know he was guilty of sexual assualt is just as silly.

 

[saintfool]

Looks like rockin out with your #### out wasn't such a good idea, Brent.

not him too!

 

[John 14:6]

2007: Deanna Favre on Good Morning America talking about her book "Don't Bet Against Me"

"My homeboy, Brett Favre..."

 

[Bayhawks]

WHOOOOOSHHH....You keep missing the point all together... He did do something, he put himself in stupid situations because he thought he was a big shot.. Ordering drinks in mass for young women and then making advances... One was under age, now there's the problem...

I haven't missed a point, at all. I freely admitted he put himself in stupid situations. That doesn't make him a "sexual predator," "sexual harasser," "rapist," or "scum bag, classless bum." Are you saying buying drinks for girls one who happens to be underage is something he should get suspended for a quarter of a season? Are you serious? Have you ever met a girl in a bar and bought her a drink? Did you ask every single one of them to see their ID first? I didn't think so.

1) Getting girls drunk in order to make advances is class-less.. Is that my opinion? Yes.. And the opinion of many others...

Did you go to college? Do you ever go to bars? People go to bars TO DRINK. Buying someone a drink in a bar doesn't equal "getting girls drunk in order to make advances."

2) The girl was under age and he wasn't checking ID anyways....

I'll re-iterate my previous point. NO ONE who buys a girl a drink in a bar asks for her ID first. So why should we expect him to have done so?

3) I never claimed to know more than anyone else.

Oh, yes you did. You said he was "getting girls drunk in order to make advances." You don't know that is what happened, because you weren't there. Maybe she was already drunk, maybe she was high, maybe she didn't even drink the shots he bought. You don't know, but you stated it like it was a fact.You also said he was "serving (in more ways then one) an underage college girl." You don't know what happened. She doesn't know what happened, evidently, as she changed her story several times. The only 2 people who know what happened in there are Ben and the girl. She gave several different stories of what happened, and Ben didn't say what happened, but you state, as if it were a fact, what happened.That's twice you claimed to know more than anyone else, and that's the problem.Ben is guilty, in the court of public opinion. He may have done what the women accused him of, or he may not have. It doesn't matter, because for the rest of his life, people (ignorant people like you) will think of him as having committed this act, even if he didn't.But if/when it happens to you, you'd change your tune.

And Goodall knew enough to make a determination that he has, and knows more than you do.. For all you know, Ben could have admitted to everything he did right there in Goodell's office..

So why hasn't Goodall suspended Vince Young or Chris Jennings? Both men were arrested or cited for assault in nightclubs during the offseason? What about Shawn Rodgers? He was found guilty of having a loaded handgun in an airport? What about Braylon Edwards, who was arrested for DUI?Goodall suspending Ben means nothing, if he isn't going to be universal in how he applies this policy. He KNOWS that each of those men was charged/cited for the crimes mentioned, and in Rodgers' case, found guilty, but he does nothing, so saying "Goodall knew enough to make a determination" means NOTHING.

 

[Bayhawks]

Not Whining... Whinging... And not you, just in general...

Nobody knows what Goodell knows, they assume there has been no proof.. And it's rather irritating to me because Ben gets off, most likely because that girl found 500k in an envelope, not because he wasn't guilty.

So, let me get this straight. You are willing to accept, without any evidence, suggestion, or even rumor to support this belief, that the girl in GA was paid off by Roethlisberger, to make this "go away?" But you don't think it's possible that this girl willingly did whatever she did with Ben, and then after the fact thought "hmm, maybe I can get some dough out of this?" That's rather convenient logic, isn't it?

A friend of mine was attacked by an NFL player for doing his job as a bouncer/door man at a upper class restaurant/dance club, (I witnessed) and the charges were dropped because my friend was paid off

2 things:Was that NFL player Ben Roethlisberger? Didn't think so, so it's not relevant here.

That makes your friend just as much of a sleazeball as the NFL player.

... Anyone claiming Ben was innocent because he was not found guilty is silly.

Why is that silly? Do you not understand how our legal system works? Here's a hint "innocent until proven guilty" means he is innocent because he was not found guilty. Again, Ben put himself in a stupid situation, but that doesn't mean he raped that girl, or forced himself on her (it doesn't mean he didn't either, but we don't know that he did), and he lost 1/4 of his salary as a result of some girl saying he did something. That ain't right, no matter how you slice it.

 

[fatness]

You don't know that is what happened, because you weren't there.

You're acting like the report by the district attorney was never released, with information from multiple witnesses. There were 49 DVD's of information released.

 

[BigJim®]

Well this is an odd development:

