PFT: Roethlisberger denies civil allegations of sexual assault

[Big Dakota]

I saw her photo. It can't be true.

Hey, You're here

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Posted on Wed, Jul. 22, 2009


Gonzo: Roethlisberger's pass

By John Gonzalez
Inquirer Columnist

No matter how many times they're explained, some things just don't make sense: Advanced calculus. Cold Fusion. Turtle (Jerry Ferrara) dating Meadow Soprano (Jamie-Lynn Sigler).

The way ESPN has failed to cover the controversy surrounding Ben Roethlisberger is the same sort of impossible-to-understand noggin-scratcher. On Monday, news broke of a civil lawsuit filed in Nevada on July 17 by a woman alleging she was sexually assaulted by the Steelers quarterback. Since then, the story has been covered by the Associated Press, CBSSports.com, Yahoo, Pro Football Talk (now owned by NBC), Fox News, and other national media outlets.

Here's a recap of the big stories SportsCenter had on loop yesterday morning and afternoon: Brett Favre - still unemployed. Roy Halladay - still a Blue Jay. The Phillies - boy, are they good. And, everyone's favorite, "the latest on [Michael] Vick." If you're wondering, the latest on Vick is the same as the not-so-latest on Vick - he's out of prison and looking for a gig. Tell your friends.

All that, but no mention of Roethlisberger. Why?

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

That's true. Roethlisberger hasn't addressed it publicly. And it doesn't look like he's going to any time soon. The Steelers canceled a news conference scheduled for tomorrow that was designed to promote Roethlisberger's involvement with Shaquille O'Neal's new reality show.

But since when has an athlete's silence or lack of cooperation prevented ESPN from covering a story? And Roethlisberger may not have addressed the civil suit, but his lawyer denied the claim on Roethlisberger's behalf and told the AP the quarterback will be "fully exonerated." Sure sounds like he's aware of what's happening.

The sticking point for ESPN seems to be that the woman in question filed a civil suit instead of criminal charges. But a quick review of ESPN's reporting history shows the company has covered several civil suits recently, including those filed against former Cowboy Adam "Pacman" Jones, former baseball star Roberto Alomar, and Lakers point guard Shannon Brown.

Vince Doria, ESPN's vice president and director of news, told me the decision to report on or ignore civil suits changes from case to case.

"Each situation is different," Doria said, adding that ESPN will continue to look at the Roethlisberger situation on a daily basis. "I can give you all sorts of examples of civil suits we have and haven't covered."

Doria said the company spends a lot of time thinking about these things in an attempt to be fair to the athletes in question. Maybe ESPN is overthinking it here. Because it feels like the logic is flawed.

Yesterday, Pro Football Talk reported that ESPN issued a "do not report" memo to all of its outlets and reporters" essentially commanding them to avoid the Roethlisberger story. An ESPN spokesman said that's because the WWL wants all of its entities to handle stories the same way. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense, at all, is that on the same day ESPN issued the "do not report" memo, the company cleared its radio station in Pittsburgh - which, unlike the affiliate here in Philadelphia, is owned and operated by the corporate big boys in Bristol - to discuss the Roethlisberger controversy.

Now how does that track?

If you think the company's decision-making process is capricious and strange, you're not alone. The people responsible for putting content on ESPN and ESPN radio weren't exactly thrilled yesterday.

"People were going insane," an ESPN source told me. "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."

The story does exist. We all know it. Roethlisberger and his lawyers and the Steelers know it, too. But ESPN - the biggest, most influential sports media outlet on the planet - is pretending otherwise.

Despite ESPN's explanation, I keep coming back to the same brain-frying question: why?

 

[JPM]

Vince Doria, ESPN's vice president and director of news, told me the decision to report on or ignore civil suits changes from case to case.

"Each situation is different," Doria said

That's great !

 

[zrinkill]

Roger Goodell 'will look into' rape accusation against Ben Roethlisberger

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell acknowledged that the league will delve into the suit that alleges Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger raped a woman in 2008.

"I don't know enough of the details, but it's a civil lawsuit, it's something that we obviously will look into," Goodell told reporters, via NFL.com.


"I've been in touch with the Steelers about it."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/thehuddle...pe-accusation-against-ben-roethlisberger.html




Andrea McNulty, a former employee at a Lake Tahoe casino, has accused Roethlisberger of rape in a civil suit. There is no criminal complaint

 

[Alexander]

Despite ESPN's explanation, I keep coming back to the same brain-frying question: why?

It is very simple. Because ESPN has journalistic integrity.

 

[bayeslife]

 

[cobra]

I've only just read the inital article, so maybe there is something more later in the thread.

But I thought I would comment on one fact:

Early in my career when I was the lowest man on the totem pole in my firm, I had the displeasure of being forced to defend a physician in a sexual assault civil case seeking damages alleging that a sexual assault occurred during a procedure involving anethesia.

I can tell you firsthand experience defending such a case that without a doubt that the absence of a criminal complaint makes the plaintiff's case ostensibly un-winnable. Juries do not buy it.

