membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Dismiss what I say if you want, form opinions in the absence of fact if you want, but don't think you can presume to know anything about a person's motivations or the truth of allegations contained in a complaint. But you CAN know, based on who the attorney is, whether that attorney thinks he or she has a good faith basis to make the Complaint. SOME attorneys, I wouldn't give that latitude to. This attorney? You can safely assume some initial invesitgation of the allegations have been made to satisfy him he is in good faith to file the Complaint. Sorry if that is to "inside baseball" for you, but from the legal profession, that's the facts in how Complaints come to be filed.Your "inside baseball" is an assumption based on an opinion formed in the absence of fact.No. It's not. It is a primer for you in the obligations attorneys are under before they file a Complaint. I grant that obligation can be a bit malleable depending on the attorney, which is why I noted in this case this is not a "back of the bus ads" attorney. He has his own reputation to put on the line in signing his name to that Complaint. His high profile handling of the governor's defense tells me he doesn't "need the money" (anymore than we all do, I suppose). So, at face value, assuming this attorney takes his Rule 11 obligations seriously, and a lot of us acutally do, she has cleared an initial threshhold, whether you want to admit that or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 It's her word against his. No witnesses. And you are not the target audience. A jury of 12 is in Nevada. And the attorney who took her case is not some run of the mill back of the bus lawyer. He just defended the governor of Nevada from some very public charges. So, you can safely assume, he has more evidence than you are going to see in a Complaint. All a Complaint is are allegations. But attorneys are oath bound not to take and file frivilous claims. They have to have a good faith basis to file. And this particular attorney isn't the type to "shade" that.I am surprised, frankly, at the quickness to go benefit of the doubt here. Hell, Bengals can't usually get that from their own fanbase...From what we both read, it appears there were witnesses to the contact prior to this alleged rape, right? Whether they could testify to anything important is not known, unless you assume it.You're right, I don't live in Nevada. I have, however, sampled the local entertainment on many an occasion. Do you live in Nevada? More importantly, what's your point? I admire your naivete about lawyers. Yes, a civil complaint is typically allowed to generally plead the general elements of the cause of action rather than every specific item of evidence. That, however, undermines your suggestion that there has to be specific evidence in order to file a complaint. Frivolous claims are filed every day. If you don't believe that, please see the first sentence of this paragraph. Moreover, an attorney is allowed by law to believe everything his/her client tells them, regardless of how fanciful it may be. Therefore, if your client lies to you, you are allowed to believe him/her and to file a complaint based only on the "rosy scenario" you were given. None of that would violate any oath administered to any lawyer. If, as you say, it's "her word against his" an attorney is completely entitled to simply believe her story (or not question it) and file a complaint. As such, the simple existence of a complaint proves absolutely nothing.You are asking me to "assume" that there is more evidence to support this claim because you have a high regard for this lawyer. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but if you're not allowed to "assume" anything, then this is useless speculation on your part. The only thing we know for sure is that there was no criminal prosecution. I know that, I don't have to assume it. That could only be because she didn't press charges or the DA didn't have enough......wait for it........evidence in his opinion. Does that mean a civil case will fail? I don't know and I'm guessing you don't either.I have no idea of either the legal acumen nor the integrity of this lawyer, but that isn't really significant because there are probably a lot of reasons to take this case whether it can be won at trial or not. I suggest to you that this case will be settled with a monetary payment to the plaintiff because, whether it's true or not, the defendants have something to lose just because the case exists...public image. The attorney will get paid (because the case is no doubt on a contingency fee and he'll get between 30 and 40% depending on when it settles). So, this lawyer has every incentive to believe his client, not question her actions, and take home some money and exposure. As you say, he just represented the governor of the state, right? So, I doubt he's camera shy. Again, the choice of lawyer doesn't mean anything about whether she is lying or telling the truth.What I can tell you is this -- it's clear that in a "he said, she said" situation like this, you are going to believe the "she." All I'm telling you is, I'm not necessarily going to. To you, that means I'm assuming she's lying which, if you read what I said, is incorrect. One of us is assuming they know the