Stillers Fans at DEFCON 1- Big Ben Accused Again (Update- No Charges Filed)

So now you are talking about suspending him based on what you think he might do? Come on, Oz. It's a terrible comparison.

With Roethlisberger we have one accusation that has some validity to it. Whether or not he actually committed a crime is in question, but at the very least he behaved horribly. The other accusation, again, I suggest you read some of the stories that have been written about it. That one really has no business even being considered except for the fact that he should have been a hell of a lot smarter in the way he acted while that was still pending.

And to be clear, I don't have a Roethlisberger jersey, either. Only gear I have is a couple of hats, a couple of t-shirts and a Terrible Towel.

 

I'm not talking about suspending him based on what I think he might do. I'm talking about suspending him based on what he did do, because whatever it was, it's been bad for business for both the NFL and one of its marquee franchises. Given this isn't the first time he's made the news for this, the NFL can suspend him without thinking twice.

Keep making negative headlines, and you will force Goodell to take action.

 

Do you really think there is any validity at all to the first accusation? Doesn't there have to be if you are going to bring the "repeat offender" into the discussion? Sorry, but I don't see how it is fair to use that as evidence.

And you were the one who brought up what he might do, so obviously it is part of your reasoning.

 

Sorry, Iron Chet beat Lugnuts to the punch with this predictable slobbering rant -- which by the way proves my point.

Just like taking your panties off is not giving consent, neither is having your dick out giving consent.

 

The first accusation will be the least of his concerns, given the second Georgia woman coming up today, the Vegas claim made by the Boston attorney, etc. The Rooneys and the NFL will wait until after the draft to make a decision on Roethlisberger's suspension -- that's a lot of time for more stories about more women to surface.

Personally, I don't want to think about what Roethlisberger might do next. If you have people who repeat bad behavior -- the more stories that surface, the more Roethlisberger might seem to fit this description -- some negative reinforcement isn't exactly a bad idea. I never threw that out there about Roethlisberger specifically, but about NFL players in general. You took it to mean Roethlisberger.

 

My rant notwithstanding if I missed your point, my bad.

Not sure I understand your "pulling out your dick" consent point.

 

There are a whole lot of things that are bad for business that can't and shouldn't be legislated.

And please show me, in terms of dollars and cents, how this has hurt the NFL? Has one Steelers fan, even one, turned in his season tickets? Has one major sponsor dropped out of sponsoring the league? Has the TV networks asked for a refund?

None of that has happened - or even been threatened to happen.

So again, we are going to suspend a guy not charged with any crime based on some arbitrary fictional idea about what he may or may not have done to the image of the league, even though there is no evidence of such.

 

Let me call the Rooneys and Goodell, I'll have them open their books right away. Gotta go make some calls ...

 

The point was to illustrate how silly the idea that Trey Beamon floated, which was - ""well Ben had an erection, doesn't that constitute consent?""

No, it doesn't any more or less than a woman taking her panties off constitutes consent.

 

You don't have to call them, given what has happened with the Michael Vick and Tiger Woods circumstances -- anyone who is going to cancel their endorsements are going to do so in a very public -- "we're a righteous company and don't like bad boy spokesmen" --- kind of way.

To my knowledge, outside of a Ben's endorsement for some beef jerkey company, not one company has even hinted that they were going to pull their support of the NFL unless they act on Ben.

Not one.

So again, while it is nice to want to destroy guys for some romantic view of the "hidden costs" of one of their actions - we live in the real world and in the real world you are punished for what actually happens and so far, nothing at all has happened to suggest the NFL has suffered from this.

 

That's right. It's called the NFL's personal conduct policy - and Goodell said yesterday you don't have to break a law to violate it.

If you don't like it, don't watch the NFL anymore. I have no idea how they'll recover.

 

Lugnuts, based on what you know at this point, what would the appropriate punishment be?