Roger Goodell defends his decision to suspend Ben Roethlisberger

[Thaak]

I belive raising/supporting your child is personal conduct you are legally obligated to provide for your own children, unless you put them up for adoption. Wether or not unfair or rediculous laws come into play, Cromartie must follow them since he put himself into a situation where child support comes into play.......(remember how Browns fans from this board made the claim Ben should be suspended even if he is not gulity simply for putting himself in this situation?)

 

"The Personal Conduct Policy also states that discipline is appropriate for conduct that 'undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.' By any measure, your conduct satisfies that standard."

 

"“Your conduct raises sufficient concerns that I believe effective intervention now is the best step for your personal and professional welfare"

 

I guess Goodell doesn't believe Cromartie's actions fall under these two quotes he made to Ben.

 

I'm not sure you can put the two situations under a microscope and come away with the same organism.

 

While it is reprehensible to not take responsibility for your actions, when said action results in a child, it may be that as things started adding up for Cromartie, he got in way over his head and couldn't handle it. The fact that he has made restitution, whether his team gave him the money or not, shows he's willing to try and account for his actions. But also consider, that welshing on child support is not the same kind of conduct as say, beating your child to death or raping a woman.

 

Lets get some perspective here.

[choco]

You STFU. eastside clevelander.

hey toolbag...

 

first, no one was talking to you...mostly because you dont have th ecapacity to understand 4 letter words.

 

and second, i grew up an hour from pitt, and currently live outside this miserable city. so roll off your sister long enough to remove your head from your ass and listen to what the xxxx im telling you.

 

i swear half this population here is missing a chromosome.

[Spunkonmyback DPOY]

I'm not sure you can put the two situations under a microscope and come away with the same organism.

 

While it is reprehensible to not take responsibility for your actions, when said action results in a child, it may be that as things started adding up for Cromartie, he got in way over his head and couldn't handle it. The fact that he has made restitution, whether his team gave him the money or not, shows he's willing to try and account for his actions. But also consider, that welshing on child support is not the same kind of conduct as say, beating your child to death or raping a woman.

 

Lets get some perspective here.

Goodell made it clear your conduct is punishable even if your conduct is criminal - like beating a child to death or raping a woman. Browns fans seem to like that concept that Ben gets punished even though is is innocent in the court of law, but when the same philosphy needs to be fairly applied to all players, I get objections. It's not okay to refuse to pay court ordered child support - Goodell needs to let Cromartie and all the other players know that by holding them to a "higher standard". Cromartie is a repeat offender when it comes to lack of personal responsiblity, Goodell needs to hold him to a "higher standard".

[Spunkonmyback DPOY]

i swear half this population here is missing a chromosome.

speak for yourself!

[sipeboy]

hey toolbag...

 

first, no one was talking to you...mostly because you dont have th ecapacity to understand 4 letter words.

 

and second, i grew up an hour from pitt, and currently live outside this miserable city. so roll off your sister long enough to remove your head from your ass and listen to what the xxxx im telling you.

 

i swear half this population here is missing a chromosome.

 

Sorry if I offended you.

[choco]

as in, i have a ton of great friends in this city....and admit it will always have a place in my heart. im just enjoying the pens slapping around ottawa again, and the bucs finally getting their farm system going with all the youth.

 

i dont hate everything here...just idiots.

[choco]

Sorry if I offended you.

offended.....ok. hardly, but i dont care if your new here or not. stick your nose where it doesn't belong, well....shit happens. to assume that all browns fans are from cleveland is akin to all steeler fans living in pittsburgh. so go pigeon hole someone else.....

 

 

edit: booze and a bad day has me a bit on edge. i do apologize for the added hostility.

[Spunkonmyback DPOY]

Millions of people do illegal things every day, and they aren't charged, arrested, questioned, or what have you. Just because they aren't prosecuted, does not mean that they are not guilty of their crime.

 

You can certainly use the legal argument if you wish. That is your prerogative. However, whether he knew about it or not, everyone knows he is at the very least guilty of providing alcohol to an underage drinker.

 

Why is it, that of all the thousands of professional athletes (not just football players) who make millions of dollars, you can't find another single story quite like this? Perhaps because he IS guilty and just got off on a technicality?

 

Lets not be stupid because of homerism here.