truth already, and it's not me.Well-speaked.Bull f**kin' s**t that was.Give me a f**kin' break.All I have counseled is that the knee-jerk initial reactions in this thread are formed off of nothing, and mentioned people might want to wait a moment before determining that the woman is a liar. Or an implied gold digger. Or assume it isn't rape because the victim doesn't fight back in just the right sort of way.What he said WAS well-spoken, and accurate in many points. What you said was also well-spoken and accurate in many points. The fact you two are looking at certain points from divergent angles does not lessen the validity of either.I think where we are after all this back-and-forth is that we don't have a clue what happened. We don't have a clue what the evidence is. We don't to what extent, if any, the cops have been involved.Nor do we know how this civil thing is going to turn out. I don't know this lawyer involved. You think he wouldn't file a frivolous suit. I know guys (and so do you) that would sue a ham sandwich. Maybe he had her take a poly. Maybe he didn't. Neither of us know.Ultimately, unless it takes Ben out of the season and helps us, none of these issues mean squat to me.And yes, if this were us, we'd be getting kicked around here. It ain't fair. Life ain't fair. Blah blah blah.Anything else we haven't addressed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 All I have counseled is that the knee-jerk initial reactions in this thread are formed off of nothing, and mentioned people might want to wait a moment before determining that the woman is a liar. Or an implied gold digger. Or assume it isn't rape because the victim doesn't fight back in just the right sort of way.But you accused me of assuming she was a liar. And I responded that I don't assume anything. And they you reply that it's safe to assume this lawyer would only take a case he had already investigated. Where is the assumption I made?Where, specifically, on this thread, did I accuse you specifcally of assuming she was a liar. Don't make me go back and read the whole damn thing.In light of the first few posts, I simply tossed out some markers for caution before making assumptions that some people on here seem quick to make. If you are not one of those, good for you. If you are one of those, my cautions stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Greg:I am interested in life being more fair. I don't accept that there has to be a double standard, one for the Steelers, and one for the Bengals. So, no, I am not cool with "life isn't fair", and I am beyond uncool with ESPN doing what they can to cover this up. I note that Roeth's name, at the least, is at the center of their current campaign for Colin Blowhard's new afternoon TV show, so perhaps it would indeed be inconvenient to discuss that he is, allegedly, a rapist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Dismiss what I say if you want, form opinions in the absence of fact if you want, but don't think you can presume to know anything about a person's motivations or the truth of allegations contained in a complaint. But you CAN know, based on who the attorney is, whether that attorney thinks he or she has a good faith basis to make the Complaint. SOME attorneys, I wouldn't give that latitude to. This attorney? You can safely assume some initial invesitgation of the allegations have been made to satisfy him he is in good faith to file the Complaint. Sorry if that is to "inside baseball" for you, but from the legal profession, that's the facts in how Complaints come to be filed.Your "inside baseball" is an assumption based on an opinion formed in the absence of fact.His opinion on this particular attorney's track record is formed in the absence of fact? How can that be when there's ample facts made available to the public about this attorney?Big name attorney's don't take cases that they think they will lose. Hell, my attorney wouldn't take my case until he was sure he could win. And he's just local small town attorney. He wouldn't take my case until he had all the facts from me and some evidence to back them up. Why wouldn't this big time attorney be the same way? You don't get to be that big if you don't do your job, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 When a lawyer signs a pleading, they are saying pursuant to Rule 11, that they have a good faith basis for making the statements contained therein. Does that mean the statements as pled will ultimately be proven to be true? Of course not. Far from it, or we would never have trials. But what it does put on a lawyer is an initial obligation to perform some sort of investigation to satisfy themselves that they believe in the basis from which they are making their allegations. So perhaps she is VERY believeable, to him. Doesn't mean a jury will ultimately buy it, or people on a message board, or nuns in a convent. But, as an attorney, I have some faith, still, that the initial filing of a Complaint is based on more than just "taking a case" regardless. And, given who this particular attorney is, I think that initial threshhold has probably been met. None of that means she isn't lying, or crazy, or a gold-digger, or the rest of what people may want to presume. But her attorney doesn't think so, so that's the first hurdle she has cleared. Based on