Sterger wants "proper resolution" that is in her "best interest"Posted by Mike Florio on October 12, 2010 11:07 PM ETOver the weekend, former Jets sideline reporter Jenn Sterger planned to cooperate with the NFL's investigation regarding the conduct of former Jets quarterback Brett Favre. More recently, reports have emerged that she possibly won't.Then came on Tuesday a cryptic statement from Sterger's manager, Phil Reese: "This is something that allegedly happened two years ago. We don't want a quick resolution, but the proper resolution." Reese wouldn't say whether Sterger is cooperating with the NFL or whether she has hired a lawyer, but Reese said that "we're looking at all our options right now and our only concern is what's in Jenn's best interest."Reese's use of the terms "proper resolution" and "Jenn's best interest" will serve only to fuel speculation that an ultimate decision not to cooperate with the NFL possibly was driven by Favre's decision to divert to Sterger some of the $16 million Favre is earning from the Vikings in 2010.Indeed, Reese's statement fairly can be interpreted as an open invitation to Favre to commence the process of negotiating a confidentiality agreement and/or a settlement of any potential claims. Otherwise, Reese wouldn't be talking about "proper resolution" and "Jenn's best interest." Instead, Reese would be saying that Sterger wants to do the right thing, and that if the NFL believes the information that has been reported by Deadspin compels an investigation in order to eradicate potential sexual harassment from the pro football workplace, then she has no qualms about telling her story.At a time when many are skeptical of Sterger's motives and agenda, it's critical that Reese do nothing to give credence to the theory that Sterger is merely making a grab for attention and/or money. So far, she's gotten plenty of attention without overtly courting it. As to the money grab, Reese's statement potentially comes off as the equivalent of a message to Brett that cash, check, or any major credit cards will be accepted.

So let's say Brett does pay her... can she refuse to give evidence of employee/employer workplace violation?

 

[Sweatpants]

Yeah. I'm sure Jenn was greatly offended and humiliated by the #### pics. :(

 

[az_prof]

It's amazing how many people here are throwing up the ridiculous "money-grubbing whore" line. Anyone who's a regular Deadspin reader- heck, anyone who feels like spending two minutes reading up on this thing, or even just reading Maurile's post- knows she's been fighting the public release of this stuff ever since she made the ill-fated decision to have a conversation about it off the record a couple years ago, I believe somewhat soon after it happened. They didn't pay her for the story- in fact I think the offered to and she refused them. She also didn't wait until the right time to release this stuff- Deadspin did. Nobody has an obligation to look into that stuff. But I'd like to think people would spend two minutes looking into it or at least read the rest of the thread before accusing a complete stranger of being a money-grubbing whore on a message board.

With all due respect, but there is more than one way for a whore to be paid. She may not have been paid by Deadspin--although they didn't say who they did pay (or how that person got the personal phone records). In any case, this has been the perfect media storm for someone who has no talent other than her looks. Just like her looks got her the job with the Jets in the first place, this story will now probably land her a gig in Playboy or perhaps a job on some stupid TV reality show. Trust me, she will turn her 15 minutes of fame into some cold, hard cash.

 

[az_prof]

You don't know that is what happened, because you weren't there.

You're acting like the report by the district attorney was never released, with information from multiple witnesses. There were 49 DVD's of information released.

Are we really going to rehash this again? Are we? You think Ben is a rapist. Many of us think he is a dumb drunk who made moves on a girl whose girl friends knew what was at stake and made it into what they wanted it to be. In any case, there was not enough evidence to even file charges, much less convict. That's the bottom line of everything the DA said. If he had had evidence of a crime, he would have charged.

 

[The Kerminator]

Well this is an odd development:

Sterger wants "proper resolution" that is in her "best interest"Posted by Mike Florio on October 12, 2010 11:07 PM ETOver the weekend, former Jets sideline reporter Jenn Sterger planned to cooperate with the NFL's investigation regarding the conduct of former Jets quarterback Brett Favre. More recently, reports have emerged that she possibly won't.Then came on Tuesday a cryptic statement from Sterger's manager, Phil Reese: "This is something that allegedly happened two years ago. We don't want a quick resolution, but the proper resolution." Reese wouldn't say whether Sterger is cooperating with the NFL or whether she has hired a lawyer, but Reese said that "we're looking at all our options right now and our only concern is what's in Jenn's best interest."Reese's use of the terms "proper resolution" and "Jenn's best interest" will serve only to fuel speculation that an ultimate decision not to cooperate with the NFL possibly was driven by Favre's decision to divert to Sterger some of the $16 million Favre is earning from the Vikings in 2010.Indeed, Reese's statement fairly can be interpreted as an open invitation to Favre to commence the process of negotiating a confidentiality agreement and/or a settlement of any potential claims. Otherwise, Reese wouldn't be talking about "proper resolution" and "Jenn's best interest." Instead, Reese would be saying that Sterger wants to do the right thing, and that if the NFL believes the information that has been reported by Deadspin compels an investigation in order to eradicate potential sexual harassment from the pro football workplace, then she has no qualms about telling her story.At a time when many are skeptical of Sterger's motives and agenda, it's critical that Reese do nothing to give credence to the theory that Sterger is merely making a grab for attention and/or money. So far, she's gotten plenty of attention without overtly courting it. As to the money grab, Reese's statement potentially comes off as the equivalent of a message to Brett that cash, check, or any major credit cards will be accepted.

So let's say Brett does pay her... can she refuse to give evidence of employee/employer workplace violation?

And then he'll have to pay off the other 2 women that came forward. I guess he's playing this season for free.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You don't know that is what happened, because you weren't there.

You're acting like the report by the district attorney was never released, with information from multiple witnesses. There were 49 DVD's of information released.

Are we really going to rehash this again? Are we? You think Ben is a rapist. Many of us think he is a dumb drunk who made moves on a girl whose girl friends knew what was at stake and made it into what they wanted it to be. In any case, there was not enough evidence to even file charges, much less convict. That's the bottom line of everything the DA said. If he had had evidence of a crime, he would have charged.

You don't have to be charged or found guilty in a court of law to be punished by your employer... Give up on the DA/court of law stuff..

 

[Bayhawks]

You don't know that is what happened, because you weren't there.

