Quarterback controversy
The Ben Roethlisberger rape scandal just won't go away. Even though the star quarterback somehow escaped charges, the prosecutor's detailed description of events Monday angered and embarrassed team owners. Yesterday's publication in the Post-Gazette of documents associated with the case indicate that an organized, premeditated rape most likely did occur.In a statement made Thursday, Steelers president Art Rooney II would not rule out trading Roethlisberger. "We don't talk about trades in advance, that's been a consistent policy. ... The only thing I'll add is that at this point we have not discussed a trade with any other club."
I suppose there are many ways to interpret Rooney's statement, but one is that no other team has made an offer for Roethlisberger. The statement could be seen as an invitation to do so.
While no one approves of Ben's actions, fans have divided into two camps: those who support Ben and those who don't. I have leaned in the latter direction. Luckily, "what to do with Ben" is not my decision, but that doesn't stop me from speculating on possible scenarios. Here are a few:
1. Ben will be suspended for 2-4 games to start the 2010 season. He will return to the NFL as a villain who is booed everywhere he goes, causing emotional and mental stress for the quarterback and the team. If Ben has a bad year, his value in the trade market will plummet, but some team will be desperate enough to take a chance on the disgraced former star.
2. Ben will be suspended for 2-4 games to start the 2010 season. He will make a big show of contrition and go into high-profile treatment of some kind, after which he will return to the field and have a great year. He will start talking a lot about "the man upstairs" who is watching over him, and all will be forgiven. Ben Roethlisberger will go on to have a great career in the NFL but will be kept out of the hall of fame.
3. We will awake one morning to a story about how Ben has been traded to the Oakland Raiders for a sixth-round draft pick and a player to be named later.
No matter what happens, Steelers fans will enter this next season with much apprehension and concern. Because fans are fickle, everything will depend on Ben's (and the team's) performance on the field. If 2010 turns out to be another troubled, mediocre season, fan support and sympathy will evaporate.
As much as I'd like to see some version of scenario 2, I fear scenarios 1 and 3.
posted by M. | 7:39 AM
15 Comments:
We will take Big Ben! I have heard though that the Rooneys refused to trade Santonio to any AFC North team so I doubt Big Ben will be coming home to Cleveland. Not sure how the Browns faithful would take him wearing Orange and Brown.
As for the Rooneys trading him, I highly doubt that will happen. Santonio isn't an impact player such as Ben. You Steeler fans can say all you want about the Rooneys image, but they like to win games too. If they had such an image to protect they would have gotten rid of alot more players over the years. James Harrison for "dissing" the Prez, Hines Ward for his illegal helmet to helmet hits and Jeff Reed is a drunken asshole who should have been canned a long time ago. My point is Ben is more of an asset than a liabilty. They will get him some alcohol and sex counseling and be back on the field after his NFL suspension. Now if he starts screwing up on the field, then the Rooneys will say he wasn't living up to their image. Not to mention, Steeler fans booing him, trashing his house and making voodoo dolls of his likeness.
Browns fan--
A good analysis of the situation. As a Steelers fan, I want Ben to pull himself out of this, but you're right; if there is a trade, it won't be to the Browns.
It all comes down to whether Ben has enough stamina and character to get through it. Let's not forget that the Nevada civil action is still pending, and who can say that this won't turn into a Tiger Woods situation, with women coming out all over the place claiming Ben raped them? This thing could go in a lot of different directions, and it could get much worse. I'm certainly hoping it doesn't.
I think it'll be scenario #2. Except I think he'll still get in the Hall of Fame if he sticks around long enough to break all of Terry Bradshaw's records. He doesn't even need anymore Superbowls.
To my knowledge the only quarterback not in the Hall of Fame to win 2 superbowls is Phil Simms, and that's because his overall numbers are not very good. I think Ben's are already almost better.
They will let Ray Lewis into the Hall of Fame. They'll let Ben if he keeps winning.
The Browns wouldn't take him.
Good, I never stated my opinion; I felt I didn't have the right to judge another person, but I feel he deserves some retibution for the denial of his actions.
Maybe Ben did it. Maybe.
But it strikes me as problematic when there is pretty much no evidence suggesting it happened and the entire story is created using the so-called "victim" and her friends' story.
If you just printed Ben and his friends' story it would seem like he was celebrating his birthday and he gave a girl that wore a sticker meaning "Dying to F***" what she wanted.
I'm just ashamed at our society when you can make a claim with pretty much no evidence and tarnish a man's career permanently.
If he did it, that's one thing. But since they didn't even have enough evidence to CHARGE him, let along convict him, I'm sitting here wondering why the world isn't apologizing to Ben.
Groom--
Read the documents. There is plenty of evidence. I can't figure out why the prosecutor didn't charge him.
I've read through everything I can see. The Post Gazette website links have been broken this afternoon, probably due to exceeded bandwidth.
There was no medical evidence of rape, no DNA, no eyewitnesses of the rape itself.
There are a collection of girls saying one thing and a collection of guys saying another thing - nearly all parties being drunk.
I guess you could consider the motives of each side to lie. Ben doesn't want to be charged with rape.
The girls don't want to look like sluts.
Like I said earlier - innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't guilty, so I have to revert to the rule.
This story will continue to go on until someone else screws up and takes the spotlight. In reality the only thing Ben is proven of being guilty of is using bad judgment. The releases of statements are almost comical as they are extremely contradictory. In one the girl states she was escorted to the bathroom by a body guard and in the next she says she was trying to get out of there (vip area) and went to the only door she saw and it ended up being a bathroom that he (Ben) followed her to. Its no wonder there were no charges filed as she has no clue what the hell happened.