that, she gets to pursue this thing and see if anyone else will believe her as well.First of all, Rule 11 applies only to Federal Court proceedings, not state court. If this case was not filed in Federal Court it wouldn't even apply. Secondly, as noted, an attorney is entitled to believe what their client tells them, so that in itself constitutes sufficient good faith to file and, yes, sign a pleading. Where does it say anywhere that a lawyer has to perform an investigation other than listening to what their client tells them to satisfy themselves that they believe their client's statements? I don't doubt that would be a good practice, but there's nothing that says that in Rule 11 or anywhere else. Moreover, I didn't say anywhere that she wasn't "believable" to the attorney, but that simply doesn't matter. You clearly have a high regard for this attorney and you are attempting to play the "you don't know this guy" card. What I'm saying is your subjective belief that this attorney would only ever take a case he investigated fully first is naive, bordering on cute. And, of course, "she gets to pursue this thing," but not because her case has been vetted and approved, but because people are entitled to file complaints based on allegations and not proven facts. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that system, only that you can't assume that there's any veracity to a complaint based solely on the fact it's been filed. An attorney signing a complaint can never be subject to discipline or civil liability for it unless its proven that he or she lied when signing the complaint (which is a far different thing than the client having lied to the attorney) or that there was not "probable cause" to file the complaint when it was filed. The latter, which if you've been a practicing attorney for 8 years you should agree, is an extremely difficult thing to prove under almost any circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 It's not whether or not he think he will lose or win, Ron, it is whether he is true to his oath to follow and uphold Rule 11. Given his high profile and who he is, I am indeed presuming that he has done just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 When a lawyer signs a pleading, they are saying pursuant to Rule 11, that they have a good faith basis for making the statements contained therein. Does that mean the statements as pled will ultimately be proven to be true? Of course not. Far from it, or we would never have trials. But what it does put on a lawyer is an initial obligation to perform some sort of investigation to satisfy themselves that they believe in the basis from which they are making their allegations. So perhaps she is VERY believeable, to him. Doesn't mean a jury will ultimately buy it, or people on a message board, or nuns in a convent. But, as an attorney, I have some faith, still, that the initial filing of a Complaint is based on more than just "taking a case" regardless. And, given who this particular attorney is, I think that initial threshhold has probably been met. None of that means she isn't lying, or crazy, or a gold-digger, or the rest of what people may want to presume. But her attorney doesn't think so, so that's the first hurdle she has cleared. Based on that, she gets to pursue this thing and see if anyone else will believe her as well.First of all, Rule 11 applies only to Federal Court proceedings, not state court. If this case was not filed in Federal Court it wouldn't even apply. Secondly, as noted, an attorney is entitled to believe what their client tells them, so that in itself constitutes sufficient good faith to file and, yes, sign a pleading. Where does it say anywhere that a lawyer has to perform an investigation other than listening to what their client tells them to satisfy themselves that they believe their client's statements? I don't doubt that would be a good practice, but there's nothing that says that in Rule 11 or anywhere else. Moreover, I didn't say anywhere that she wasn't "believable" to the attorney, but that simply doesn't matter. You clearly have a high regard for this attorney and you are attempting to play the "you don't know this guy" card. What I'm saying is your subjective belief that this attorney would only ever take a case he investigated fully first is naive, bordering on cute. And, of course, "she gets to pursue this thing," but not because her case has been vetted and approved, but because people are entitled to file complaints based on allegations and not proven facts. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that system, only that you can't assume that there's any veracity to a complaint based solely on the fact it's been filed. An attorney signing a complaint can never be subject to discipline or civil liability for it unless its proven that he or she lied when signing the complaint (which is a far different thing than the client having lied to the attorney) or that there was not "probable cause" to file the complaint when it was filed. The latter, which if you've been a practicing attorney for 8 years you should agree, is an extremely difficult thing to prove under almost any circumstances.You can be a dismissive prick all you want, but it doesn't change the attorney's requirement to have a "good faith" basis for filing the complaint. You are correct that actually nailing an attorney for a pure "bad faith" filing is hard, but that's not what the rule is there for. The rule is there to give each attorney the moment's pause that what they are signing is, on the surface, warranted by facts as they are known to them. For those quick to jump on the "she's a liar" train, before it leaves the station, I simply am noting there is an initial threshhold she has met in getting her attorney to take her case. And, Rule 11 has been adopted in every state I practice, and I am sure in Nevada as well in their state's rules of civil procedure, just like in it exists in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 It's not whether or not he think he will lose or win, Ron, it is whether he is true to his oath to follow and uphold Rule 11. Given his high profile and who he is, I am indeed presuming that he has done just that.That wasn't so hard was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 It's not whether or not he think he will lose or win, Ron, it is whether he is true to his oath to follow and uphold Rule 11. Given his high profile and who he is, I am indeed presuming that he has done just that.That wasn't so hard was it?What's your point? That was always a presumption. I said so in nothing that he was high profile at the outset, lending credibility to him taking his oath seriously. You want that re-stated eight ways from Sunday? Silly.My presumption about you is that you are inded pre-disposed to think the "chick lies" in such situations, rather than letting the proceedings run their course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 You can be a dismissive prick all you want, but it doesn't change the attorney's requirement to have a "good faith" basis for filing the complaint. You are correct that actually nailing an attorney for a pure "bad faith" filing is hard, but that's not what the rule is there for. The rule is there to give each attorney the moment's pause that what they are signing is, on the surface, warranted by facts as they are known to them. And, Rule 11 has been adopted in every state I practice, and I am sure in Nevada as well in their state's rules of civil procedure, just like in it exists in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Alright, you win for getting ridiculously emotionally involved first.Nevada State Court has separate rules of civil procedure from the federal rules. You cannot be sanctioned under Rule 11 in Nevada State Court for signing and filing a pleading, but only under the Nevada Revised Statues. So, there is no "investigation" required, but rather an amorphous "moment's pause." And the attorney is entitled to believe the client's statement that these things happened to her which fully satisfies the "good faith" basis to file the complaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 By the way, because it is the more interesting point, and it keeps getting lost in the boring lawyer arguing, is that if this were ESPN business as usual, Roger Cossack would already be making the rounds to make many of these same points about civil v. criminal, signing pleadings, attorney's reputations, etc.It's just that, well, all of a sudden now that it's a Steeler, and a marquee one at that, ESPN has found some "integrity".Laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 You can be a dismissive prick all you want, but it doesn't change the attorney's requirement to have a "good faith" basis for filing the complaint. You are correct that actually nailing an attorney for a pure "bad faith" filing is hard, but that's not what the rule is there for. The rule is there to give each attorney the moment's pause that what they are signing is, on the surface, warranted by facts as they are known to them. And, Rule 11 has been adopted in every state I practice, and I am sure in Nevada as well in their state's rules of civil procedure, just like in it exists in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Alright, you win for getting ridiculously emotionally involved first.Nevada State Court has separate rules of civil procedure from the federal rules. You cannot be sanctioned under Rule 11 in Nevada State Court for signing and filing a pleading, but only under the Nevada Revised Statues. So, there is no "investigation" required, but rather an amorphous "moment's pause." And the attorney is entitled to believe the client's statement that these things happened to her which fully satisfies the "good faith" basis to file the complaint.That is indeed a lower threshhold than we have in TN, where we have Rule 11 at both the state and, of course, federal levels. As does MS. And Arkansas.Still, for me, her finding someone to believe her is an initial threshhold that means something. Part of it is that her story has to make "sense". If she is telling it and details don't match up, and she isn't believed, I don't think a lot of attorneys take the case. Particularly this attorney. Particularly if it is an attorney who has built a reputation, as I understand this attorney to have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 And, because ESPN won't, I just want to pause here to note that Ben Roethlisberger is an accused rapist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 But what I have seen in this thread is an immediate assumption