mike oxhurtz Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true After the first time, most people gave him the benefit of the doubt, but now that it's happened again, people know something is wrong with this guy. Granted, there was supposedly "not enough evidence" to press charges, but celebrities can buy their way out of trouble. If he gets suspended, good for him, he needs to stop putting himself in those positions, quit embarrassing the Steelers and the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wagner Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Should have been done a long time ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rust Belt Nights Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 you mean... Ruthlessraper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 If he gets suspended i hope the players union goes nuts. I don't understand how you can suspend someone who isn't having charges pressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 If he gets suspended i hope the players union goes nuts. I don't understand how you can suspend someone who isn't having charges pressed. Exactly. But I doubt even the NFL is that stupid. You want to talk about a lawsuit just begging to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Suspended for what? Being accused of a crime that there is no evidence he committed?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynchMob23 Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Conduct detrimental to the shield I believe is the reason they can. The NFL's personal conduct policy empowers Goodell to impose discipline on a player, if Goodell deems it appropriate, even if the player is not convicted of a crime. Link 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaBill Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Conduct detrimental to the shield I believe is the reason they can. Link 1 bingo, we have a winner. In the NFL, you DO NOT NEED TO BE CHARGED, MUCH LESS CONVICTED for the ayatollah, er, commissioner to suspend you, if he feels that your conduct has been a detriment to the league he may choose to suspend a player for any reasonable duration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 There won't be any suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 There won't be any suspension. Might as well wait until he rapes a 3rd "crazy woman" before doing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Might as well wait until he rapes a 3rd "crazy woman" before doing anything. "Rapes"? Which one's are those now? Maybe you have some information that no one else has, doc? If so, spill it. If not, then you've got to, for your own mental health, move on from your bitter betrayal by Mr. Lynch. Reality has to set in at some point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LynchMob23 Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 If we're throwing guesses out there, I'd say 2-4 games from the Steelers OR the league. I would say one from each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 "Rapes"? Which one's are those now? Maybe you have some information that no one else has, doc? If so, spill it. If not, then you've got to, for your own mental health, move on from your bitter betrayal by Mr. Lynch. Reality has to set in at some point.... You're better at the wild-assed theories doc. Remember how Lynch had to have been boozing-it up "in the bathroom" because no one saw him drinking that fateful night, unlike the countless other times he was caught bringing-in his own hooch? But actually in this case, you don't have to go too far, seeing as how a tape the cops (who had pictures taken with Big Ben) were reviewing until they suddenly and wholly unexpectedly got called away, curiously went missing. Or how he ("read between the lines" of the accuser's words, if not the DA's, doc) paid off the accuser, who doesn't want a trial because it will only drag things out and not because he's innocent. You're nothing if not (foolishly) consistent, doc. I could have written your reply for you. I guess I should call Lynch's victim a drunk crazy chick from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Suspended for what? Being accused of a crime that there is no not enough evidence to convince a 12-member jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed?? Fixed that for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Why are people so quick to assume an athelete is guilty? is it because they have money or are famous? I just don't get it. Getting investigated or arrested doesn't mean you are guilty. There is still due process. The same people who thought Big Ben guility in the first place before an investigation is done are usually the first to say that Big Ben's money/fame got him off the hook. It is a very ignorant attitude if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 12, 2010 Share Posted April 12, 2010 Why are people so quick to assume an athelete is guilty? is it because they have money or are famous? I just don't get it. Getting investigated or arrested doesn't mean you are guilty. There is still due process. The same people who thought Big Ben guility in the first place before an investigation is done are usually the first to say that Big Ben's money/fame got him off the hook. It is a very ignorant attitude if you ask me. Once is possibly a bogus charge. Twice is more likely a trend. Especially given the rarity of sexual misconduct charges against NFL players as a group. Big Ben may truly be innocent. But as an NFL player, and especially as a QB and star, he's held to a higher standard. After the first incident, he should have learned to not put himself in these types of situations. After the 2nd, he needs to be suspended. And that's what Goodell should do, if he wants to have the look of impartiality. But most likely, he'll just have the sit down and let it pass. Watch and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 people know something is wrong with this guy. He's ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 If he does get suspended, can we get a couple of volunteer women to say that Brady commited "Sexual Misconduct" against them? If it doesn't matter if they are convicted, and only have to be accused by someone, why not give it a try to get a few games suspension for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 After the first time, most people gave him the benefit of the doubt, but now that it's happened again, people know something is wrong with this guy. Granted, there was supposedly "not enough evidence" to press charges, but celebrities can buy their way out of trouble. If he gets suspended, good for him, he needs to stop putting himself in those positions, quit embarrassing the Steelers and the NFL. he bought off the victim with an undisclosed settlement without her testimony, there was no way to get a conviction hard to believe people still defend this guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpoolkev Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 The RAPIST should be suspended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 he bought off the victim with an undisclosed settlement without her testimony, there was no way to get a conviction hard to believe people still defend this guy I have no idea if he is guilty or not (and frankly I don't care) ... and neither do you. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or did I miss the part about that not being the case for famous people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpoolkev Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 I have no idea if he is guilty or not (and frankly I don't care) ... and neither do you. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or did I miss the part about that not being the case for famous people. Really he is guilty because his dumb self put himself in that postion.....................here we want to demonize Vick or Marshawn for there transgressions but you want to give Rothlesburger a " l have no idea , what happened to innocent until proven guilty crap. He should have known better he is only a Superbowl winning QB that was charged with the same thing only 9 months ago........................................Any one that try to defend this Rapist better not say about Vick or Marshawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 bingo, we have a winner. In the NFL, you DO NOT NEED TO BE CHARGED, MUCH LESS CONVICTED for the ayatollah, er, commissioner to suspend you, if he feels that your conduct has been a detriment to the league he may choose to suspend a player for any reasonable duration. TOM BRADY RAPED ME!!!!!!TOM BRADY RAPED ME!!!!!!TOM BRADY RAPED ME!!!!!! Suspend him Goodell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Really he is guilty because his dumb self put himself in that postion.....................here we want to demonize Vick or Marshawn for there transgressions but you want to give Rothlesburger a " l have no idea , what happened to innocent until proven guilty crap. He should have known better he is only a Superbowl winning QB that was charged with the same thing only 9 months ago........................................Any one that try to defend this Rapist better not say about Vick or Marshawn Whats wrong with you man? I seriously dont beleive he raped anyone. There is not any evidence pointing to it, only 2 girls claiming he did. In both instances, there have been more witnesses tesifying on Bens behalf than the accusers - none testifying for the first accuser. Ease up on the Big Ben hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 he bought off the victim with an undisclosed settlement without her testimony, there was no way to get a conviction hard to believe people still defend this guy Or maybe she decided to cut her losses when she figured out she wouldnt get any money out of Ben, or decided she didnt want to be charged with Purgery. Face it, after the first completely bogus charge, Big Ben became a huge target for other scum bag gold diggers. I remember the Duke lacrosse team was crucified before anyone wanted to think that maybe, just maybe, they didnt do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 he bought off the victim with an undisclosed settlement without her testimony, there was no way to get a conviction hard to believe people still defend this guy i love how you post your opinion as fact. Please provide a link showing that Ben paid the victim off. i agree that Ben needs to use better judgement with women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Or maybe she decided to cut her losses when she figured out she wouldnt get any money out of Ben, or decided she didnt want to be charged with Purgery. Face it, after the first completely bogus charge, Big Ben became a huge target for other scum bag gold diggers. I remember the Duke lacrosse team was crucified before anyone wanted to think that maybe, just maybe, they didnt do it! or maybe she had no need to subject herself to a criminal trial since she got enough money as compensation for the sexual abuse inflicted by a self-important prima donna with his own muscle and cover-up team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offyourocker Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Might as well wait until he rapes a 3rd "crazy woman" before doing anything. +1. People have been suspended for a lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Fixed that for you. No, clearly you 'fixed it' for you. The first nutty woman was completely discredited and exposed as a liar. The second one? Who knows, but it takes more than the word of a drunk groupie to label a guy as a rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 or maybe she had no need to subject herself to a criminal trial since she got enough money as compensation for the sexual abuse inflicted by a self-important prima donna with his own muscle and cover-up team Yeah, no kidding, Spartacus. I found it interesting to say the least that he travels with two cops as part of his entourage, one who reportedly blocked the restroom door during the alleged incident. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a rapist because I don't really know. But judging from the testimony of Pittsburgh area residents and Steelers fans, Big Ben is quite an A-hole. Terry Bradshaw is only the latest and most prominent member of Steelers Nation to cast negativity upon R'berger. Despite his undisputed greatness as a football player, the guy is not well-liked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 She's underage and -by all accounts- highly intoxicated. Big Bone invites her to his V.I.P. setting -probably because he's fallen deeply in love with her and wants her to meet his family... She leaves to use the ladies room. BB follows her soon after -right into the stall she's using. Moments later, she runs from the place and tells a cop she's just been sexually assualted and is immediately taken to a hospital. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/12/21...hlisberger.html A highly intoxicated 20 year old successfully duped an unwitting 28 year old into a false rape charge with forethought and malice.. riiiiiiiight... He's ugly. This too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Really he is guilty because his dumb self put himself in that postion.....................here we want to demonize Vick or Marshawn for there transgressions but you want to give Rothlesburger a " l have no idea , what happened to innocent until proven guilty crap. He should have known better he is only a Superbowl winning QB that was charged with the same thing only 9 months ago........................................Any one that try to defend this Rapist better not say about Vick or Marshawn I don't believe I have ever demonized Vick or Lynch. But at least there was no doubt of their guilt. They were proven guilty and/or caught in the act. "Big Ben" was not ... at least not yet. Big difference there. But I wouldn't expect someone who makes a statement like is bolded above to recognize that. Just out of curiosity, how do you know he raped anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 a 3rd incident ? http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/neweng...uper-troubling/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 a 3rd incident ? http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/neweng...uper-troubling/ "They're piling on!" "he's an unfortunate byproduct of his celebrity!" "No charges= NOT Guilty!" "Poor guy... he can't even attend Sunday Services without being harassed by golddigging little old ladies!'' <sarcasm off> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 a 3rd incident ? http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/neweng...uper-troubling/ That sounds a lot like libel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 That sounds a lot like libel. By all accounts he is too good a lawyer to do that. But remember, in cases like these no matter who wins and who loses, the only people guaranteed to make money are all the lawyers. I like this line too: Six months ago I was retained by a client of mine and a close friend to investigate allegations against Ben Roethlisberger in a Las Vegas nightclub that were absolutely identical to this Georgia girl’s story,” When do lawyers "investigate allegations"? That's the job of the police. Lawyers get involved when they smell money. I'm not saying he is not a scumbag rapist any more than I am saying that he is one. But if you want to see a guaranteed scumbag, look at the attorneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 You're better at the wild-assed theories doc. Remember how Lynch had to have been boozing-it up "in the bathroom" because no one saw him drinking that fateful night, unlike the countless other times he was caught bringing-in his own hooch? But actually in this case, you don't have to go too far, seeing as how a tape the cops (who had pictures taken with Big Ben) were reviewing until they suddenly and wholly unexpectedly got called away, curiously went missing. Or how he ("read between the lines" of the accuser's words, if not the DA's, doc) paid off the accuser, who doesn't want a trial because it will only drag things out and not because he's innocent. You're nothing if not (foolishly) consistent, doc. I could have written your reply for you. I guess I should call Lynch's victim a drunk crazy chick from now on. Yeah--it's "crazy" to imagine a guy who is famous (infamous) for sneaking booze into his soda when he is publically drinking would yield few witnesses to his....boozing. You really can't understand this?? Of course you can--you're a bright guy. As for the conspiracy--a tape of two people going into a bathroom in a bar (where they presumedly had some sort of sexual contact---and which is not in dispute) disappears. What do you imagine was on that tape---did they use one of those Erin Andrews "reverse peephole" cams?? When was this pay off? I'd rather be "foolishly consistent" than one who makes stuff up or choses to rewrite history so they can rest better at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Yeah--it's "crazy" to imagine a guy who is famous (infamous) for sneaking booze into his soda when he is publically drinking would yield few witnesses to his....boozing. You really can't understand this?? Of course you can--you're a bright guy. As for the conspiracy--a tape of two people going into a bathroom in a bar (where they presumedly had some sort of sexual contact---and which is not in dispute) disappears. What do you imagine was on that tape---did they use one of those Erin Andrews "reverse peephole" cams?? When was this pay off? I'd rather be "foolishly consistent" than one who makes stuff up or choses to rewrite history so they can rest better at night. Wait, how did Lynch get caught bringing his own booze into bars? Did he give himself up? Um, no, people saw him drinking. And with his (apparently well known, as per that scathing Buffalo Snooze article) history, seems like bars would have kept tabs on him whenever he visited to a) make sure he didn't do it again or b) document it for future reference. Why you believe he had to resort to drinking in the bathroom is anyone's guess, but I suppose you need it to rest better at night, knowing that you were the one to crack the case of how Lynch escaped detection, while the DA, police and Buffalo Snooze failed (although I'm sure the police unexpectedly lost the videotape of the bathroom cam on that one as well). And if he wasn't impaired, everything else just falls apart. Poof. Oh and about Lynch betraying me, I'd have felt betrayed if he'd "mowed down" another pedestrian, or got a DUI, or even been caught publicly intoxicated. The bogus weed and the legit gun charge were a big "WGAF," until Sir Roger used it to suspend him. Again if only he'd gone after Marshall or Roethlisberger as fervently, there probably wouldn't have been repeat episodes. As for Small Ben, if he were a Bills player, you'd have run him out of town awhile ago. I don't know what your fondness for him is, whether it's because he's won SB's, is a QB, isn't a "thug" from Oakland with dreds, "only" raped women instead of running them over, etc., but the hypocrisy is evident to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 That sounds a lot like libel. there is no libel when the statement is true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts