Roethlisberger faces several charges including sex charges

[icehole3]

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...

I agree 1000 percent, if ESPN doesn't do civil cases, why were they all over Randy Moss during SuperBowl week???

[ArmyBengal]

Dang, my kid gets sick and I missed out on a ton of conversation here. I have actually enjoyed reading this thread up to this point though...

Mem, I agree 100% that ESPN should in fact be covering this. I think it's complete bullsh*t that they aren't at least making mention of it that Ben, is in fact involved in a rape case. Just so I understand, this is a civil case right ?? So that means there is no chance of criminal charges coming against him or can that be brought back up at a later time ?? Anyway, just curious about that...

Going back, fans are going to do what they usually do and react without much thought due to the hatred of the team the person plays for. It doesn't make it anywhere near right and those same Steelers fans, that came here spouting off, are the kind of F*CKING ASSH*LES that I'm talking about. To tell you the truth, in going back I don't know why I bothered because it's like asking people to not shove Mike Brown down your throat with every post, it just won't happen.

I had more to add, but it seemed more argumentative than anything else, so that's it for now...

[gregstephens]

Dang, my kid gets sick and I missed out on a ton of conversation here. I have actually enjoyed reading this thread up to this point though...

Mem, I agree 100% that ESPN should in fact be covering this. I think it's complete bullsh*t that they aren't at least making mention of it that Ben, is in fact involved in a rape case. Just so I understand, this is a civil case right ?? So that means there is no chance of criminal charges coming against him or can that be brought back up at a later time ?? Anyway, just curious about that...

Going back, fans are going to do what they usually do and react without much thought due to the hatred of the team the person plays for. It doesn't make it anywhere near right and those same Steelers fans, that came here spouting off, are the kind of F*CKING ASSH*LES that I'm talking about. To tell you the truth, in going back I don't know why I bothered because it's like asking people to not shove Mike Brown down your throat with every post, it just won't happen.

I had more to add, but it seemed more argumentative than anything else, so that's it for now...

The civil case does not preclude a criminal case being filed down the road. A criminal case can be brought at any time within the statute of limitations (20 years for rape in Ohio, don't know about NV).

However, one of the reasons we've been debating the bizarre procedural aspects of this is that it is highly unusual that a civil case gets filed before the resolution of a criminal matter had one been pending. Usually, you want to get a criminal conviction due to higher burden of proof first. Then, you walk into civil court, which has a lower burden of proof, basically show the conviction and liability is about as automatic as it comes. Write the check, helmet-head.

The way this is all going down here, it appears someone has already been told there will be no criminal prosecution and, since there is a shorter statute of limitations on a civil case, the civil case will now proceed. Keep in mind, a finding of civil liability does nothing to strengthen a criminal prosecution unless helmet-head takes the stand and says something that could be used against him as substantive evidence in a criminal proceeding. Barring any said statements, a verdict in civil court, by itself, is not admissible in a criminal prosecution.

In re ESPN, yeah it sucks. I'm not sure what Ben holds on ESPN, but I hope it greatly outweighs the hits ESPN is taking for not reporting this. I'm still not a big, "But it's unfair," guy, but I do think the worldwide leader of sports broadcasting is taking some credibility losses on this one. Yeah, if it had been a Bengal, or Brown, or anybody but Favre, this would be blown up. Yeah, it's not fair. But ESPN will pay for that one via loss of professional reputation.

[COB]

I'm not sure what Ben holds on ESPN,

Someone earlier said he's heavily involved in promoting one of their radio programs. Bottom line, it's their bottom line. I still say ESPN made the right call. An objective look at this "case", reveals that it is rife with problems. I agree it is not consistent with what ESPN usually does, and I agree if the case were twice as bogus, but involved a Bengal, they'd be all over it. But I'm not saying it's the consistent choice, I'm just saying it is the right choice. Pointless and moot (I read about the suit in this morning's Columbus paper), but the right choice nonetheless.

[ArmyBengal]

Thanks Greg. I was curious about that.

[membengal]

Wrong choice, ESPN.

Even Roger Goodell has acknowledged the allegation and will "look into it".

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/21/goodell-will-look-into-roethlisberger-allegations/#comments

That in and of itself is newsworthy, as if the original story already wasn't story enough.

Central Ohio Bengal: News outlets are not supposed to pre-judge a story as you are apparently okay with them doing, they can simply report the facts. In this case, that a suit was filed and what the allegations are. ESPN does that ALL THE TIME. IN EVERY OTHER CASE. Except this one. That kind of selective standard for reporting is NOT OKAY. On any level.

[membengal]

And, while we are here, I want to try this out. Between the allegations of sexual assualt levied against Jerome Bettis a few years ago (charges that were covered up and eventually settled), and now this, it would appear that the Steelers are rather handsy. I think my new name for Steelers fans who annoy me on this board will be that they support Rapists. The Pittsburgh Rapists.

Yeah, that will work. I shall enjoy this.

Karma. I love you.

[ArmyBengal]

They were talking about this more over on PFT and the fact that there have been many other civil cases that have been brought up and discussed on ESPN, but not Ben. I'm not advocating going on and saying the guy did it, but it is in fact "newsworthy" as Mem has mentioned. I think it's bullsh*t as well. Here's a blurb:

Besides, we don't buy for a minute the notion that a civil claim unaccompanied by a criminal complaint makes the situation not newsworthy. Indeed, ESPN posted last night on its NFL page a blurb from the AP regarding the civil suit filed by former NFL kicker Tony Zendejas, in which he claims a violation of his civil rights in connection with, coincidentally, a rape prosecution.

In that case, have the folks who allegedly violated the civil rights of Zendejas been charged criminally? Nope. But that hasn't kept ESPN from posting the AP item.

And that's the kicker on this one -- ESPN uses stuff from the AP all the time, and the AP has issued a story about the lawsuit against Roethlisberger.

So while we appreciate the fact that ESPN provided us with a statement, we choose to regard it as a hollow attempt to explain away what appears to be a strategy for remaining in the good graces of Ben Roethlisberger.

[membengal]

What's that?

I will take theRapists for $400, Alex.

[ArmyBengal]

What's that?

I will take theRapists for $400, Alex.

Who's the QB that is currently under investigation for sexual assault that ESPN refuses to report on because they are a bunch of lying sacks of sh*t ??

[membengal]

What's that?

I will take theRapists for $400, Alex.

This QB that is currently under investigation for sexual assault that ESPN refuses to report on because they are a bunch of lying sacks of sh*t ??

Who is Ben Roethlisberger, Alex.

[cincy9275]

all the rape allegation that have been made against profession athletes. for ben to put himself in this situation just shows how much of a idiot ben is. so i don't feel a bit sorry for him. as for espn if this was a bengal, it would be front page news. espn is a garbage network i lost all respect for years ago.

[COB]

Central Ohio Bengal: News outlets are not supposed to pre-judge a story as you are apparently okay with them doing,

Yes, they are supposed to pre-judge a news story, and they do it all the time. Deranged ex-husband shows up in the newsroom, has "evidence" his ex is abusing their kids, but he claims the judge is paid off, and won't listen to him. His evidence is his word, and only his word. The police already reviewed it and turned it down. Print the story, portraying the woman as an abuser? Nope, they won't do it, and that's because they've pre-judged the story.

Same fact pattern. But this time he finds a lawyer to file an ultimately baseless civil suit. Print the story, because some lawyer filed a suit? I submit that you are then letting the ethical standard of the least ethical lawyer in town act as the gatekeeper for what is and is not news. This is a wrong, and it should stop.

Let's bring it closer to home. Suppose you, Membengal, are wrongly accused of sexually abusing a child. The police find it baseless, refuse to do anything. Kid's parents, who are basically looking for money from you, find a lawyer to file a suit. The day they file it, the Memphis paper writes a story, based only on the complaint and no other investigation or reporting, that portrays you as a child molester (because let's face it, that is what the complaint alleges). Your lawyer quickly files a motion for summary judgement, and produces witnesses and evidence at the hearing that you were in another state when the alleged act occurred. Motion granted, case dismissed. Where, Membengal, will you then go to get your unsullied reputation back? You'll wrongfully carry that stain on your reputation for the rest of your life.

In my opinion it is ok for news organizations to write about crimes when they are charged. The state investigates, and must produce some evidence of probable cause to get an arrest warrant or an indictment. There is some indicia of reliability there.

To just blindly parrot allegations in a civil complaint? It is wrong, it is lazy, it wrecks the reputation of the innocent, and again, you are letting the ethics of the least ethical lawyer in town be the gatekeeper for your news organization.

[COB]

Even Roger Goodell has acknowledged the allegation and will "look into it".

Goodell's history of favoritism towards the Steelers leads me to believe he'll essentially act as part of the Ben defense/pr team, like he did when he acted as part of the defense team for the Patriots when they were accused of taping the Rams pre-super bowl walk through.

[BengalByTheBay]

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)

I think Mem's onto it right here. They probably thought that the story wouldn't have legs like this and some corporate douchebag made a bad call in the moment. Now that it's not going away, they will have to own it and I expect they will start to make some sort of report today. Probably with some BS "we don't like to report unsubstantiated cases, but..." statement.

This is cross-promotion BS at its best. ESPN's corporate empire is rife with conflicts due to the number of businesses it's now engaged with -- way too much to run a credible news organization, but possibly sports reportage doesn't rise to that level of credibility anyway.

[COB]

This is cross-promotion BS at its best. ESPN's corporate empire is rife with conflicts due to the number of businesses it's now engaged with -- way too much to run a credible news organization, but possibly sports reportage doesn't rise to that level of credibility anyway.

Good analysis. Tough to report on the NFL when you are in business with it.

[membengal]

Central Ohio: The ONLY alleged news outfit not at least reporting the existence of the suit is ESPN. I find that indefensible. And there is NO WAY that decision has been made because they are somehow a bastion of integrity. Just saying. And this from the comments section to the article I link below is dead on for how ESPN has f**ked up:

As a fellow sportswriter, I have been put in this situation myself and felt it was my journalistic duty to report the news. Journalists, well good ones, do not make up stories or accuse anyone of anything, only report the facts. If the lawsuit was filed, that is a fact, report that. Don't speculate if it's valid or not, just report the facts. When a "trusted" source fails to do that, you have to really wonder.

More from pft, which, amazingly to me, has been all over this:

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/21/last-word-on-espns-civil-lawsuit-policy/

We really don't want our coverage of the civil lawsuit filed against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger to become an exercise in the bashing of ESPN. We've got some friends who work there (maybe not as many after today), and we don't generally believe that the network is evil or corrupt or otherwise nasty.

However, we do believe that the network is way too large for its own good, and that unless and until a true competitor emerges, it's up to everyone else to point out those occasions when the emperor is riding both bareback and bareassed.

The handling of the Roethlisberger case makes us wonder whether there's a complete firewall between the business functions of ESPN and its journalistic activities. We say this because we're convinced that the Roethlisberger story initially was ignored due to concerns that ESPN would be jeopardizing its access to the two-time Super Bowl-winning quarterback, who also happens to play for the team with the most loyal and rabid fan base in America.

Though the "do not report" memo did not cite a reason for the directive to avoid the story, word initially began to emerge throughout the day (starting first at Jemele Hill's Twitter page) that ESPN has a policy to not report civil complaints not accompanied by criminal proceedings.

Of course, if there truly were such a policy and if it were applied on an across-the-board basis, then there would have been no need for a "do not report" memo. And any such memo surely would have reminded the recipients of the policy regarding civil complaints without criminal proceedings, right?

We challenged our Twitter followers to submit links to situations in which ESPN reported on civil cases in the absence of criminal proceedings, but we can now pull the plug on that effort. There are, indeed, plenty of situations in which ESPN covered cases involving civil allegations but no criminal charges. And our private discussions with some of the folks at ESPN reveal that the rule isn't nearly as black-and-white as Jemele's tweets suggest.

Instead, the rule is far more vague and malleable, with a variety of factors to be considered that, in the end, allow ESPN to do whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to do it.

Regardless of how ESPN came to its conclusion, it clearly swung the bat and missed on this one. Everyone else has reported the Roethlisberger story. Everyone.

And Dave Goldberg, the venerable NFL reporter at the Associated Press, had this to say on his Twitter page: "Can u ignore an obvious story and call yourself the 'worldwide leader?' Arrogance has its own method, I guess."

Still, ESPN has its defenders. So far, however, they exclusively arise from within the ESPN machine.

For example, Dan LeBatard of 790 The Ticket in Miami, a frequent contributor to ESPN, took up for the network today.

"God bless 'em," LeBatard said of ESPN's position.

"t's only being reported in the blogosphere, irresponsibly, unfairly," LeBatard added. ". . . . It's not being reported in credible places."

But that's not correct. Everyone but ESPN has picked this up. Every Pittsburgh media outlet, every newspaper, every major web site, along with the Associated Press.

If the Associated Press sees fit to report the fact of the existence of the lawsuit, then it's being reported in "credible places."

The only credible place in which it isn't being reported is on ESPN. And that's causing some in the media to wonder just how credible ESPN really is.

UPDATE: Technically, ESPN is now acknowledging the report, albeit unwittingly. As of this posting, the "Top Stories From ABC News" box on ESPN.com's various pages includes the headline, "Woman: Super Bowl QB Raped Me."