about the accuser that is unwarranted.She sues multiple people. The tort that forms the basis of her complaint is a violent crime. Under almost any plausible circumstances, with just a bit of supporting evidence, the defendant would have at least had a warrant issued for his arrest, even if after that a grand jury failed to produce an indictment. But what do we get in this case? Nothing. The state, with all it's subpoena power, all its investigatory powers, all its forensic tools and expertise, all its trained and experienced detectives, produced NOTHING. I write that in all caps for emphasis, and to be a total douchebag. Use the Mike Tyson case as an example. Rich athlete and female willingly in the athlete's motel room. In that case, they indict and convict based almost solely on the victim's word. In this case they don't arrest, indict, or convict. While portraying Roethlisberger's case as a he said, she said, fact pattern is accurate, assuming the he said she said nature of the case dooms it is not accurate. Convictions are based on this type of evidence all the time. That's why I think this one is bogus, because the machine that is designed to grab these situations and investigate/prosecute them decided not to do so.So I think the assumption I am making is warranted. And if you think you are going to find a bunch of jurors who won't be making the same assumption, then you are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 My presumption about you is that you are inded pre-disposed to think the "chick lies" in such situations, rather than letting the proceedings run their course.And if I ever say that you'll be correct. All I have actually said, though, is that the lack of a criminal charge was "troubling." So, believe what you want.EDIT: I am, however, a dismissive prick, so you're right about one thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Fair enough. I think we have run this into the ground.I am more interested in ESPN's behavior. Let's talk about that.ESPN has indeed issued a gag order http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/21/source-espn-issues-do-not-report-alert-on-roethlisberger-story/ on their empire discussing anything about the allegations because they claim it is their policy not to report such civil allegations.And here's ESPN on June 3 of this year:Los Angeles Lakers point guard Shannon Brown has been notified of an intent to sue him in civil court for an alleged sex-related incident with a woman in Denver, Brown's agent, Mark Bartelstein confirmed to ESPN's Shelley Smith on Sunday. Bartelstein said the suit stems from an incident when Brown was playing for the Charlotte Bobcats, who played in Denver on Jan. 30. Brown was traded to the Lakers on Feb. 7. Bartelstein said that within 24-48 hours after the woman filed a police report, Denver police fully investigated her claims. A Denver police spokesman told ESPN.com on Monday that the police sent their findings to the district attorney, who declined to pursue the matter further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I appreciate you two taking me back to my civil procedure class. I never thought I'd ever have to relive that nightmare again.What are we still fighting about here? I don't know the guy that's representing the woman. I do know that there are lawyers that will file any suit they think won't get them disbarred if there is a shot at a cash settlement, despite Rule 11's Polyanna attempts to give a moment of pause.I also know there are plenty of women every day that cry 'rape' when one didn't happen.I also know plenty of women get raped every day and the justice system fails them.All that said, I don't know if this woman is telling the truth or a lie. I assume nothing without knowing some facts. I know the procedural aspects are bizarre to say the least.And in regards to whichever one was still griping about the unfairness of life--as manifested by ESPN in this case--are you serious?Dude, trust me, I admire the desire to save the world. But you can't. You try to save those things you can. Changing how ESPN treats the Bengals is a bit beyond your control. Write a letter. Don't watch their shows. Save the stomach juice for something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Greg:For f**kssake, why so quick to cut off conversation about what ESPN is doing here? No it won't change the world, but it is an intersting and discussion worthy topic.To review, they have put out a gag order on their media covering the story. And whether anyone here thinks it happened or not, or lawyers are full of rocks or not, or I am a jackass or not, it is still a legitimate story, given the allegations and the sports person involved. It is, at least, that.And ESPN has, up until about 24 hours ago, NEVER had any problem reporting such stories. See my italicized portion above. Or, take my word, that when Marco Jaric of the Grizzlies was accused of something similar last February, they reported it, even though no criminal charges were filed OR a civil complaint brought.But all of a sudden now that it is St. Ben, it isn't a story? Even more so, they are instructing their own reporters to ignore it? That's something else altogether, and makes me wonder just what the agenda is and at whose behest.If that's not intersting to you, you should maybe return to