You're acting like the report by the district attorney was never released, with information from multiple witnesses. There were 49 DVD's of information released.

No, I'm not. The only 2 people in that room were Ben and the girl. He has never (publicly) said what happened, and her story changed several times. What the DA released or said, and the "witnesses" have nothing to do with what happened in that bathroom. Only Ben and the girl know.

 

[Bayhawks]

You don't know that is what happened, because you weren't there.

You're acting like the report by the district attorney was never released, with information from multiple witnesses. There were 49 DVD's of information released.

Are we really going to rehash this again? Are we? You think Ben is a rapist. Many of us think he is a dumb drunk who made moves on a girl whose girl friends knew what was at stake and made it into what they wanted it to be. In any case, there was not enough evidence to even file charges, much less convict. That's the bottom line of everything the DA said. If he had had evidence of a crime, he would have charged.

You don't have to be charged or found guilty in a court of law to be punished by your employer... Give up on the DA/court of law stuff..

EXACTLY. And that is what I've maintained is unfair this whole time. Legally, Ben, and Brett haven't been PROVEN to do anything wrong, yet they are punished by their employers (and by the public) without any proof that they deserve punishment. THAT IS WRONG.What if you are flirting with a girl at work, and she welcomes that flirting and does the same? She can later claim that it was unwanted and unwelcome, and you are going to carry that "stigma" of having sexually harassed a co-worker. Is that right?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Goodall suspending Ben means nothing, if he isn't going to be universal in how he applies this policy. He KNOWS that each of those men was charged/cited for the crimes mentioned, and in Rodgers' case, found guilty, but he does nothing, so saying "Goodall knew enough to make a determination" means NOTHING.

Again, you don't know what Goodell knows, and Ben's case was at least his second offense. And you don't have to get in trouble with the law in order to be in trouble with your employer.

So, let me get this straight. You are willing to accept, without any evidence, suggestion, or even rumor to support this belief, that the girl in GA was paid off by Roethlisberger, to make this "go away?" But you don't think it's possible that this girl willingly did whatever she did with Ben, and then after the fact thought "hmm, maybe I can get some dough out of this?" That's rather convenient logic, isn't it?

Sounds like you're inside my head.. Wow, how'd you do that?I never said she wasn't a willing participant, and I never said she wasn't trying to get money out of him... He put himself in that situation, with an under aged girl who he was buying drinks for... He's pretty stupid..

2 things:Was that NFL player Ben Roethlisberger? Didn't think so, so it's not relevant here.That makes your friend just as much of a sleazeball as the NFL player.

A-ha.. Got me with that rhetorical question.. glad you answered it for me.. I almost had to answer that one myself.. preesh ..The relevance is in the fact that most of these situations are paid off.. From growing up in 2 football towns and having spent plenty of time with athletes and in the bar management trade, I know this to happen often.. They make mistakes, not typically unprovoked, but most of the time with mutual fault, and it always was handled with an out of court settlement.And you're calling my friend a sleazeball for accepting money from a guy who injured him? My friend has a life, wife,m kids.. he didn't have the time or money to pursue this jerk, and just needed to have his expenses paid with a little extra for the inconvenience and move on.. Was he supposed to pay all the hospital bills himself? Who was supposed to take care of the bills when he was out of work? You're calling him a sleazeball? and me an idiot? You have any mirrors in your house?

Why is that silly? Do you not understand how our legal system works? Here's a hint "innocent until proven guilty" means he is innocent because he was not found guilty.

You don't seem to understand, he wasn't penalized buy out court system, he was penalized by his employer, for which he has a contract that allows such.. And in all of my days as an employer, I've NEVER had to have someone who worked for me, "found guilty in court" in order to suspend, dock, fire,m penalize... Not sure what the he-ll you're talking about...

Again, Ben put himself in a stupid situation, but that doesn't mean he raped that girl, or forced himself on her (it doesn't mean he didn't either, but we don't know that he did), and he lost 1/4 of his salary as a result of some girl saying he did something. That ain't right, no matter how you slice it.

I didn't say he raped anyone... I didn't say he forced himself on her.. But Goodell knows more than you and I, and has better access to evidence, so you claiming he acted in error, without knowing what he knows, or what Ben did, makes you a hypocrite.... You're condemning anyone who comes down on Ben without knowing the evidence, (even though you say he wasn't behaving appropriately) Yet you're trying to come down on Goodell, while you don't know the evidence of Ben's case, and you don't know what Goodell knows.....

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You don't know that is what happened, because you weren't there.

You're acting like the report by the district attorney was never released, with information from multiple witnesses. There were 49 DVD's of information released.

Are we really going to rehash this again? Are we? You think Ben is a rapist. Many of us think he is a dumb drunk who made moves on a girl whose girl friends knew what was at stake and made it into what they wanted it to be. In any case, there was not enough evidence to even file charges, much less convict. That's the bottom line of everything the DA said. If he had had evidence of a crime, he would have charged.

You don't have to be charged or found guilty in a court of law to be punished by your employer... Give up on the DA/court of law stuff..

EXACTLY. And that is what I've maintained is unfair this whole time. Legally, Ben, and Brett haven't been PROVEN to do anything wrong, yet they are punished by their employers (and by the public) without any proof that they deserve punishment. THAT IS WRONG.What if you are flirting with a girl at work, and she welcomes that flirting and does the same? She can later claim that it was unwanted and unwelcome, and you are going to carry that "stigma" of having sexually harassed a co-worker. Is that right?

