Packer's player party ends in allegations of sexual assaults (1 Viewer)

[Mark Wimer]

No question.

I do think the OP title is misleading, however. Right now there is an investigation and apparent allegations. We don't know enough right now to say "Packer's player party ends in sex assault"; no one has been arrested and obviously nothing has been proven in court. The headline suggests that we know conclusively there was a "sex assault".

Agreed. I have edited the topic to more accurately reflect the current state of investigations. That I did edit the topic today in no way indicates that I condone such alleged behavior. If the allegations are proven true, I hope the law throws the book at the perpetrator(s).

MW

Have we really gotten so PC that this doesn't go without saying?I mean are there really that many supporters of sexual assault on here?

I wanted to make sure that nobody thought that my editing of the topic indicated a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" attitude towards this sort of allegation. It's the sort of thing I wanted to make 100% crystal clear as a moderator for FBG's.

Fail, the guy is right. It is a sad statement of our society. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

Evidently you fail to understand the distinction between "allegations" and "conviction". A conviction results when allegations are proven true in a court of law, and then sentencing is imposed. An acquittal occurs when allegations are proven false.

Neither happens if the case is not pursued by a prosecutor. As I edited the topic to read "...ends in allegations of sexual assaults", I think it is clear that I was giving an accurate characterization as to the current state of the investigation, and that the accused was not yet "guilty".

HTH

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Reading now that the two adult women were patrons, not employees, but patrons of a strip club. While there these patrons meet the players and went back to the cabin with them. Reports from police are that the women have not been keeping their story straight.

 

[Balco]

Reading now that the two adult women were patrons, not employees, but patrons of a strip club. While there these patrons meet the players and went back to the cabin with them. Reports from police are that the women have not been keeping their story straight.

If this is made up, I hope the two women are charged with a crime. Or at least sued.

 

[roadkill1292]

Mr. Goodell, your can of worms has arrived.

Not really...unlike Big Ben...this is not a repeat offender (though, 2 women...so perhaps it should count). If charges are dropped...do you feel he should be suspended?

Big Ben was suspended by the commissioner ostensibly for actions that negatively reflected upon the league. "Protecting the shield". I don't think his suspension had anything to do with the Lake Tahoe incident. Based on precedent, yes, I think he should be suspended, regardless of what the investigation turns up.

Wouldn't it be nice if so many football fans weren't idiots and the shield didn't need protecting?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Reading now that the two adult women were patrons, not employees, but patrons of a strip club. While there these patrons meet the players and went back to the cabin with them. Reports from police are that the women have not been keeping their story straight.

OG Josh Sitton is quoted in the Press Gazette as saying that Underwood is "legally innocent of any crime." In other words, he's still an idiot and may have acted stupidly, but in Sitton's opinion (which may not matter much) Underwood didn't commit a crime.We'll see what happens from here.You would think after Roethlisberger that these guys would learn, but I guess not.

 

[sho nuff]

you want a guy suspended for allegations that amounted to no criminal charges whatsoever?

It has been known to happen.

With repeat offenses yes. I don't recall a single player getting suspended for one incident where charges were never filed at all.

 

[az_prof]

Certainly does not sound good.

I will wait til I hear more and hear who it was before saying too much.

But not the kind of attention I want for the team right now.

No question.I do think the OP title is misleading, however. Right now there is an investigation and apparent allegations. We don't know enough right now to say "Packer's player party ends in sex assault"; no one has been arrested and obviously nothing has been proven in court. The headline suggests that we know conclusively there was a "sex assault".

Agreed. I have edited the topic to more accurately reflect the current state of investigations. That I did edit the topic today in no way indicates that I condone such alleged behavior. If the allegations are proven true, I hope the law throws the book at the perpetrator(s).

MW

Have we really gotten so PC that this doesn't go without saying?I mean are there really that many supporters of sexual assault on here?

I don't think it has anything to do with political correctness. During the Big Ben discussion I said much the same thing--that I would wait for judgement in court and if he was proven to have done anything I hoped he would go to jail for a long time. People regularly asserted that I supported rapists and hated women.

 

[DesmondBishop]

It consistently amazes me that so many pro athletes put themselves in these positions.

Just cause they are pro athletes doesn't take away the fact that they like to party and get laid, does it? Not saying it is right, but doesn't shock me it happens, surprised it doesn't happen more to be honest. With money brings fame, with fame brings problems.

So what you are saying is:Mo money mo problems? That is very profound, perhaps you should write a rap about it.

 

[Chimp Magnet]

It consistently amazes me that so many pro athletes put themselves in these positions.