Ben didn't get off on some little "technicality". It's the 5th ammendment that requires the burden of proof. The same 5th ammendment that has applied to all US ctizens since the Consituiton was ratified in 1789. It's not fair to Ben (or anyone) to say becuase the 5th ammendment may or may not have been the reasonable and fair process that prevented Ben (or anyone) from getting convicted that he should be considered guilty anyway. This is the way the United States has always worked.

[The Gipper]

I googled it and nowhere did I find anything about him ever being suspended for anything, not to specifically mention his assult with a deadly weapon incident or fathering atleast 7 kids the past 4 years to 7 different women from 5 different states. If he has, please let me know.

 

 

Having the children with the women involved is not something that would be the leagues affair per se as long as the conception was fully consensual, and he is supporting those kids. If having consensual non-marital sex were an offense, there would be no league...or it would consist of only Roman Catholic priests (and probably half of them would be ineligible).

The Assault charge is a different matter. That certainly should have been dealt with. (did it happen while he was in the NFL...or in college?)

[choco]

According to the court of law, James Harrison has never been convicted of assult.

Try to keep up...a conviction is not necessary. You wonder why cromartie wasn't punished...I wonder why this all star wasnt

[SJ_Browns]

i guess art rooney II doesn't agree with steeler fans that think goodell is a hypocrite and is being unfair to ben. here's what rooney had to say in his presser today.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation

 

- Rooney said he agrees with and supports the punishment of six games that the NFL handed down. It can later be reduced to four games based on Roethlisberger's behavior."The discipline was appropriate in this case," Rooney said. "And we were prepared to impose discipline if the commissioner felt it was appropriate to go that way."

 

- The NFL will take over the selection of the evaluation center where Roethlisberger will go through his behavioral program. An approximate location was not provided, but Rooney said it's a facility that the league has used before and feels comfortable with.

 

 

- Rooney said the Steelers are confident players can step up and be competitive without Roethlisberger. The team has a trio of quarterbacks in Byron Leftwich, Charlie Batch and Dennis Dixon who will look to play in Roethlisberger's absence.

 

 

- Currently, Rooney doesn't anticipate the NFL Players Association stepping in and attempting to appeal Roethlisberger's suspension.

"My understanding is the commissioner has discussed this with [NFLPA director DeMaurice] Smith," Rooney said. "I really would hesitate to speak for either one of them. But it's my understanding that the players association does not plan to appeal it. But obviously they need to review it and discuss it with Ben, and again, I cannot speak for what they'll decide to do."

[Spunkonmyback DPOY]

i guess art rooney II doesn't agree with steeler fans that think goodell is a hypocrite and is being unfair to ben. here's what rooney had to say in his presser today.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation

 

- Rooney said he agrees with and supports the punishment of six games that the NFL handed down. It can later be reduced to four games based on Roethlisberger's behavior."The discipline was appropriate in this case," Rooney said. "And we were prepared to impose discipline if the commissioner felt it was appropriate to go that way."

 

- The NFL will take over the selection of the evaluation center where Roethlisberger will go through his behavioral program. An approximate location was not provided, but Rooney said it's a facility that the league has used before and feels comfortable with.

 

 

- Rooney said the Steelers are confident players can step up and be competitive without Roethlisberger. The team has a trio of quarterbacks in Byron Leftwich, Charlie Batch and Dennis Dixon who will look to play in Roethlisberger's absence.

 

 

- Currently, Rooney doesn't anticipate the NFL Players Association stepping in and attempting to appeal Roethlisberger's suspension.

"My understanding is the commissioner has discussed this with [NFLPA director DeMaurice] Smith," Rooney said. "I really would hesitate to speak for either one of them. But it's my understanding that the players association does not plan to appeal it. But obviously they need to review it and discuss it with Ben, and again, I cannot speak for what they'll decide to do."

Most people (including around half the people from pennsylvania - according to that ESPN poll) and me think Ben's punishment for his actions is fair. I just think it's unfair players convicted of very serious crimes (Vick) and other players who have done very irresponsible (but legal) things (Cromartie) face much less or even no punishment from Goodell. Reed was drunk and alledgedly assult's a cop (charges were dropped)....Goodell doesn't punish him.....Ben was drunk and alledgedly committed some type of sexual assult (but charges weren't even filed) .....Goodell suspends him 6 games.....

 

Of course, the NFLPA is never going to say one of the players they represnt should be punished more serverely.

[Thaak]

Goodell made it clear your conduct is punishable even if your conduct is criminal - like beating a child to death or raping a woman. Browns fans seem to like that concept that Ben gets punished even though is is innocent in the court of law, but when the same philosphy needs to be fairly applied to all players, I get objections. It's not okay to refuse to pay court ordered child support - Goodell needs to let Cromartie and all the other players know that by holding them to a "higher standard". Cromartie is a repeat offender when it comes to lack of personal responsiblity, Goodell needs to hold him to a "higher standard".

But he isn’t innocent in a court of law. You have to actually go to court for that.

[Thaak]

Most people (including around half the people from pennsylvania - according to that ESPN poll) and me think Ben's punishment for his actions is fair. I just think it's unfair players convicted of very serious crimes (Vick) and other players who have done very irresponsible (but legal) things (Cromartie) face much less or even no punishment from Goodell. Reed was drunk and alledgedly assult's a cop (charges were dropped)....Goodell doesn't punish him.....Ben was drunk and alledgedly committed some type of sexual assult (but charges weren't even filed) .....Goodell suspends him 6 games.....

 

Of course, the NFLPA is never going to say one of the players they represnt should be punished more serverely.

 

You sure you want to use Vick as underpunished in this argument?

 

 

[Spunkonmyback DPOY]

You sure you want to use Vick as underpunished in this argument?

Goodell gave him less of a suspension than Ben, despite actually being convicted of a crime.

[The Gipper]

Goodell gave him less of a suspension than Ben, despite actually being convicted of a crime.

 

I hear you. The only thing I can think of is that Goodell must have thought that the years he spent in prison were also part of Vick's "suspension".

[Spunkonmyback DPOY]

I hear you. The only thing I can think of is that Goodell must have thought that the years he spent in prison were also part of Vick's "suspension".

The only problem with that logic is Goodell has made it clear the court system and his punishments are different. With this reasoning Goodell can suspend players, like Ben, despite being inncoent in the court of law. But that would also mean his punishments/suspensions won't be lessened simply becuase the player already faced heavy punishment from the court system. The problem is Goodell isn't consistant. Stallworth spends 3 weeks in jail, but Goodell suspends him for a year. Vick spends 18 monthes in jail, and Goodell only suspends him for all of 4 games....There's simply no way to put logic to that. I'm in favor of Goodell giving players harsh punishments and holding them to a "higher standard". It just becomes increasingly difficult when there is no consistancy what so ever.

[The Gipper]

The only problem with that logic is Goodell has made it clear the court system and his punishments are different. With this reasoning Goodell can suspend players, like Ben, despite being inncoent in the court of law. But that would also mean his punishments/suspensions won't be lessened simply becuase the player already faced heavy punishment from the court system. The problem is Goodell isn't consistant. Stallworth spends 3 weeks in jail, but Goodell suspends him for a year. Vick spends 18 monthes in jail, and Goodell only suspends him for all of 4 games....There's simply no way to put logic to that. I'm in favor of Goodell giving players harsh punishments and holding them to a "higher standard". It just becomes increasingly difficult when there is no consistancy what so ever.

 

Well, I tried to explain it to you the best I know how. If you really want to know, ask Roger Goodell. I am not sure he is obligated to apply logic as you seem to think he must. And I am not sure he is obligated to provide you or anyone else an explanation of his decision. Perhaps he just did what he "felt was right". And under the collective bargaining agreement, he has full discretionary powers to apply discipline, and he will tell you that in this instance that he merely "used his discretion".

I know fully well how that works, as in my position as a magistrate I have on many occasions "used my discretion" to mete out punishment to various persons, and that punishment has not always been completely logical perhaps, but was based on my "feel" for the situation. And FYI, my discretion in certain matters could be extremely wide. Let's say that the law allows a maximum sentence of up to 6 months in jail plus up to a $1000.00 fine. Now, in certain instances I may have only assess a $100.00 fine plus costs. In another instance I may very well assess a $500.00 fine and costs or more, plus jail or community service for the same offense. It is totally within my discretion to vary this widely in application of my punishment. (Generally, I DO try to be consistent, even predictable, but that is not always the case)

Furthermore I don't see why it is difficult at all for you. He didn't suspend you. He suspended Ben R.

[Thaak]

Goodell gave him less of a suspension than Ben, despite actually being convicted of a crime.

 

Really? I seem to remember he was suspended indefinitely while the trial and investigation was going on, and then he went to prison for 2 years. That is a year of suspension plus 2 years of prison.