 

[Doomsday101]

If this had been any Cowboy, it would have been the first story on Sportscenter. Remember how the media reported on Michael Irvin and Eric Williams. They already had them convicted.

True however both had already been in trouble before those allegations.

 

[alancdc]

Why wuold he? He's not a Cowboy so not high profile enough to dent te NFZLs image. Outside of Pitt, nobody really cares about Roethlisbeger.

ESPN refusing to even report on this story is a joke. If this was Dallas they would have chartered Berman's private jet to take Werter to wherever Romo was at that time. Talk about a double standard.

 

[alancdc]

That's great !

Yes, Cowboy involved-Report Steeler involved NO REPORT

 

[Doomsday101]

ESPN refusing to even report on this story is a joke. If this was Dallas they would have chartered Berman's private jet to take Werter to wherever Romo was at that time. Talk about a double standard.

That is why Calvin Hill tells Cowboy players, when you enter the NFL you are in the spotlight and when you come to Dallas the light is even brighter. We are for good and bad a high profile team

 

[theogt]

I've only just read the inital article, so maybe there is something more later in the thread.

But I thought I would comment on one fact:

Early in my career when I was the lowest man on the totem pole in my firm, I had the displeasure of being forced to defend a physician in a sexual assault civil case seeking damages alleging that a sexual assault occurred during a procedure involving anethesia.

I can tell you firsthand experience defending such a case that without a doubt that the absence of a criminal complaint makes the plaintiff's case ostensibly un-winnable. Juries do not buy it.

I'm not a litigator, but I'm not sure the ultimate goal of the plaintiffs here is to take the case all the way to a jury verdict.

 

[bbgun]

That is why Calvin Hill tells Cowboy players, when you enter the NFL you are in the spotlight and when you come to Dallas the light is even brighter.

Have he and Tony met? The lights are brightest in Hollywood.

 

[Doomsday101]

Have he and Tony met? The lights are brightest in Hollywood.

When you are a Cowboy the lights are bright where ever you go. Tony having a life I can deal with at least he is not getting busted or dealing with other criminal mischief. Hell if the only thing I have to complain about with Romo is he plays golf and was dating a famous person I have no real problem.

 

[theogt]

That is why Calvin Hill tells Cowboy players, when you enter the NFL you are in the spotlight and when you come to Dallas the light is even brighter. We are for good and bad a high profile team

This isn't about being high profile or not. Ben Roethlisberger is high profile. The guy was in a motorcycle accident once and it was news for months. This is about something entirely different.

 

[Doomsday101]

This isn't about being high profile or not. Ben Roethlisberger is high profile. The guy was in a motorcycle accident once and it was news for months. This is about something entirely different.

You want fair? You got a hell of a long wait in front you. Who said the media was ever fair. Bottom line when you are a member of the Cowboys you will get more attention both positive and negitive it is the way it is.

 

[cobra]

I'm not a litigator, but I'm not sure the ultimate goal of the plaintiffs here is to take the case all the way to a jury verdict.

Of course not. It's to squeeze a settlement. Of course, from a defense standpoint, your decision as to whether to settle a case is largely informed by the likelihood of success at trial.

If you know from the outset that there is less than 5% chance of getting popped, then you know the case is just a nuisance lawsuit. And you will not offer any substantial money. Ordinarily, you may be inclined to offer nuisance value on a case (say, less than $20k) because you are going to incur much more for the cost of defense getting out of the case.

However, in a case of claims of sexual assault, for obvious people are not inclined to settle such cases for fear of giving the impression the claims have merit, and I expect that is especially true when you are a celebrity and your reputation is marketable. In such a case, it would be worth incurring the cost of defense to vindicate your reputation.

So this is a loser for the Plaintiffs at trial and as far as squeezing out a settlement.

 

[alancdc]

You want fair? You got a hell of a long wait in front you. Who said the media was ever fair. Bottom line when you are a member of the Cowboys you will get more attention both positive and negitive it is the way it is.

Sad but true

 

[Doomsday101]

Sad but true

It is not as if no one is reporting about these allegations of Rothlisberger. I have seen a report on FOX, CNN as well as ESPN and the NFL network. It may not be the lead story but it is not as if they are shying away from reporting it.

 

[theogt]

Of course not. It's to squeeze a settlement. Of course, from a defense standpoint, your decision as to whether to settle a case is largely informed by the likelihood of success at trial.

If you know from the outset that there is less than 5% chance of getting popped, then you know the case is just a nuisance lawsuit. And you will not offer any substantial money. Ordinarily, you may be inclined to offer nuisance value on a case (say, less than $20k) because you are going to incur much more for the cost of defense getting out of the case.

However, in a case of claims of sexual assault, for obvious people are not inclined to settle such cases for fear of giving the impression the claims have merit, and I expect that is especially true when you are a celebrity and your reputation is marketable. In such a case, it would be worth incurring the cost of defense to vindicate your reputation.

So this is a loser for the Plaintiffs at trial and as far as squeezing out a settlement.

I agree. But for someone like Roethlisberger, a celebrity, you have the added variable of publicity.

That is, of course, unless you have major news outlets not reporting it.