Just cause they are pro athletes doesn't take away the fact that they like to party and get laid, does it? Not saying it is right, but doesn't shock me it happens, surprised it doesn't happen more to be honest. With money brings fame, with fame brings problems.

So what you are saying is:Mo money mo problems? That is very profound, perhaps you should write a rap about it.

Or he had 99 problems and those #####es made it an even 100.

 

[Jeremy]

It consistently amazes me that so many pro athletes put themselves in these positions.

Just cause they are pro athletes doesn't take away the fact that they like to party and get laid, does it? Not saying it is right, but doesn't shock me it happens, surprised it doesn't happen more to be honest. With money brings fame, with fame brings problems.

I completely agree with your first sentence (if I was a pro athlete there would be zero chance I would be in a serious relationship.

I don't know. I think in this day and age a pro athlete would be wise to seek out a serious relationship and be a one woman man. I know that's not as much fun, but it's a whole lot safer in a lot of ways.

 

[Jeremy]

Won't be charge with rape, but might be for soliciting a prostitute

Well that's certainly better than rape, but I would expect a short suspension for Underwood.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I am much relieved this appears to be a minimal matters. I think the Packers should suspend him for putting his fellow teammates in a compromised position. What the league does here I do not really care if it is even remotely proportional to other recent discipline.

I must say, I am very disappointed to learn that whores have so little honor. Are there no standards in that profession?

 

[ScottyFargo]

They can rent women but not a boat? Poor form, Packers.

 

[Jim Dandy]

you want a guy suspended for allegations that amounted to no criminal charges whatsoever?

It has been known to happen.

With repeat offenses yes. I don't recall a single player getting suspended for one incident where charges were never filed at all.

On August 28, 2008, sources indicated that Jones was to be fully reinstated by Goodell.[64] However, on October 13, Goodell suspended Adam "Pacman" Jones indefinitely for violating the league's personal conduct policy. Jones was involved in an alcohol-related scuffle with one of his bodyguards at a private party in Dallas on Oct. 7. The league said the Dallas Cowboys cornerback will miss the next four games, and Goodell will determine the final length of the suspension after the Cowboys' game in Washington on November 16. In a letter to Jones, Goodell called the latest incident the continuation of "a disturbing pattern of behavior and clearly inconsistent with the conditions I set for your continued participation in the NFL."

-James

 

[sho nuff]

you want a guy suspended for allegations that amounted to no criminal charges whatsoever?

It has been known to happen.

With repeat offenses yes. I don't recall a single player getting suspended for one incident where charges were never filed at all.

On August 28, 2008, sources indicated that Jones was to be fully reinstated by Goodell.[64] However, on October 13, Goodell suspended Adam "Pacman" Jones indefinitely for violating the league's personal conduct policy. Jones was involved in an alcohol-related scuffle with one of his bodyguards at a private party in Dallas on Oct. 7. The league said the Dallas Cowboys cornerback will miss the next four games, and Goodell will determine the final length of the suspension after the Cowboys' game in Washington on November 16. In a letter to Jones, Goodell called the latest incident the continuation of "a disturbing pattern of behavior and clearly inconsistent with the conditions I set for your continued participation in the NFL."

-James

Read again where I said for "one" incident.pacman was hardly a first time or one time offender.

 

[Jim Dandy]

With repeat offenses yes. I don't recall a single player getting suspended for one incident where charges were never filed at all.

On August 28, 2008, sources indicated that Jones was to be fully reinstated by Goodell.[64] However, on October 13, Goodell suspended Adam "Pacman" Jones indefinitely for violating the league's personal conduct policy. Jones was involved in an alcohol-related scuffle with one of his bodyguards at a private party in Dallas on Oct. 7. The league said the Dallas Cowboys cornerback will miss the next four games, and Goodell will determine the final length of the suspension after the Cowboys' game in Washington on November 16. In a letter to Jones, Goodell called the latest incident the continuation of "a disturbing pattern of behavior and clearly inconsistent with the conditions I set for your continued participation in the NFL."

-James

Read again where I said for "one" incident.pacman was hardly a first time or one time offender.

You should have clarified. -James

 

[sho nuff]

With repeat offenses yes. I don't recall a single player getting suspended for one incident where charges were never filed at all.

On August 28, 2008, sources indicated that Jones was to be fully reinstated by Goodell.[64] However, on October 13, Goodell suspended Adam "Pacman" Jones indefinitely for violating the league's personal conduct policy. Jones was involved in an alcohol-related scuffle with one of his bodyguards at a private party in Dallas on Oct. 7. The league said the Dallas Cowboys cornerback will miss the next four games, and Goodell will determine the final length of the suspension after the Cowboys' game in Washington on November 16. In a letter to Jones, Goodell called the latest incident the continuation of "a disturbing pattern of behavior and clearly inconsistent with the conditions I set for your continued participation in the NFL."