[membengal]

And more from Florio:

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/22/espn-non-report-of-roethlisberger-story-embarrassing/

Though we've supposedly provided our final word regarding ESPN's policy regarding the reporting of civil lawsuits not accompanied by criminal charges, we're still monitoring the reaction to the situation.

John Gonzalez of the Philadelphia Inquirer takes a great look at the situation, including a quote from ESPN vice president and director of news Vince Doria, who confirms that there is no black-and-white rule in these matters, despite an initial (and horribly inept) effort by ESPN to sell the notion that the network was merely adhering to a clear, non-discretionary internal policy.

Doria also told the Wall Street Journal that, in the end, he made the decision to duck the story.

"Those are the things that I think are damaging to reputations, and I think you need to know more about them before you report them," Doria said. "As it stands right now, today, we don't think it meets our standard of reporting."

But did ESPN feel the same way when Mike Fish recently reported the dismissal of a civil lawsuit alleging that Roberto Alomar gave his girlfriend AIDS? Speaking of Fish, did ESPN consider whether it was "damaging . . . reputations" when Bristol went bonkos for the unsubstantiated (and ultimately retracted) allegation that the Patriots had cheated the Rams out of a Super Bowl win?

Here's the reality. Though his motivations are subject to debate and likely will never be known, Doria got it wrong this time.

And plenty of ESPN employees know it.

"People were going insane," an ESPN source told Gonzalez. "FOX News was doing the story. The AP had it. And they wouldn't even let us mention it. You can't ignore the story. It needs to be on SportsCenter. It makes us look bad. It's not a topic for discussion, but you have to acknowledge that it's being reported, that the story exists."

An ESPN source summed it up more succinctly for us: "This is embarrassing."

As another person with connections to Bristol explained it, once Commissioner Roger Goodell acknowledged that the league "will look into" the allegations, it became a story that ESPN had no choice to acknowledge.

But they didn't, and to our knowledge they still haven't.

Regardless of whether they ever do, has it ever been any more clear that we need a viable, national competitor for the self-described "Worldwide Leader"?

[membengal]

Oh, and good point from one of the comments to the second of those pieces. I had forgotten, but ESPN had no issues reporting the civil suit filed against Chad Johnson by the Comedy Club.

Again, all, the double standard, even for sports journalists, is breath-taking.

[BengalByTheBay]

I'm trying to remember when there was any kind of competitor to ESPN and the best I can do is Fox Sports News from like 10 years ago. Before they devolved into only running BDSS on a 24 hour loop, they used to have a sportscenter type show. When ESPN went to commercial, I would always click over to it. It was a distant second, but it was there. There's not really anything like that as far as I know for a long time. I wonder if somebody couldn't fill that niche?

[HairOnFire]

I find it interesting how ESPN claims it won't acknowledge the charges due to the harm they may cause Roethlisbergers reputation, while at the same time making repeated announcements about the Erin Andrews nude videotape scandal. Those announcements made in regards to Andrews may seem to be supportive, but have actually served to broaden and publicize a story that wasn't very well known, and have resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of websearches made by those looking for images of Andrews in the nude. In fact, some have accused ESPN of using the crime committed against Andrews as a way of promoting her career.

Frankly, the idea ESPN is refusing to cover a story about Roethlisberger due to lofty ideals doesn't really match their past reputation or their current one.

Well f**kin' said. In fact, it is rank hypocrisy from that network of the highest order.

And, again, if that were Carson Palmer, I am betting the same "courtesy" isn't extended.

Speaking only for myself, the relevant issue isn't whether Roethlisberger raped anyone or not. That issue may indeed be of far greater importance than debating the fairness of the press, but I'm in no position to judge the merits of the civil case as I have no evidence to read, no witnesses to interview, et cetera.

I'm simply in no position to judge Roetlisberger. But ESPN is another matter.

Thus, for me the more interesting debate relates to the way ESPN has chosen to bury this type of story even though their past history is filled with examples where the network quite happily trashed the reputations of others without any show of caution or restraint whatsoever.

For example, Bengal fans may recall ESPN once produced a full 30-minute "Outside the Lines" program featuring several women making claims, still unsubstantiated, that Frostee Rucker had sexually assualted them. ESPN ran that program in prime time, and in a steady rotation for several days after, despite already having at their disposal the results of multiple police investigations leading to a steadfast refusal to file criminal charges. In fact, after it became clear police would NEVER charge Rucker with rape ESPN repeatedly linked those rape accusations whenever they reported on a later unrelated incident involving Rucker and the destruction of his girlfriends cell phone.

