McBeane Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I'll admit I'm biased against Big Ben. Someone I know is good friends with the girl that was raped by Big Ben. They decided not to go to court due to the extreme publicity that the case would bring. I'm fairly certain that Big Ben did it; however, it never went to trial. If she had been raped, it would have been very easy to prove that Ben did it. There is a reason this never even amounted to charges being filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonestake Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I'll admit I'm biased against Big Ben. Someone I know is good friends with the girl that was raped by Big Ben. They decided not to go to court due to the extreme publicity that the case would bring. I'm fairly certain that Big Ben did it; however, it never went to trial. I assume that you are not a lawyer:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Vick was found guilty and convicted. Ben was not charged. Both have highly questionable character and are very immature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrojanitor Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Just heard that Big Ben will probably only miss 4 games this year. HUH? Compare Mike Vick's suspension to Ben R's suspension. When you do the comparison something doesn't add up. Big Ben should have been suspended from the league for at least a year, or maybe more. There is no excuse for rape or killing dogs. Both men should be out of the league. Your thoughts? actually Vick was banned for something like 3 games for committing a violent felony, while Ben is banned for 4 games for being accused of a crime. Vick was barely suspended, he couldn't play because he was in jail. The fact is Vick was treated with kid gloves and that's the part that doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 actually Vick was banned for something like 3 games for committing a violent felony, while Ben is banned for 4 games for being accused of a crime. Vick was barely suspended, he couldn't play because he was in jail. The fact is Vick was treated with kid gloves and that's the part that doesn't add up. Bingo! Vick got away scott free (or close) from the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I will admit Roger has no idea about handing out punishment. Same kind of thing is going on with Shaun Rogers... guy has already been suspended 4 games for violating the leagues drug policy... brings a gun to the airport, charged with a felony.... gets a fine, makes no sense. Lynch has the same gun charge with no prior suspensions by the nfl and gets 4 games... i don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I will admit Roger has no idea about handing out punishment. Same kind of thing is going on with Shaun Rogers... guy has already been suspended 4 games for violating the leagues drug policy... brings a gun to the airport, charged with a felony.... gets a fine, makes no sense. Lynch has the same gun charge with no prior suspensions by the nfl and gets 4 games... i don't get it. How about because every situation isn't the same and shouldn't be treated the same? Lynch was in a hit and run and there is a VERY good chance he was drunk when it happened. He embarrassed the **** out of the NFL (with a bunch of help from the BILLS, of course) with his actions both that night and in the follow up legal process. Then a story surfaces about him having a run in over a tip in a restaurant. Not long after he gets arrested IN HIS CAR with DRUGS and a GUN. How exactly is the NFL supposed to react when he committed similar WILLFUL acts? I really hope most of you are never in charge of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 How about because every situation isn't the same and shouldn't be treated the same? Lynch was in a hit and run and there is a VERY good chance he was drunk when it happened. He embarrassed the **** out of the NFL (with a bunch of help from the BILLS, of course) with his actions both that night and in the follow up legal process. Then a story surfaces about him having a run in over a tip in a restaurant. Not long after he gets arrested IN HIS CAR with DRUGS and a GUN. How exactly is the NFL supposed to react when he committed similar WILLFUL acts? I really hope most of you are never in charge of anything. so let me get this straight, its ok to be proven to be using drugs(not passing a drug test) which can be just as bad to the NFL and the team that it happens too. Then you bring a GUN to an airport and that situation should be treated differently? please explain. YOU GET CHARGED WITH THE SAME CRIME AS LYNCH DID. Rogers got off with a freaking FINE... no suspension at all. Im not defending what lynch did and i think you think thats what i'm implying... i'm simply saying that if carrying a gun gets you 4 games for 1 person, it should get you 4 games for another person... especially if both people have prior offenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 so let me get this straight, its ok to be proven to be using drugs(not passing a drug test) which can be just as bad to the NFL and the team that it happens too. Then you bring a GUN to an airport and that situation should be treated differently? please explain. YOU GET CHARGED WITH THE SAME CRIME AS LYNCH DID. Rogers got off with a freaking FINE... no suspension at all. Im not defending what lynch did and i think you think thats what i'm implying... i'm simply saying that if carrying a gun gets you 4 games for 1 person, it should get you 4 games for another person... especially if both people have prior offenses. The commish probably has a lot more info than has been made public. But I agree, on the surface it seems like an unusually light slap on the hand for Rogers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Your thoughts? I love lamps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 See here's the thing. I don't understand the media's love fest with Rodger Goodell. I really don't see anything positive from him being the commish. PLayers are getting suspended more i guess but I don't see the players slowing down anybit. Does anyone know if the number of arrests against the players had decreased? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 so let me get this straight, its ok to be proven to be using drugs(not passing a drug test) which can be just as bad to the NFL and the team that it happens too. Then you bring a GUN to an airport and that situation should be treated differently? please explain. YOU GET CHARGED WITH THE SAME CRIME AS LYNCH DID. Rogers got off with a freaking FINE... no suspension at all. Im not defending what lynch did and i think you think thats what i'm implying... i'm simply saying that if carrying a gun gets you 4 games for 1 person, it should get you 4 games for another person... especially if both people have prior offenses. How do you know Lynch got 4 games for carrying a gun? How do you know that Goodell didn't tell him after their first meeting that if he saw him again he was going to throw the book at him? How do you know that Lynch didn't act like a total dickhead both times he was in NFL offices? What do you know about the Rogers situation, other than the penalty? The answer is: YOU DON'T KNOW. You don't know the reason for the difference in the suspension so you automatically assume and quite probably your assumption is completely off base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Last i checked Goodell isn't a police officer, or a judge. He is at the same level as Paul Bart Mall Cop. comparing Vick to Big Ben is stupid. Big Ben wasn't convicted of a crime. Who really cares anyway. Goodell is a terrible commish and has done nothing for the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conch Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 (edited) Simple answer: there was no rape conviction. In fact, there were no rape charges. Much different that actually being charged and convicted with a crime. Better answer is that the rapist should be banned for the season. Quit sucking up to the athletes. Edited September 3, 2010 by Conch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Better answer is that the rapist should be banned for the season. Quit sucking up to the athletes. I imagine if there were some sort of evidence that he was a rapist, like a conviction or even a CHARGE, he would have been given a harsher punishment. So quit acting like you don't know the difference between ALLEGED and charged or convicted. It makes you seem as stupid as the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Better answer is that the rapist should be banned for the season. Quit sucking up to the athletes. If I were to call you a rapist, would that make it so? They didn't even press charges against him let alone was he convicted....try to pretend you understand the legal system at least as well as a 12-year old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doro Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I guess because OJ was not convicted, he was not guilty. We all know if Ben was a regular Joe, he would at least be charged of rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I guess because OJ was not convicted, he was not guilty. From a legal standpoint, that is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benderbender Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Has an NFL player ever been convicted of rape? Given the series of violent crimes against women that they're regularly busted for, I'm fairly certain the rapes have happened. The incidence rate of rape is high enough that the 1600+ active NFL players at any given time is just randomly likely to produce a few. But I can't think of any convictions. In any case, I would guess that a conviction would be career-ending for an NFL player, even if somehow the prison sentence didn't take care of that for Goodell. Beyond that, I don't think it's unfair for the NFL to use a looser standard than the criminal justice system for determining player suspensions. Goodell's the boss, as agreed to by all parties in the last CBA and probably again whenever they work the next one out. He can make his own calls on the evidence - and his cost/benefit analysis is different than a DA in pursuing charges. Until he seems to abusing that, I don't have a problem with it. He's certainly empowered to punish league employees for non-illegal activity anyway - spygate wasn't a crime, as far as I know. Speaking of the CBA, we'll have plenty of time to talk about that next year during the lockout next season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Just heard that Big Ben will probably only miss 4 games this year. HUH? Compare Mike Vick's suspension to Ben R's suspension. When you do the comparison something doesn't add up. Big Ben should have been suspended from the league for at least a year, or maybe more. There is no excuse for rape or killing dogs. Both men should be out of the league. Your thoughts? It wasn't rape, no matter how badly you want it to be. Perhaps you are mad that you could never hook up with a hot chick like that, so it makes you feel better to call it rape? Basically just another ho trying to make a buck off a famous and wealthy athlete. You saw how fast she went away once Ben fought back with his own attorney. She thought he would cave in and settle with some money so she would keep quiet, but he wasn't feelin' it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts