Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   National Football League (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Ben Roethlisberger Sued For "Rape" (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=22305)

Anthony 07-22-2009 06:29 AM

Ben Roethlisberger Sued For "Rape"
 
Since when is rape grounds for bringing a civil rather than a criminal case?

When the plaintiff can make more money that way?

In any event, here's the story:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...o&confirm=true

doublee 07-22-2009 09:27 AM

Seems to me like you are more likely to win the civil case if you have a criminal conviction in hand. This sounds to me like something happened and once she found out who he was she saw the opportunity to fleece him for some money thinking he would simply pay her off to go away.

Anthony 07-23-2009 03:08 AM

The standard of proof is less stringent in a civil case - "a preponderance of the evidence," as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case.

But why can't I get the name Katelyn Faber out of my head as I follow this story?

CKFresh 07-23-2009 09:49 AM

I think the bigges story here is that ESPN is refusing to cover this case.

Does ESPN's "Do Not Report" Policy Make Any Sense?

Still not a peep from ESPN on Ben Roethlisberger's legal troubles—and once again no Blog Buzz on SportsCenter—so as long as Big Ben keeps his mouth shut they're standing behind their decision to not stand behind this story.

Why is that again? Just to be clear, here's a more official statement that ESPN gave to Pro Football Talk:

"At this point, we are not reporting the allegations against Ben Roethlisberger because no criminal complaint has been filed. As far as we know, this is a civil lawsuit that Roethlisberger has yet to address publicly."

The implication is that if there's no criminal action and the athlete himself (or herself) has not publicly commented on it, then ESPN considers it a private matter and not "news." Several readers have already called them on this point, mentioning the Shannon Brown case, the Tony Zendejas case (filed Monday), or the O.J. case, among others. However, in all those instances, ESPN could claim that there was a criminal complaint at least tangentially related to the story. But in all those instances, the story itself was about the civil case. They have also covered many, many purely civil cases like the NFL's current anti-trust fracas, the mess regarding the Dallas Cowboys practice bubble, and—the most glaring of all—the Roberto Alomar "AIDS rumors." It seems pretty clear that they're being selective with their enforcement.

It's also extremely disingenuous to say that Roethlisberger has yet to address the case publicly when an official statement from his lawyer—who is presumably authorized to speak on his behalf—was the very first thing we read about the case. ESPN routinely considers lawyers, agents, and even family members to be valid spokespeople and this is no different.


http://deadspin.com/5320308/does-esp...yline=true&s=x

doublee 07-23-2009 11:08 AM

Well what do they expect when ESPN dedicates all of its NFL resources to sniffing Brett Favre's jock and following Tony Romo and Michael Vick around all summer?

They didn't have anyone to cover the story because everyone was too busy breaking down the latest tape of Favre throwing to high school players.

CKFresh 07-23-2009 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublee (Post 297236)
Well what do they expect when ESPN dedicates all of its NFL resources to sniffing Brett Favre's jock and following Tony Romo and Michael Vick around all summer?

They didn't have anyone to cover the story because everyone was too busy breaking down the latest tape of Favre throwing to high school players.

I don't expect much from ESPN anymore. It's just a shame that they have no competition. The internet gives us plenty of alternative options for sports news, but unfrotunately there are no alternatives on TV.

This all started when they refused to cover the "Ron Mexico" story. This is just the latest in a long line of ESPN's attempts to protect their money-making princesses.

themush 07-23-2009 01:59 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU13MRtSD7E

Marc 07-23-2009 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKFresh (Post 297239)
I don't expect much from ESPN anymore. It's just a shame that they have no competition. The internet gives us plenty of alternative options for sports news, but unfrotunately there are no alternatives on TV.

This all started when they refused to cover the "Ron Mexico" story. This is just the latest in a long line of ESPN's attempts to protect their money-making princesses.

Yeah, it's a shame FOX Sports has always paled in comparison. ESPN has a monopoly on a sports broadcasting and it's bad.

ESPN is also refusing to cover the Erin Andrews story, but probably because she's an employee.

In terms of Roethlisberger, I don't know what to think. Star athletes are targets because of their fame and wealth, but they also may think that allows them to get away with anything. So I hope it wasn't true and seems out of character for him, but I just don't know...

Anthony 07-24-2009 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublee (Post 297236)
Well what do they expect when ESPN dedicates all of its NFL resources to sniffing Brett Favre's jock and following Tony Romo and Michael Vick around all summer?

They didn't have anyone to cover the story because everyone was too busy breaking down the latest tape of Favre throwing to high school players.


You stole my thunder here; but you sound a bit like a disgruntled Bears fan who is seeing his team's free pass to the Super Bowl getting snatched away at the last minute.

And did you see Roethlisberger's interview? I don't know who comes across as more defiant - him or Sgt. James Crowley!

davematthews3 07-24-2009 11:22 PM

I understand not covering the Andrews story. This is a tough time for her. Give her any type of privacy you can control. Her own network doesn't need to be plastering it everywhere and have even more men scour the web for the Disgusting video.

Anthony 07-29-2009 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davematthews3 (Post 297293)
I understand not covering the Andrews story. This is a tough time for her. Give her any type of privacy you can control. Her own network doesn't need to be plastering it everywhere and have even more men scour the web for the Disgusting video.


But do you remember the Theresa Saldana case?

I don't see anything different going on here - except, of course, that youtube, etc., didn't exist when she was going through her stalking ordeal.

MountaineerDave 08-01-2009 12:05 PM

If I were so motivated, I'd go digging for the my staunch support of Kobe's accuser that I'm moderately sure I wrote on these boards.

This story bugs the hell out of me. I'm reminded of the Kobe story, but as a man who's known more than his fair share of victims of assault, I'm inherently sympathetic to the claim of assault.

And then there's the fact that I have a black and gold #7 jersey hanging in my closet that I donned each Sunday last autumn and winter on the way to a 6th Super Bowl. I'm not into hero worship, but... I do have a moderate mancrush on Big Ben. So... ugh. If he settles, I think I have to at least sell my jersey.

I'm hopeful that it turns out that he had nothing to do with these claims. My fear is that at the best, he put himself in a terribly compromising situation. At worst... well...

HibachiDG 08-04-2009 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc (Post 297242)
Yeah, it's a shame FOX Sports has always paled in comparison. ESPN has a monopoly on a sports broadcasting and it's bad.

ESPN is also refusing to cover the Erin Andrews story, but probably because she's an employee.

In terms of Roethlisberger, I don't know what to think. Star athletes are targets because of their fame and wealth, but they also may think that allows them to get away with anything. So I hope it wasn't true and seems out of character for him, but I just don't know...

Quote:

I think the bigges story here is that ESPN is refusing to cover this case.

Does ESPN's "Do Not Report" Policy Make Any Sense?
I know I'm late to this, but, ESPN choosing not to run with the story is something I actually like.

Criminal charges kind of force their hand into airing the story, but waiting and doing more digging on the civil stories makes a lot of sense to me.

When you have a criminal charge, it at least means someone objective in the matter thinks charges should be brought. (although, that's probably more perception than reality) With civil, you don't have that layer.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.