At first she says they didn't have sex then she says they did then she is to drunk to remember it all but then she says she told him no?
When reading these reports the reader should remember they are statements from one side, one side that was highly intoxicated and obviously confused as to what actually happened.
My entire point is that no matter what happened its the word of a drunken college female and her drunken friend that have been blown up to the point of tarnishing a mans career. It didn't even warrant a trial for a jury to decide which speaks volumes.
I am not defending Bens actions, mainly because I don't know what they were but surely I can't see how someone can be persecuted with such contradictory statements. It's just a misfortune for the qb that right now there is nothing else going on in the sports world for the media to focus on.
I am willing to say in a year or two this will be all forgotten about. As for the Hall of Fame, this incident will have no bearings on it if he warrants the votes.
The Groom said...
I've read through everything I can see. The Post Gazette website links have been broken this afternoon, probably due to exceeded bandwidth.
There was no medical evidence of rape, no DNA, no eyewitnesses of the rape itself.
[end quote]
I don't care one way or the other about the clown. However, I do get a bit miffed when a person doesn't have their facts straight:
'Grow up,' DA tells Roethlisberger while announcing decision not to prosecute rape case
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
By Dan Majors, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Read more:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10103/1049925-66.stm
[excerpt]
The GBI Crime Lab in Atlanta found human male DNA present, but because the sample was so minute, it would not yield a profile.
"The Crime Lab advised that extracting DNA from Mr. Roethlisberger at this point was futile," Mr. Bright said.
Forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, however, said he was "puzzled" that authorities knew the DNA came from a human male but could not profile the sample and compare it to genetic material from Mr. Roethlisberger.
"You don't need a lot of material," Dr. Wecht said. "If you have enough to identify material and have enough to identify it as male and you're not able to do a DNA profile -- I'm puzzled. I really am puzzled."
A scientist at Orchid Cellmark Inc., a company that does genetic testing, agreed with Dr. Wecht.
"If a lab is good with their technology, even from very small amounts of DNA, they can get a decent result," said Dr. Rick W. Staub, Orchid Cellmark's forensics laboratory director, scientific operations.
[end excerpt]
The fact is there was DNA, enough to determine it was from a male. Current technology in DNA makes it possible to take a minute amount and duplicate it over and over again until you have more than enough to do any and all the testing required for both sides.
Buckeye -
How does that make me incorrect?
How is the suggestion that he may have had sex with her imply that he raped her?
Also, who do you think knows if it could be tested: a third party scientist who has nothing to do with the case, or the prosecutor's medical team that is facing immense scrutiny because of national media coverage?
I don't think Ben would deny he had sex. Although he doesn't have to, as it is his right.
Proof of crime is what you need, not proof of legal sex.
Glad I could miff you today.
Groom --- you're the voice of reason in this discussion. Personally I'm sick of it at this point.
The Groom said...
Buckeye -
How does that make me incorrect?
[end quote]
Which part of this is confusing to you?
The Groom said...
I've read through everything I can see. The Post Gazette website links have been broken this afternoon, probably due to exceeded bandwidth.
There was no medical evidence of rape, no DNA, . . .
[end of quote]
I addressed the "no DNA" comment. There was DNA.
[quote]
How is the suggestion that he may have had sex with her imply that he raped her?
[end quote]
What constitutes evidence? Physical items constitutes evidence as does verbal accounts. DNA is physical evidence. The girl said she said she said no, Did Ben say she said yes, did Ben say he had consensual sex with her? Did Ben even acknowledge her in his 70 some second discourse. One article I read pointed out how that discourse was all a me me me discourse.
Rape is defined as penetration in Georgia. Penetration against the will as in she said no.
If one looks at the entire body of known facts son me things emerge (1) It was very sleazy behavior by Ben and his "bodyguards." (2) Occam's razor: something happened in that hallway/bathroom and it wasn't on the up and up. The girl didn't go down there by herself, this isn't a case where a girl willingly went to his hotel room. She was escorted, half drug down that hallway by an employee or buddy of Ben. Her friends say they tried to get to here but wasn't allowed to by Ben's employees or friends. There was physical evidence DNA on or in her body. If in her body penetration took place. She said she said this didn't have to happen then no. He didn't comment on her at all like she never even existed.
[quote]
Also, who do you think knows if it could be tested: a third party scientist who has nothing to do with the case, or the prosecutor's medical team that is facing immense scrutiny because of national media coverage?
[end quote]
Any scientist, doctor or technician who has a thorough understanding of DNA. Cellmark happens to be one of the pioneer and best DNA labs in this country.
The key comment was that they knew it was male DNA. The comment by the former county coroner and the Cellmark scientist focused on that comment. They both stated that if there was enough to ID as male the new advances (new since the OJ Simpson case in 95) would make it possible to duplicate that amount enough times to have enough to profile.
It would not be the first time that one lab wasn't able to accomplish something that a bigger better equipped with more experienced people was able to accomplish.
After reading through the available documents published by the Post-Gazette, it's clear that that a major reason Ben wasn't charged with rape is that the victim was too drunk to give coherent statement the night of the incident, and it seems that Ben's posse had a great deal to do with that. Another big reason is that the police were enamored with Roethlisberger and failed to protect the crime scene or take the victim seriously.
Ben wasn't charged because he's a big NFL star and his people protected him, as did the local police. As a Steelers fan, I wish this wouldn't have happened, but trying to deny it is no more credible than the Catholic Church trying to protect the pope for his inaction on rampant pedophilia amongst priests. Pretending that the facts are tiresome because they make the star quarterback look like the creep that he is seems like a weak argument.
Matt--check out today's letter to the editor in the review. the local tea party says that the tanning tax is a tax on white people only.
Post a Comment
<< Home