So, you're saying, you can not be punished by your employer unless he proves you've done something wrong in a court of law? lol

Must be that I live in a right to work state, but I have no clue what the he-ll you're talking about..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I haven't missed a point, at all. I freely admitted he put himself in stupid situations. That doesn't make him a "sexual predator," "sexual harasser," "rapist," or "scum bag, classless bum." Are you saying buying drinks for girls one who happens to be underage is something he should get suspended for a quarter of a season? Are you serious? Have you ever met a girl in a bar and bought her a drink? Did you ask every single one of them to see their ID first? I didn't think so.

I've never gotten a young girl drunk and then taken her to the bar bathroom to have sex with her... And yes that is class-less regardless of his or her age...Buying drinks for girls isn't the issue, if you buy multiple drinks for a girl and then make sexual advances while she's drunk, you run the risk of being in a bad situation.Taken advantage of any drunk girl is class-less, and compound that by the fact he was the one getting her drunk, she was underage, and he's a celebrity... Ben's a dumb-a ss

Did you go to college? Do you ever go to bars? People go to bars TO DRINK. Buying someone a drink in a bar doesn't equal "getting girls drunk in order to make advances."

Buying someone multiple drinks in the bar and then having your body guard escort that person to the bathroom, and then having sex with her does..Also loads of college kids drive drunk, loads of college kids binge drink, whats your point? Young stupid college kids do many things they shouldn't.. If by comparing him to college kids you're saying he's still young and dumb and doing things he shouldn't.... I agree..

I'll re-iterate my previous point. NO ONE who buys a girl a drink in a bar asks for her ID first. So why should we expect him to have done so?

I re-iterate my point, it doesn't matter what you think everyone else does, if you give alcohol to someone under age, that's illegal behavior, In court you can't say "I didn't know" once you're handing out alcohol, you take on the responsibility of the law. "Ignorance is no excuse"

Oh, yes you did. You said he was "getting girls drunk in order to make advances." You don't know that is what happened, because you weren't there. Maybe she was already drunk, maybe she was high, maybe she didn't even drink the shots he bought. You don't know, but you stated it like it was a fact.

He was in a college bar at 28 years old to hang out with friends... he's buying drinks just to be a great guy.... Yea, she came to the bar drunk and high, that little tramp.. And then she was so drunk and high that she didn't ..want..another drink..? Sooo, huh? Ok, whatever.. you're right.. Ben was acting appropriately and was managing all his responsibilities and obligations correctly..

You also said he was "serving (in more ways then one) an underage college girl." You don't know what happened. She doesn't know what happened, evidently, as she changed her story several times. The only 2 people who know what happened in there are Ben and the girl. She gave several different stories of what happened, and Ben didn't say what happened, but you state, as if it were a fact, what happened.

"She doesn't know what happened".... "as she changed her story several times" Sounds like you know the story, why don't you tell it.. O'wait then you go on to say "The only 2 people who know what happened in there are Ben and the girl" So what is it? Does she know what happened or doesn't she? I didn't state anything as fact unless it was.. The "In more ways then one" part was strictly for my amusement, if you're going to bite on that, then have at it...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

That's twice you claimed to know more than anyone else, and that's the problem.

Never claimed I "know more than anyone else"

Ben is guilty, in the court of public opinion. He may have done what the women accused him of, or he may not have. It doesn't matter, because for the rest of his life, people (ignorant people like you) will think of him as having committed this act, even if he didn't.But if/when it happens to you, you'd change your tune.

If what happens to me? I don't think I'm Ben's type.. But now you have me scared.. lol

So why hasn't Goodall suspended Vince Young or Chris Jennings? Both men were arrested or cited for assault in nightclubs during the offseason? What about Shawn Rodgers? He was found guilty of having a loaded handgun in an airport? What about Braylon Edwards, who was arrested for DUI?

All of those issues were first time offenses and Getting under age girls drunk and then taking them to the bathroom is far less acceptable behavior when it comes to public opinion...

 

[dparker713]

Favre is no longer an employee of the Jets nor is he an employee of the NFL, and this would not qualify for a violation of the Vikings harrassment policy, so Im not sure any sexual harrassment policy would cover this situation - they'd need to use the player conduct policy. Some interesting angles in the NFLs ongoing anti-trust issues here.

 

[DoubleG]

Honestly, I think Goodell is walking a very fine line here. If he doesnt at least push the issue (or move the investigation along) - and things meander, then Favre announces his retirement at the end of the season, it looks (right or wrong) like the NFL turned a blind eye to the situation. It would then also wreak of a double standard, when compared to how quick the league has reacted in other "non-Favre" incidents.

Regardless as to whether the league hands down any actual disciplenary action, Goodell has to make sure things don't drag on. The league should finish up it's investigation (since that is the course of action it has committed to already), and make a decision about whether or not there will be repurcusions. And they should do it quickly. One way or the other. Letting it drag on is worse for most of the people involved and the league as whole (especially from a PR standpoint).

 

[Godsbrother]

Regardless as to whether the league hands down any actual disciplenary action, Goodell has to make sure things don't drag on. The league should finish up it's investigation (since that is the course of action it has committed to already), and make a decision about whether or not there will be repurcusions. And they should do it quickly. One way or the other. Letting it drag on is worse for most of the people involved and the league as whole (especially from a PR standpoint).

Agreed. I am already sick of it.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

If Sterger doesn't give testimony, and if it can't be proven that those are Farve's pics... All they have is voice mail recordings, which aren't incriminating... And I'm not sure you can prove those are Farve, but anyone who knows him well should be able to recognize his voice.

Sterger is the bigger story, but she didn't come forward with this herself, and she hasn't given a clear indication of whether or not she'd cooperate with the investigation. So, maybe nothing comes of this..

What might be more trouble, but I haven't heard or read much about, the massage therapist allegations.. Anyone have anything on that other than message board rumor?

 

[fatness]

So let's say Brett does pay her... can she refuse to give evidence of employee/employer workplace violation?

People develop memory loss and won't testify in criminal cases after being paid off, and the NFL investigation isn't as serious as a criminal case, so sure she can. "I don't really have any memory of that." So how much do Bus Cook and Brett offer to make this go away? If she talks to the NFL it'll get ugly --- Favre hasn't said it didn't happen so it's likely that it did. If it didn't happen he'd be right out in front denying it, saying how it hurts his family, and crying on camera.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Rotoworl:

Brett Favre-QB- Vikings Oct. 12 - 6:50 pm et

Commissioner Roger Goodell indicated Tuesday that he has no plans to meet with Brett Favre to discuss the racy voicemails, text messages, and photos allegedly sent to Jets employee Jenn Sterger in 2008.

Why would he? Despite the media's fervent attempts to turn this into a major scandal, Sterger never wanted Deadspin to publish the initial story, didn't provide the website with information, and isn't alleging sexual harassment. The NFL is looking into the matter, but it's hard to believe Favre will face serious discipline unless Sterger changes her stance.

Source: Daniel Kaplan on Twitter

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/playerpag...897&id=1744

Danial Kaplan on twitter

 

[Bayhawks]

Never claimed I "know more than anyone else"

Stating something as a fact that isn't a known fact is either lying or claiming you know something others don't (ie knowing more than anyone else). You did that twice, case closed.

If what happens to me? I don't think I'm Ben's type.. But now you have me scared.. lol

If someone accuses you of something, you deny it, there's not proof you did it, but you get punished anyway. Sheesh, you're not very good at reading comprehension, are you?

All of those issues were first time offenses and Getting under age girls drunk and then taking them to the bathroom is far less acceptable behavior when it comes to public opinion...

Cedric Benson wasn't a first time offense, but that doesn't even matter. Schefter came out and said that there didn't need to be "multiple offenses" for discipline. But, when you cited public opinion, you made my point for me. Public opinion isn't concerned with facts, truth, or what really happened. Because the fact is that Ben was at a bar, bought drinks for a girl who (he didn't know) was underaged, she was wearing a "DTF" sticker, they went into a bathroom together. You're saying that's worse than driving drunk, endangering countless other lives, physically attacking another person, or bringing a loaded gun into an airport? You're crazy.

 

[Bayhawks]

So, you're saying, you can not be punished by your employer unless he proves you've done something wrong in a court of law? lolMust be that I live in a right to work state, but I have no clue what the he-ll you're talking about..

I have to ask, are you really this dense, or is this just schtick?I'm not saying you can't be punished by your employer. Rather, I'm saying you CAN be punished by your employer, without proof, and that IS NOT RIGHT.I can't make it any simpler with words, would you like some coloring books?

 

[DoubleG]

So, you're saying, you can not be punished by your employer unless he proves you've done something wrong in a court of law? lolMust be that I live in a right to work state, but I have no clue what the he-ll you're talking about..

I have to ask, are you really this dense, or is this just schtick?I'm not saying you can't be punished by your employer. Rather, I'm saying you CAN be punished by your employer, without proof, and that IS NOT RIGHT.I can't make it any simpler with words, would you like some coloring books?

Just to clarify a point here. There's a difference between "public knowledge proof" and what Rodger Goodell finds out. That is to say that there may have been several things that Goodell knew about Ben (i.e. "proof"), that we, as the public were not privvy too. The same could hold true with Favre.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Stating something as a fact that isn't a known fact is either lying or claiming you know something others don't (ie knowing more than anyone else). You did that twice, case closed.

And what did I state as fact that isn't fact? You seem to be the only one stating facts here... You're saying Goodell doesn't have enough proof/information/testimony/facts to suspend Ben... But you don't know what he has do you?....

If someone accuses you of something, you deny it, there's not proof you did it, but you get punished anyway. Sheesh, you're not very good at reading comprehension, are you?

I'll say it again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT PROOF GOODELL HAS... YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT BEN ADMITTED TO IN HIS OFFICE... you have no place saying whether it was fair treatment or not... And Ben didn't deny buying an under age girl drinks, he didn't deny taking her to the bathroom, he didn't deny having sex with her... What did he deny?Reading Comprehension? Funny, seems to me, it's the other way around...

Cedric Benson wasn't a first time offense, but that doesn't even matter. Schefter came out and said that there didn't need to be "multiple offenses" for discipline. But, when you cited public opinion, you made my point for me. Public opinion isn't concerned with facts, truth, or what really happened. Because the fact is that Ben was at a bar, bought drinks for a girl who (he didn't know) was underage, she was wearing a "DTF" sticker, they went into a bathroom together. You're saying that's worse than driving drunk, endangering countless other lives, physically attacking another person, or bringing a loaded gun into an airport? You're crazy.