But what the heck, nobody knew who Frostee Rucker was so I doubt anyone at ESPN gave a second thought to the damage the network might be doing to his reputation. And they didn't seem to care whether the charges leveled could be proven in court. Instead, ESPN reported the accusations as if there could be no doubt to their validity, and continued to mention the claims of rape when reporting on an unrelated manner.

Last point. The ESPN reporter featured in the "Outside the Lines" program later admitted how he hoped the program would put additional public pressure on the LAPD to file criminal charges against Rucker. Obviously that didn't happen, but for those looking for proof of ESPN's bias and hypocrisy when reporting legal issues, well....look no further.

[COB]

Central Ohio: The ONLY alleged news outfit not at least reporting the existence of the suit is ESPN. I find that indefensible.

I don't. I find indefensible the premise that, once a civil lawsuit has been filed, the allegations contained in said lawsuit are news worthy of being printed or broadcast, without regard to the existence or non-existence of underlying proof or evidence. The sub-premise (made-up word alert) to that premise is that the news organization can hide behind the "we're not commenting on the truth of the matter, just that it is being alleged".

I reject the idea that you should just report something because it is in a lawsuit. If I stand in my yard and yell that my neighbor is a complete f**khead, the paper won't report it, nor should they. If I file a lawsuit saying the same thing, according to the standard all these news outlets use, the paper will report it.

It's pack mentality journalism, it's lazy, it's tabloidish, and..., ah, f**k it, I surrender.

Complete Disclosure Notice: My neighbor is in fact a complete f**khead, because he parks his motorcycle trailer like about 2/3rds on my property, then every time I see him in his yard he dives into the house before I can say something to him. Also, his adult daughter visited this spring and I had to hit her dog with a shovel when it came in my yard and tried to bite me.

[Ickey44]

I'm not sure what Ben holds on ESPN,

Someone earlier said he's heavily involved in promoting one of their radio programs. Bottom line, it's their bottom line. I still say ESPN made the right call. An objective look at this "case", reveals that it is rife with problems. I agree it is not consistent with what ESPN usually does, and I agree if the case were twice as bogus, but involved a Bengal, they'd be all over it. But I'm not saying it's the consistent choice, I'm just saying it is the right choice. Pointless and moot (I read about the suit in this morning's Columbus paper), but the right choice nonetheless.

Maybe it is the right choice, but they pick and choose who they apply the right choice to. So far, we've found out that if it will hurt the reputation of Brett Favre or Ben Roethlisberger ESPN will not report it. If it's anyone else, they will.

[membengal]

Central Ohio: The ONLY alleged news outfit not at least reporting the existence of the suit is ESPN. I find that indefensible.

I don't. I find indefensible the premise that, once a civil lawsuit has been filed, the allegations contained in said lawsuit are news worthy of being printed or broadcast, without regard to the existence or non-existence of underlying proof or evidence. The sub-premise (made-up word alert) to that premise is that the news organization can hide behind the "we're not commenting on the truth of the matter, just that it is being alleged".

I reject the idea that you should just report something because it is in a lawsuit. If I stand in my yard and yell that my neighbor is a complete f**khead, the paper won't report it, nor should they. If I file a lawsuit saying the same thing, according to the standard all these news outlets use, the paper will report it.

It's pack mentality journalism, it's lazy, it's tabloidish, and..., ah, f**k it, I surrender.

Complete Disclosure Notice: My neighbor is in fact a complete f**khead, because he parks his motorcycle trailer like about 2/3rds on my property, then every time I see him in his yard he dives into the house before I can say something to him. Also, his adult daughter visited this spring and I had to hit her dog with a shovel when it came in my yard and tried to bite me.

Central: It is the carpricious picking and choosing of when they have standards that is it the issue. Why NOW? If this were their across the board standard, fine. But it sure as f**k isn't. I don't know why you are not bothered by that. I guess I am old enough to remember when journalists, be they sports or otherwise, had standards. As did the networks that hired them.

As Hair so rightly points out, that sure as f**k wasn't the case with Frostee Rucker. And well, there was never a civil suit filed in his case either. And ESPN had no f**kin' problems "ruining reputations" then.

Hair: Right there with you on what the issue here is at current. Who knows what happened, if anything. That really shouldn't be the focus right now.

The focus should be on ESPN and their rank hypocrisy. The Rucker example is a damn good one, and I had completely forgotten about that OTL broadcast. Absolutely makes my blood boil.

[Ickey44]

Here's an update on this whole mess. Ben denies that he sexually assaulted her, but doesn't deny having sex with her.....hmmmmmm.