Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by JWarren14, Sep 3, 2010.
Reduced from 6 to 4, wish Cush got some slack.
Good to know multiple sexual assault offenses is the moral equivalent of using performance enhancing drugs, NFL.
Goodell is going to need some damn good answers to justify this.
He was never found guilty or even charged, I'm not sure why he is being suspended at all...
I can see the conversation now...
Big Ben: "Hey Rog...hows it going buddy?!" *Big man hug*
Commish: "About to get better Ben. I hear you haven't got any young chicks drunk recently, and pressured them into having sex with you?"
Big Ben: "Not that YOU know of!"
Commish: "HEY-OHHH!!!" *High fives all around*
Big Ben: "So...I don't think I'm gunna need all that 6 week vacation - I think I'll be back from Hawaii after 4 weeks instead."
Commish: "No problems buddy!"
Same reason pacman was suspended without convictions.
If you're constantly accused of the same crime, regardless of convictions, it begins to show poor life choices. Athletes are held to a higher standard. Its part of the deal they know going in.
Would you get fined from your employer for riding a motorcyle with no helmet no?
And PacMan was never convicted.
You'd have to be pretty naive to think that Ben is a victim in this situation.
We are all thinking the same thing.
Pacman - reduced (wasn't he?)
Rothlesburger - multiple allegations of sexual misconduct or rape and reduced
Off the field I guess isn't as bad as on the field. Now if Pacman was to make it rain on the field or Ben was to assault a cheerleader on the field then those would be upheld.
Way to go Goodell. Draw a hardline on failing tests, but not sexual assualt
I don't Cushings suspension shortened just because of Rothlessberger shortened because I don't want it to seem that I support Goodell's decision in any way. I would rather a message be sent to Rothlessberger.
Maybe the message Goodell is sending is don't call me I'll call you about reducing suspensions.
hmmmmm, not quite sure what to make of this when Cushing's suspension was not changed. Obviously, different offenses, but still...
How is Gooddell drawing a hard line? The penalty for illegal substances is spelled out in ink in the CBA, IIRC. Unless Gooddell was the guy who negotiated that particular clause back before he was even commish, I don't get your slant.
Of course the penalties for the different offenses don't line up. But one is a negotiated set-in-stone ahead of time penalty, and one is a subjective penalty levied on a guy that wasn't found guilty of anything except being in a bar. I'm not defending Rapistberger, because I really do believe he got away with rape, but unlike a confirmed blood test (which is confirmed multiple times), Rapistberger's penalty is some nebulous, subjective penalty dreamed up and applied at the whim of the commish.
Imagine if you got arrested for drunk driving. The penalties for drunk driving are pretty clear cut, within a range. The blood test comes back at .15 or something, and the evidence is airtight. You're getting whatever penalty it is that you deserve. Now imagine if you were walking down the street and gave a cop some lip. He arrests you for disorderly conduct, which is about the most nebulous charge there is. What's your penalty? The real answer is whatever the cop decides to give you. Even if you get off that charge in court, that cop is going to subjectively punish you in every way he can get away with. And you have no recourse.
So the analogy isn't perfect, but hopefully you take my point.
I'm not pretending to know what exactly happened, maybe he is a piece of **** rapist.
The way I see it though, the first girl waited a year to come out with allegations. Then she doesn't file a criminal complaint, she filed a lawsuit in an attempt to seek money instead. Just my humble opinion but it seemed a little fishy to me.
If I'm not mistaken the second girl had a rape kit performed on her which found no evidence of rape. So basically there are two accusations with no forensic or physical evidence, no witnesses, no way of proving wrong doing of any kind. The DA decided that there was not enough evidence to bring charges.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning treating woman poorly in any way shape or form. I'm just saying that with the facts that I have available to me I can't say conclusively that he did or did not act inappropriatly.
My fiancee works at a battered womens clinic, so believe me when I say that I've heard the horrible stories that happen everyday. Hell, I think we should apply the death penalty to rapists, but the worst thing I can think of other than being raped would be being accused of a rape you didn't commit.