Cedric Benson had never been in trouble for a fight or any violent act before, that doesn't constitute recurring behavior..Getting a girl (under aged) drunk, having her escorted to the bathroom, and having body guards guard the door in order to have sex in the bathroom with a drunk, young girl... Is definitely going to be looked worse upon then having a gun in an airport (without intentions of using it) or getting into a fight in a bar (especially if you were hit first which seems to be the case for Benson)... Drinking and driving, while frowned upon, and illegal is a very common occurrence and more accepted by the public than getting underage girls drunk and having her friends held back while you have your way in the bathroom... Her friends were concerned enough that they tried to get her out of there.. If I count your insults and name calling, you're up to 5 offenses now, I'd think that if you were as smart as you think you are, and if you were as witty as you're pretending to be, you'd be able to conduct a discussion or debate without name calling or insults..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So, you're saying, you can not be punished by your employer unless he proves you've done something wrong in a court of law? lolMust be that I live in a right to work state, but I have no clue what the he-ll you're talking about..

I have to ask, are you really this dense, or is this just schtick?I'm not saying you can't be punished by your employer. Rather, I'm saying you CAN be punished by your employer, without proof, and that IS NOT RIGHT.I can't make it any simpler with words, would you like some coloring books?

Here again, you are only making yourself look "dense"... lolYou don't know what "proof" Goodell has... How can you say if it's Right or Wrong..Across the board, you miss the point... "Coloring books"? not sure you'd even get it at that point..."simpler with words"... Grow up and chill with the insults, hows that for simple words... you're in over your head to begin with, and it's obvious your insults are an attempt to distract from that truth...

 

[Bayhawks]

And what did I state as fact that isn't fact? You seem to be the only one stating facts here... You're saying Goodell doesn't have enough proof/information/testimony/facts to suspend Ben... But you don't know what he has do you?....

I already answered the bolded, you're choosing to ignore it. As for me not knowing what facts Goodell has; you don't know either, but you're assuming that it's fair that he suspended him, aren't you?

I'll say it again, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT PROOF GOODELL HAS... YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT BEN ADMITTED TO IN HIS OFFICE... you have no place saying whether it was fair treatment or not... And Ben didn't deny buying an under age girl drinks, he didn't deny taking her to the bathroom, he didn't deny having sex with her... What did he deny?

And I'll say it again, YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT BEN ADMITTED TO or WHAT PROOF GOODELL has, but you're assuming that Ben had sex with that girl, aren't you?For the record, in the letter Goodell released about Ben's suspension, the only thing he noted as being a "wrong act" was the buying of drinks for minors. Nothing was mentioned about the bathroom, or what did/didn't happen in there. Officially, the only act that was detrimental to the NFL was the drinks for minors. That is a fact.

And Ben has denied, through his agent, MULTIPLE TIMES doing anything wrong. I think forcing her to have sex would be covered under that denial.

Cedric Benson had never been in trouble for a fight or any violent act before, that doesn't constitute recurring behavior..

He was arrested in 2008 for boating while drunk AND RESISTING ARREST. He became physically combative with the police who arrested him. So that is "recurring behavior."

Getting a girl (under aged) drunk, having her escorted to the bathroom, and having body guards guard the door in order to have sex in the bathroom with a drunk, young girl... Is definitely going to be looked worse upon then having a gun in an airport (without intentions of using it) or getting into a fight in a bar (especially if you were hit first which seems to be the case for Benson)... Drinking and driving, while frowned upon, and illegal is a very common occurrence and more accepted by the public than getting underage girls drunk and having her friends held back while you have your way in the bathroom... Her friends were concerned enough that they tried to get her out of there..

Not sure if you're making this up or what, but Benson was the one who threw the 1st punch (shove) in that bar.As for the underlined, there you go again, either making stuff up, or assuming you know what happened. I haven't read or heard anywhere that Ben's bodyguards held the girls friends back, and we don't know that he got her drunk. Why don't you stick to the facts? Is it because your argument is stupid and baseless unless you make things up? OK, I got it.

If I count your insults and name calling, you're up to 5 offenses now, I'd think that if you were as smart as you think you are, and if you were as witty as you're pretending to be, you'd be able to conduct a discussion or debate without name calling or insults..

When I say you're being ignorant, that's not an insult, that's an opinion/fact. Ignorance means lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact, or uninformed. Your posts show you to be both of those.When I say your argument is stupid, that's not an insult, that's an opinion/fact.

The only time I insulted you was in my first post, when I called you an idiot, and based on what you've posted since, I stand by that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

[A bunch of stuff]

You should do yourself a few favors and: (1) take a sedative; (2) look up "recurring" in a dictionary; and (3) read the various documents at The Smoking Gun on Roethlisberger's alleged sexual assualt incidents before you defend him so breathlessly.

 

[Bayhawks]

[A bunch of stuff]

You should do yourself a few favors and: (1) take a sedative; (2) look up "recurring" in a dictionary; and (3) read the various documents at The Smoking Gun on Roethlisberger's alleged sexual assualt incidents before you defend him so breathlessly.

You should:read what is actually being posted.I'm not defending Ben. I've said countless times that he put himself in stupid situations.What I'm saying is that I don't agree with the fact that he got punished for violating the personal conduct policy, especially with the way it is enforced.He was never even charged with anything. The only "proof" that he did anything wrong is the word of a girl who put herself (as well) into a bad situation, and whose story was not consistent.All of this while others (Benson, Jennings, Rodgers, Edwards, et al) have not been punished for violating said policy, despite charges, arrests, convictions (ie-more proof) that they did violate the policy. And to add to the disparity, Schefter has reported that there is no need for "recurring" violations.All of this leads me to not have any clue as to whether Favre could be suspended or not. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to when this policy is enforced by Goodell.BTW-I've read the reports, thanks for your advice, though.