perusing Glamour Shots.com for a new pic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 But what I have seen in this thread is an immediate assumption about the accuser that is unwarranted.She sues multiple people. The tort that forms the basis of her complaint is a violent crime. Under almost any plausible circumstances, with just a bit of supporting evidence, the defendant would have at least had a warrant issued for his arrest, even if after that a grand jury failed to produce an indictment. But what do we get in this case? Nothing. The state, with all it's subpoena power, all its investigatory powers, all its forensic tools and expertise, all its trained and experienced detectives, produced NOTHING. I write that in all caps for emphasis, and to be a total douchebag. Use the Mike Tyson case as an example. Rich athlete and female willingly in the athlete's motel room. In that case, they indict and convict based almost solely on the victim's word. In this case they don't arrest, indict, or convict. While portraying Roethlisberger's case as a he said, she said, fact pattern is accurate, assuming the he said she said nature of the case dooms it is not accurate. Convictions are based on this type of evidence all the time. That's why I think this one is bogus, because the machine that is designed to grab these situations and investigate/prosecute them decided not to do so.So I think the assumption I am making is warranted. And if you think you are going to find a bunch of jurors who won't be making the same assumption, then you are wrong.The full court document is now available on PFT. If you read through it, it kinda makes sense why there are no criminal charges. The woman only went to the attorney (according to the filing) because she was afraid she was going to lose her job over the incident. It was never reported to the police because she believed that the hotel security department was investigating. She didn't see the attorney until April of this year. She was in and out of mental institutions pretty much between the alleged assault and then. The other defendents are named because they (allegedly) helped cover up the crime by Big Ben. Now I'm not saying I believe all that, but it does answer all the questions you just posed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 More on ESPN's rather bizarre behavior:/>http://deadspin.com/5319432/espn-ignoring-biggest-stories-of-the-day-important-updates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregstephens Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Greg:For f**kssake, why so quick to cut off conversation about what ESPN is doing here? No it won't change the world, but it is an intersting and discussion worthy topic.To review, they have put out a gag order on their media covering the story. And whether anyone here thinks it happened or not, or lawyers are full of rocks or not, or I am a jackass or not, it is still a legitimate story, given the allegations and the sports person involved. It is, at least, that.And ESPN has, up until about 24 hours ago, NEVER had any problem reporting such stories. See my italicized portion above. Or, take my word, that when Darko Milicic of the Grizzlies was accused of something similar last February, they reported it, even though no criminal charges were filed OR a civil complaint brought.But all of a sudden now that it is St. Ben, it isn't a story? Even more so, they are instructing their own reporters to ignore it? That's something else altogether, and makes me wonder just what the agenda is and at whose behest.If that's not intersting to you, you should maybe return to perusing Glamour Shots.com for a new pic...That last shot was cold. I'd expect that from TJ, but...Anyway, I am not saying ESPN isn't engaged in a double standard here. I'm not excusing the situation. I'm not even saying I understand it. Our local news is covering it. The tv. The papers. It makes ESPN look bush league to miss it actually.But let's get to the real point here. Legit question. Why do you think ESPN is covering this up? I mean, what's their motive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 More on ESPN's rather bizarre behavior:/>http://deadspin.com/5319432/espn-ignoring-biggest-stories-of-the-day-important-updatesBrett Favre could decapitate a couple people on live TV, and ESPN would say, "we're not reporting on these allegations. We'll take the high road and let the judicial system takes its course. Call us, Brett!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Greg:Dunno. Is it that Roeth is the marquee player on the league's marquee team and ESPN is a pure partner of the NFL at this point? Is is that Roeth is set to be on some Shaq ABC special airing later this month? (I'm serious about that, he is indeed on that program) Something else?In any event, it is noticeably weird, because they have never never never before, to my knowledge, be it any other player, had problems reporting such allegations, and all of a sudden they get a conscience?Absolutely bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Hmmm seems like it can be pretty serious.Crappy Browns teampretty big distraction for Big BenRavens losing alot good players this yearI like our chances to take the division Can't Post PFT video's anymore : / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.