Good point. It is obvious who has thought this out a little more.
However to explain what I am interpreting by Roger's actions is Roger will say in the beginning I will come down on and set my own rules. But, then I, Roger, can then adjust it for whatever reason. It reminds me of a political move. Standing firm first with a 6 game suspension, but then folding because maybe the public isn't as heated and the Steelers do have a large fan base.
So, Cushing is getting what he deserved by what the rules say. I just don't think someone should back peddle on his first judgement call because it opens the door to the question why him and not me. Especially in this case where alleged rape multiple time is worse than steriods.
I guess choose what you get caught for. If you do something wrong, do it off the field where there is less rules governing the punishment. And it also doesn't matter what you get caught for or suspected of doing multiple times.
I hope this explains my reasoning a little more.
I can understand the perspective though...which one more directly affects the league? In theory, one directly effects the performance on the field, the other is a publicity nuisance. As stated previously, the one in the CBA is iron-clad, "behaviour" is judgmental.
Oh, I agree with that. Irrespective of anything else, Rapistberger should not have his sentence reduced. If you come down with a punishment, stick to it. That issue aside (or rather, tied into it, I guess), I hate subjectivity in these sorts of things. If everyone knows what they're getting into (like the drug suspensions), then there's really no room to complain. Cushing knew what the penalty was for getting caught with too much woman in his system, so he really can't complain. Rapistberger's defenders actually have a somewhat legitimate complaint against Gooddell.
Didn't Goodell say at the time the 6 game suspension was announced that it would be reviewed down the road for a possible reduction to 4 games?
How is that being inconsistent, or not holding firm on this intial stance?
To be honest, I haven't followed the story much, so I was not aware of Goodell saying that.
It just seems - to me - that the message being sent by the league is a bit ambiguous. Big Ben's offenses were good enough for 6 games when the suspension was issued, but now that time has passed, the league arbitrarily decides to reduce it. He still did something bad because he's got a 4 game suspension, but not bad enough for 6? It's a very strange perspective and it does cloud the issue a bit. The league is still punishing him for an unproven crime, but the judgment call makes it kind of weird...to me, at least.
And part of me was also thinking about Mr. NcNair pleading Cushing's case to the commish, but since the CBA and penalties are iron-clad set in stone, perhaps the commish simply doesn't have the power to overturn or reduce that particular suspension. I wonder if the commish has the power if the medical evidence was strong enough, though...
Neither Cushing or Ben deserve a reduction.
I'm not either. The guy has never even been charged with a crime.
And I knew people in here would try to compare this to Cush. They are completely different cases and they are not comparable at all.
I wouldn't have had a problem with the idea of 6 games with no possibility of it being reduced, however - that wasn't what was done - the possibility of reduction has been there from the announcement.
There's a couple of differences between this and Cush that I think are legitimate. First, there's precedent and guidelines in the suspension for violation of the PED policy. Just like the league couldn't have given Cush 6 games - even if they'd really wanted to, they didn't have a mechanism in place for reducing the 4 game suspension once it was upheld on appeal.
Secondly, Ben responded to the suspension by following up on everything they asked him to do. He went through some sort of psychological evaluation, and from everything I've heard is doing everthing they've asked him to do and more. Not that it matters (see previous paragraph), but Cush responded to his suspension by declaring that he had overtrained athlete syndrome. Not by taking responsibility, or even realizing he was in a no win situation and simply keeping his mouth shut.
Is what Ben did a worse crime/act against society than what Cush did? By leaps and bounds it's worse - not even close. Then again, Roger Goodell isn't the commissioner of Society, he's not a police officer, he's not a judge - he's the commissioner of the NFL. Just like Pete Rose's gambling offense was more of a crime against baseball than some more heinous crimes, violation of the PED policy (under the assumption it potentially provides a competitive advantage over an opponent) is arguably more of a crime against the NFL than something that happens "outside the game". You may agree or disagree with that general premise, but it's the same principle.
The crime was putting the NFL in a bad light publicity wise and why they were disciplined. Had nothing to do with being tried or convicted by judicial system.
Separate names with a comma.