-James

Read again where I said for "one" incident.pacman was hardly a first time or one time offender.

You should have clarified. -James

Its in the post you replied to...bolded now...I said as much quite clear on the first page too...that he was not a repeat offender.

 

[Jim Dandy]

Read again where I said for "one" incident.pacman was hardly a first time or one time offender.

You should have clarified. -James

Its in the post you replied to...bolded now...I said as much quite clear on the first page too...that he was not a repeat offender.

You said one incident, not the first incident.-James

 

[sho nuff]

Read again where I said for "one" incident.

pacman was hardly a first time or one time offender.

You should have clarified. -James

Its in the post you replied to...bolded now...I said as much quite clear on the first page too...that he was not a repeat offender.

You said one incident, not the first incident.-James

Read the whole thread...then get back to me.Better yet...start here

or

here.

Or use the quote of mine you replied to in full and see "for repeat offenders" part that precedes it here.

-Sho

 

[ookook]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Obv. I have no clue as to Underwood's (relative) innocence or guilt of a crime but a lot of people assumed those Duke kids were guilty of rape.

 

[Phurfur]

Per Rotoworld

Report: Underwood won't face assault charges Packers CB Brandon Underwood will reportedly escape sexual assault charges, but he could end up facing charges of solicitation of prostitution.The two women involved could also face prostitution charges. Underwood picked them up at Chubby's, a gentleman's club near Lake Delton. While Underwood was engaged with one of the women, the other was caught attempted to rob him. The two women were then thrown out of the condo, at which point they apparently trumped up the "rape" story. Jun. 8 - 1:59 pm et

 

[Idiot Boxer]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

 

[Phurfur]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

This was a repeat for Ben so how would that be consistant?

 

[Jeremy]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

Well it's sexual assault vs soliciting a prostitute. That's sort of a big difference. I'd say maybe 2 games for Underwood?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

This was a repeat for Ben so how would that be consistant?

His suspension had nothing to do with the Lake Tahoe incident. If anything differentiates the two, I would suggest that it is the evidence that he provided 20 year olds with alcohol. Otherwise, the two situations are very similar (except that only in Underwood's case was the woman honest about her profession). From the statement: "The personal-conduct policy also states that discipline is appropriate for conduct that ‘undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.’ By any measure, your conduct satisfies that standard.” (that was about Big Ben, but I don't see how that fails to apply to Underwood).That said, I figured a shorter suspension for Underwood because a) of deference to the Lake Tahoe incident and b) the disparity in media attention.The fact of the matter is that Goodell opened up a can of worms when he suspended Ben for six games without so much as a single criminal charge being filed. Enforcing that consistently is going to be difficult for him and this is his first test.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

Well it's sexual assault vs soliciting a prostitute. That's sort of a big difference. I'd say maybe 2 games for Underwood?

The women alleged sexual assault, as they did in the Ben case. Neither player was charged.

 

[Jeremy]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

Well it's sexual assault vs soliciting a prostitute. That's sort of a big difference. I'd say maybe 2 games for Underwood?

The women alleged sexual assault, as they did in the Ben case. Neither player was charged.

And now they've discovered that no sexual assault took place. You might want to catch up with the latest news regarding this incident.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

Well it's sexual assault vs soliciting a prostitute. That's sort of a big difference. I'd say maybe 2 games for Underwood?

The women alleged sexual assault, as they did in the Ben case. Neither player was charged.

And now they've discovered that no sexual assault took place. You might want to catch up with the latest news regarding this incident.

And you might want to realize that legally, no sexual assault took place in the Ben case.

 

[sho nuff]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

Ben had 2 incidents...it was not a single one. Underwood has had one, that to this point there are no charges.That is not consistency. Its consistent if he does not get suspended as Ben was not suspended for his first incident...

 

[sho nuff]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

This was a repeat for Ben so how would that be consistant?

His suspension had nothing to do with the Lake Tahoe incident. If anything differentiates the two, I would suggest that it is the evidence that he provided 20 year olds with alcohol. Otherwise, the two situations are very similar (except that only in Underwood's case was the woman honest about her profession). From the statement: "The personal-conduct policy also states that discipline is appropriate for conduct that ‘undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.’ By any measure, your conduct satisfies that standard.” (that was about Big Ben, but I don't see how that fails to apply to Underwood).That said, I figured a shorter suspension for Underwood because a) of deference to the Lake Tahoe incident and b) the disparity in media attention.The fact of the matter is that Goodell opened up a can of worms when he suspended Ben for six games without so much as a single criminal charge being filed. Enforcing that consistently is going to be difficult for him and this is his first test.

It had quite a bit to do with it not being a one time thing with him.Quit using this as a way to cry about Ben getting suspended for having 2 incidents on him.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Throw the book at him, he, and those Packers in the know who were at the party, are perpetuating the subjugation of women by engaging with prostitution. Break the cycle!

 

[Idiot Boxer]

To those arguing that there should be a suspension based on allegation, not charges or convictions: You seem to be saying that 2 wrongs make a right based on Ben. Of course, besides the fact that Sho points out that the situations are not all that similar, is not what I want to teach my kids.

If Goodell is going to admit he was wrong to suspend a player without any legal charges being filed against said player, then I agree, no suspension should apply here under the 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule.However, If Goodell stands by the Ben suspension as the 'right thing' for the league to do, then I certainly think it is consistent to suspend Underwood here. I'd say 4 games with a potential to have it lowered to two is logically consistent with the facts of the Ben case.

This was a repeat for Ben so how would that be consistant?

His suspension had nothing to do with the Lake Tahoe incident. If anything differentiates the two, I would suggest that it is the evidence that he provided 20 year olds with alcohol. Otherwise, the two situations are very similar (except that only in Underwood's case was the woman honest about her profession). From the statement: "The personal-conduct policy also states that discipline is appropriate for conduct that 'undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.' By any measure, your conduct satisfies that standard." (that was about Big Ben, but I don't see how that fails to apply to Underwood).That said, I figured a shorter suspension for Underwood because a) of deference to the Lake Tahoe incident and b) the disparity in media attention.The fact of the matter is that Goodell opened up a can of worms when he suspended Ben for six games without so much as a single criminal charge being filed. Enforcing that consistently is going to be difficult for him and this is his first test.

It had quite a bit to do with it not being a one time thing with him.Quit using this as a way to cry about Ben getting suspended for having 2 incidents on him.

Not using it as a way to cry about Ben getting suspended. I really have no problem with him sitting, I just think the commissioner has created a difficult precedent to follow.

 

[sho nuff]

Not using it as a way to cry about Ben getting suspended. I really have no problem with him sitting, I just think the commissioner has created a difficult precedent to follow.

Not that difficult...one time offenders have generally not been suspended. If and when Underwood has another incident, I expect a suspension...until then, if no charges are filed, I don't expect there would be one.If he gets cited for soliciting a pro...Id expect a 2-4 gamer coming for him.

 

[fatness]

His suspension had nothing to do with the Lake Tahoe incident. If anything differentiates the two, I would suggest that it is the evidence that he provided 20 year olds with alcohol. Otherwise, the two situations are very similar (except that only in Underwood's case was the woman honest about her profession).

Roethlisberger's suspension had to do with a pattern of behavior. If there's a similar pattern with the Packer, then you can expect similar results. The only can of worms Goodell opened was "allows more complaining from people who think Roethlisberger was unfairly punished".Nice of you to call the women in all the cases prostitutes, by the way.

 

[massraider]

Not using it as a way to cry about Ben getting suspended. I really have no problem with him sitting, I just think the commissioner has created a difficult precedent to follow.

Definition of a slippery slope.

 

[ookook]

Actually, I think Goodell had evidence that went beyond 2 incidents for Ben.

Remember, he had investigators going around asking questions and by all accounts Ben had behaved poorly on many occassions in the Steelers community.

Also, I would rather Goodell were inconsistent than consistently wrong. Being consistently wrong is not more "fair".

 

[CletiusMaximus]

We also know that Goodell interviewed Ben R. at least once. We don't know what was said in the interview(s), but I expect that was important to his decision. We know that his interviews with Mike Vick and Pacman were very important to his suspension decision, so I expect the same was true for Rothlisberger. I think it is very difficult to criticize Goodell for inconsistency in his decisions, where our knowledge of the underlying basis for the decisions is rather limited. I have no doubt that consistency is a goal and an important one.

 

[Truman]

Not using it as a way to cry about Ben getting suspended. I really have no problem with him sitting, I just think the commissioner has created a difficult precedent to follow.

There is no precedent or consistency in any of the decisions regarding the PCP. It's been this way since it was introduced, not just since Roethlisberger got suspended for multiple accusations of sexual assault.Yet the fans and journalists fawn over the policy because they see it as Goodell 'protecting the shield.'

 

[The Man With No Name]

Not using it as a way to cry about Ben getting suspended. I really have no problem with him sitting, I just think the commissioner has created a difficult precedent to follow.

Not that difficult...one time offenders have generally not been suspended. If and when Underwood has another incident, I expect a suspension...until then, if no charges are filed, I don't expect there would be one.If he gets cited for soliciting a pro...Id expect a 2-4 gamer coming for him.

The whole country knew of the Roethlisberger incident. I would bet not many people or even NFL fans will know about Underwood's incident because he is not a 'star', a qb, or even a starter. Whether or not that will weigh in Goodell's thought proces remains to be seen, but it would mine. National media was all over the Ben thing and won't be for Underwood's, imo.

 

[fatness]

There is no precedent or consistency in any of the decisions regarding the PCP. It's been this way since it was introduced, not just since Roethlisberger got suspended for multiple accusations of sexual assault.Yet the fans and journalists fawn over the policy because they see it as Goodell 'protecting the shield.'

It also hasn't changed player conduct at all. It's just PR, for show, made up one piece at a time. The league needs objective behavior standards, not one guy "considering all the available evidence" and making up a different solution each time.

 

[sho nuff]

Not using it as a way to cry about Ben getting suspended. I really have no problem with him sitting, I just think the commissioner has created a difficult precedent to follow.

There is no precedent or consistency in any of the decisions regarding the PCP. It's been this way since it was introduced, not just since Roethlisberger got suspended for multiple accusations of sexual assault.Yet the fans and journalists fawn over the policy because they see it as Goodell 'protecting the shield.'

I think some of you think its inconsistent because he does not give out the same penalty to every person.The consistency comes in that they review each case individually, for each offense, or mutliples...they interview the person involved and act, what he feels is accordingly.What is so wrong with it?I don't fawn over the policy...I think its decent and important to have. Some of you find ways to try and pick holes in everything.

 

[sho nuff]

There is no precedent or consistency in any of the decisions regarding the PCP. It's been this way since it was introduced, not just since Roethlisberger got suspended for multiple accusations of sexual assault.Yet the fans and journalists fawn over the policy because they see it as Goodell 'protecting the shield.'

It also hasn't changed player conduct at all. It's just PR, for show, made up one piece at a time. The league needs objective behavior standards, not one guy "considering all the available evidence" and making up a different solution each time.

So there should be a list of things...Get accused of X...Y number of game suspension?Come on...thats pitiful.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I note that in this instance it appears that the Cops did a timely and thorough investigation. They turned the information over to the D.A. quite quickly, and it looks like the D.A. is going to resolve the matter as to charges quite quickly as well. This contrats with how matters have been handled elsewhere with regard to players accused of criminal wrongdoing. I am pleased.

As to eventual charges, the D.A. would normally be hard pressed to prosecute both the hooker and the John. Typically they would need one to testify against the other and would have to cut a deal with one half of the transaction for testimony. Perhaps not so here. From reports it seems that the player has made statements that can be used against him so he may well get charged with a prostitution count, or two. The women, well, they apparently not only engaged in prostitution, but they filed false police reports, perhaps in furtherence of an ill concieved extortion plot, and are alleged to have tried to rob, or did rob the player. If I were the D.A. I would definately be throwing the book at them. Trying to involve the system in their illegal conduct is a rather exacerbating factor in my mind.

If the player is charged I hope he resolves the matter quickly and takes his medicine from the league quitely. Typically first time convictions for prostitution charges are resolved as misdemeanors with only a fine, and a relatively small one at that for someone with a players money. Likely less than he spent on his party.

I hope this whole thing gets wrapped up fast. Its relatively minor, but it appers it did happen. Best to just get it in the rear view mirror.

 

[sho nuff]

That and Underwood has apparently looked pretty good thus far in the offseason.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I note that in this instance it appears that the Cops did a timely and thorough investigation. They turned the information over to the D.A. quite quickly, and it looks like the D.A. is going to resolve the matter as to charges quite quickly as well. This contrats with how matters have been handled elsewhere with regard to players accused of criminal wrongdoing. I am pleased....I hope this whole thing gets wrapped up fast. Its relatively minor, but it appers it did happen. Best to just get it in the rear view mirror.

Although this seemed to be true at the time, the prosecutor has not yet made any announcements, the local police have reportedly been asked to do some follow-up investigation and Underwood and his lawyer are apprently in the dark. With training camp approaching, it now appears that our hopes for a quick and quiet resolution may be denied.