 

[sho nuff]

Rodgers?

 

[Godsbrother]

[A bunch of stuff]

You should do yourself a few favors and: (1) take a sedative; (2) look up "recurring" in a dictionary; and (3) read the various documents at The Smoking Gun on Roethlisberger's alleged sexual assualt incidents before you defend him so breathlessly.

The DA had everything The Smoking Gun had and much more. I suggest that you read the woman's conflicting testimonies (she gave multiple accounts) ad well as the testimony of Roethlisberger and the witnesses that night and tell me that you can make heads or tails as to who is telling the truth. The bottom line is there was no conclusive evidence that a sexual assualt had occurred and neither Roethlisberger nor the woman's testimony was credible enough to determine exactly what happened in the bathroom.Does that mean Roethlisberger didn't commit a crime? No. We just don't know what happened.I seriously doubt that Goodell has additional evidence that showed Roethlisberger was guilty of assualt nor do I believe that Roethlisberger admitted to Goodell that he committed a crime. Simply put Roethlisberger was suspended because he was continually putting himself in bad situations that were embarrassing to the NFL. Goodell had to do something.If Favre's story fade away quickly then Goodell isn't going to do anything. If the story doesn't go away then Goodell will be forced to do something.

 

[TobiasFunke]

[A bunch of stuff]

You should do yourself a few favors and: (1) take a sedative; (2) look up "recurring" in a dictionary; and (3) read the various documents at The Smoking Gun on Roethlisberger's alleged sexual assualt incidents before you defend him so breathlessly.

The DA had everything The Smoking Gun had and much more. I suggest that you read the woman's conflicting testimonies (she gave multiple accounts) ad well as the testimony of Roethlisberger and the witnesses that night and tell me that you can make heads or tails as to who is telling the truth. The bottom line is there was no conclusive evidence that a sexual assualt had occurred and neither Roethlisberger nor the woman's testimony was credible enough to determine exactly what happened in the bathroom.Does that mean Roethlisberger didn't commit a crime? No. We just don't know what happened.I seriously doubt that Goodell has additional evidence that showed Roethlisberger was guilty of assualt nor do I believe that Roethlisberger admitted to Goodell that he committed a crime. Simply put Roethlisberger was suspended because he was continually putting himself in bad situations that were embarrassing to the NFL. Goodell had to do something.If Favre's story fade away quickly then Goodell isn't going to do anything. If the story doesn't go away then Goodell will be forced to do something.

There is certainly not conclusive evidence. I never said there was. The poster wasn't just saying Roethlisberger was innocent of any criminal charges- he actually said that there's no proof that Roethlisberger even had sex with that girl. I suppose that's true in the sense that there's never any definitive proof of anything that happens between two people and isn't videotaped ... but if you've seen the Smoking Gun docs and pictures and you don't think they even had sex, I'd be curious to know whose, umm, genetic material you think they're swabbing off the bathroom wall. All I know is that three different women have accused Roethlisberger of improper and aggressive sexual advances. That's not proof of anything, of course, but it's pretty much unprecedented.to my knowledge for a completely innocent man to get three such accusations against him. No idea what goes on in Goodell's office, but comparing Roethlisberger's behavior and how it makes the league look (which is really Goodell's main or even only concern) to Benson or the other people the guy listed whose improper behavior I don't even know about is silly.

 

[K8!]

[A bunch of stuff]

You should do yourself a few favors and: (1) take a sedative; (2) look up "recurring" in a dictionary; and (3) read the various documents at The Smoking Gun on Roethlisberger's alleged sexual assualt incidents before you defend him so breathlessly.

The DA had everything The Smoking Gun had and much more. I suggest that you read the woman's conflicting testimonies (she gave multiple accounts) ad well as the testimony of Roethlisberger and the witnesses that night and tell me that you can make heads or tails as to who is telling the truth. The bottom line is there was no conclusive evidence that a sexual assualt had occurred and neither Roethlisberger nor the woman's testimony was credible enough to determine exactly what happened in the bathroom.

Does that mean Roethlisberger didn't commit a crime? No. We just don't know what happened.

I seriously doubt that Goodell has additional evidence that showed Roethlisberger was guilty of assualt nor do I believe that Roethlisberger admitted to Goodell that he committed a crime. Simply put Roethlisberger was suspended because he was continually putting himself in bad situations that were embarrassing to the NFL. Goodell had to do something.

If Favre's story fade away quickly then Goodell isn't going to do anything. If the story doesn't go away then Goodell will be forced to do something.

You have made essentially this same aregument in multiple threads over the months. It seems important to you to be able to maintain that we don't know, absolutely, what happened. No question you are correct. Now, putting aside what we don't know, what do you think?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

[A bunch of stuff]

You should do yourself a few favors and: (1) take a sedative; (2) look up "recurring" in a dictionary; and (3) read the various documents at The Smoking Gun on Roethlisberger's alleged sexual assualt incidents before you defend him so breathlessly.

The DA had everything The Smoking Gun had and much more. I suggest that you read the woman's conflicting testimonies (she gave multiple accounts) ad well as the testimony of Roethlisberger and the witnesses that night and tell me that you can make heads or tails as to who is telling the truth. The bottom line is there was no conclusive evidence that a sexual assualt had occurred and neither Roethlisberger nor the woman's testimony was credible enough to determine exactly what happened in the bathroom.Does that mean Roethlisberger didn't commit a crime? No. We just don't know what happened.I seriously doubt that Goodell has additional evidence that showed Roethlisberger was guilty of assualt nor do I believe that Roethlisberger admitted to Goodell that he committed a crime. Simply put Roethlisberger was suspended because he was continually putting himself in bad situations that were embarrassing to the NFL. Goodell had to do something.If Favre's story fade away quickly then Goodell isn't going to do anything. If the story doesn't go away then Goodell will be forced to do something.

Whether or not a "crime" was committed is 100% irrelevant. The difficulty comes from thinking you or any of us can judge Goodell's decision by the limited information that is available to us. We can't, because we don't know what he knows nor do we know the basis for his decision. He doesn't have to justify his decision to us, and he didn't. Therefore, while I agree it is an interesting and worthwhile topic to discuss on a message board or at the water cooler, I think we all have to recognize that we are all just speculating and I think Goodell and his decision deserve some deference. He's a smart guy. He didn't just fall out of bed one day and get named the NFL commissioner. He's not going to make a decision like that lightly, based on conjecture or guesswork.

 

[az_prof]

Cowherd, for the second morning in a row, is saying she was paid. I don't know what his staff knows or thinks it knows, but that's an asertion of fact. It's a bold statment to make without some source behind it. Could Cowherd be full of it? Sure. But so could Jenn and Deadspin.That's why the smell test comes into play.So Jenn, in a momentary lapse of judgment, tells a blogger friend of hers that Favre sent her some creepy photos of his junk and left some stalker-esque voice mails for her. Sure, I could buy that. I can believe Favre is a philandering sleazebag underneath that "aw, shucks" wrangler wearing veneer.But yet somehow the blogger friend not only has her account of what happens, but he also has the pics and the voicemails. I've seen the messages and heard the voicemails on Deadspin. That doesn't look to me like a careless, in-passing disclosure that she's been trying to keep under wraps. The screenshots and voicemails don't sound like the Deadspin guy surreptitiously captured them without her consent while she showed them to him for laughs while knocking down a few brews at the local pub. She actually handed the evidence over to him. She knew what she was doing when she did that.For her (and he) to claim now that he's gone public over her objections and she never intended to let this make it out in the open sounds a bit like cover to me. It's like the inside job where the inside man takes a lump on the head to avoid suspicion. She knows she has a credibility issue given her career arc thanks to fake boobs and Maxim photo sessions. So she gives the Deadspin guy the goods on condition that he gives her cover by claiming she didn't want him to release it and he's doing so over her objections.She's the poor, naive, trusting girl who gave this information...and voicemails...and pics...and facebook access to the bad, untrustworthy blogger because he was such a good friend to her and she thought she could trust him to never let this out. Riiiiiight.Funny that we have facebook messages, Favre's voicemails, pics of his junk, but we haven't seen any sort of "F' off creep!" or "I'm flattered but not interested" response emails from her to Favre. She tells Deadspin that she doesn't roll with old guys or married guys, but yet the only communications she saved were his to her, not hers to him. Hmmm.I have no problem believing Favre is a creep. I have no problem believing he's approached numerous women over the years with a sense of "F' me, I'm Brett Favre" entitlement.But I also know how Jenn Sterger got her shot. And I've seen how catty she was at the Ines story. So I also have no problem believing she could have had some flirtation with Favre, kept the incriminating (to him, not her) evidence for later use - a shrewd, calculating move, and tried to keep it under wraps until she could figure out how to use it. I think she probably played him to some extent back when it was going on. She got to where she is now knowing how to play the game, and knowing how to handle and manipulate men. I don't see how it's crazy to think something of that variety might have been going on here as well.I came across the rumor about her and Favre when the Ines thing broke. I'm guessing she realized she was about to lose control of it and this whole blow-up now is her trying to walk the knife edge of looking like a reluctant victim but still trying to figure an angle for her to get some buzz and attention. Maybe she does the talk show circuit. Maybe she does some interviews. Maybe she tries to become the poster-girl (she'd love that) for workplace sexual harassment.Who knows? I just know we're only hearing half the story and it doesn't seem to completely line up just yet. And the half we aren't hearing, Brett's side, isn't going to help him keep his marriage together. So we probably won't hear about it for a bit until the NFL is done with their investigation and decides whether to circle the wagons around Brett or tie him to a wagon wheel for the firing squad.

James, that is a great post. You pretty much analyzed it the only way it can make sense.The other thing: she hasn't made a complaint...yet. You are either offended by something, or you aren't. Initial reports were that she found it humorous but wasn't offended--and the fact that in two years she hadn't filed a complaint supports this. But then suddenly her lawyer is back tracking... It sounds like someone is waiting to get their little check in the mail.At one point do athletes lose their privacy and freedom? Does this mean that they need to hire middle men to approach women for them? We may not like this kind of behavior, but the NFL and media are going too far by prying into the personal life of these men. If they didn't break a law, then it shouldn't be the concern of the NFL; and if there is no complaint, then it isn't sexual harassment. The baseline definition of sexual harassment is that the person feels harassed; nothing Jenn has said indicates that she felt harassed.

 

[beef]

i'd put a sexual harassment poster of sterger wearing a skimpy skirt and showing some bra with a lot of cleavage in my office.