Roethlisberger accused of sexual assault

[Sascha]

RENO, Nev. (AP)—Pittsburgh Steelers (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/pit/;_ylt=AtNyVGG9Kry6ncNEezXP6ysdsLYF) quarterback Ben Roethlisberger (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6770/;_ylt=Akp6hPUhQENWhbYtQtmpQdUdsLYF)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6770/news;_ylt=Agpj.9jzx0ku6niLHTxglygdsLYF) has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a woman in Nevada.
According to online court records, a defamation lawsuit was filed in Washoe County on Friday. Andrea McNulty is listed as the plaintiff.
Details of the suit were not available late Monday night. Roethlisberger was one of nine defendants listed in the online court docket report.
Roethlisberger’s attorney released a statement to several media outlets Monday night saying the two-time Super Bowl winner was accused of sexual assault in the lawsuit by McNulty. Atlanta-based attorney David Cornwell denied Roethlisberger sexually assaulted McNulty.


Roethlisberger listed as defendant in Nev. lawsuit - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AgrXcCbUhokHQmjNHTIwlQc5nYcB?slug=ap-roethlisberger-lawsuit&prov=ap&type=lgns)


I am almost certain he will be found not guilty, but it could be just another case of never knowing who to idolize.

[Wolverine]

One of nine?

Um... Okay that's rather odd, to me at least. Was she commonly assaulted or something?

[myshkingfh]

If he sexually assaulted her, why is he accused of defamation? He said something unrue publicly that tended to negatively affect her reputation?

[Whit Prowdy]

Um... Okay that's rather odd, to me at least. Was she commonly assaulted or something?

That's disgusting. :D

[Tronix]

somethings fishey, I'll wait for the evidence to come out before, I condemn or defend him...but so far things don't add up.

[Whit Prowdy]

somethings fishey, I'll wait for the evidence to come out before, I condemn or defend him...but so far things don't add up.

Sounds like a lot of gold-digging to me. Betcha anything the woman winds up dropping every charge she's bringing against Roethlisberger.

[Cincy14]

This sounds out of character but you have to wait and see what the evidence is. It has a chance of being a major distraction for Ben and the team.

[Texecutioner]

This seems to have BS written all over it if you ask me.

[Sascha]

One of nine?

Um... Okay that's rather odd, to me at least. Was she commonly assaulted or something?


Apparently the other 8 are hotel employees that all covered up the incident because all 8 favor a random NFL athlete over one of their employees.


I'm with Tex, I call, BS.


But, I will also wait and see.


BTW, it is almost impossible to find this news on ESPN, yet Vick's release is plastered all over the place. Why is that?

[Cincy14]

BTW, it is almost impossible to find this news on ESPN, yet Vick's release is plastered all over the place. Why is that?

It does seem BS to me too.

This story will get bigger unless there is some sort of financial settlement to just make it go away. I suspect that Ben will fight this to retain his public image.

[FSUViking]

Funny thing is, ESPN's NON-coverage of this story is almost becoming as big as the story itself.

[Texecutioner]

It does seem BS to me too.

This story will get bigger unless there is some sort of financial settlement to just make it go away. I suspect that Ben will fight this to retain his public image.

That is good though. I'm sick and tired of ESPN putting out non stop coverage on guys that get arrested or have some sort of accusation about them. It's awful hearing their non stop coverage on stuff like that. I highly doubt that most of you get so intrigued with an athletes legal stuff that you watch ESPN non stop to hear about it. Most people I know watch ESPN for coverage on sports and the teams and the chemistry or analysis. Not the TMZ scandals and the channel E gossip that just happens to be about sports players.

[FSUViking]

Looks like the **** is absolutely hitting the fan in Bristol over this story.


ESPN non-report of Roethlisberger story "embarrassing"
Posted by Mike Florio on July 22, 2009 12:10 PM ET

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.




ESPN non-report of Roethlisberger story "embarrassing" | ProFootballTalk.com (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/22/espn-non-report-of-roethlisberger-story-embarrassing/)

[TexecutedInTampa]

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"?

Oh yes we do. A neutral one would be nice. Is Switzerland interested?

[FSUViking]

Big Ben is no longer even the story....:lol2:

Roethlisberger's pass | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/22/2009 (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/20090722_Gonzo___Roethlisberger_s_pass.html)

ESPN Still Ignoring Big Ben Story | NBC Washington (http://www.nbcwashington.com/sports/football/ESPN-Still-Ignoring-Big-Ben-Story.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/sports/football/23espn.html?_r=1

[BigBenCan7]

I really wish ESPN would have just mentioned this once, and the world could have moved on.

It was hardly even a story at this point in time.

[Wolverine]

Apparently there is a no-no on stories involving civil cases. That is why they've not mentioned it.

[Sascha]

Apparently there is a no-no on stories involving civil cases. That is why they've not mentioned it.


Ahhh, but then, explain this .....



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.


Straight out of the Philly Enquirer article FSUV posted earlier.

[Hawkeye]

Apparently there is a no-no on stories involving civil cases. That is why they've not mentioned it.

If that is a no-no, it is an internal rule because they were beaten to the punch by other media outlets on the story. If it is an internal rule, it is a dumb one, as news is news.....if it's a factual story, you cover it or get scooped.

[Texecutioner]

Ahhh, but then, explain this .....



Straight out of the Philly Enquirer article FSUV posted earlier.

That's because Pac man Jones had already left several trails of destruction all over the place several times before any of that had ever happened. Anything or any accusation with him is right off the top a lot more relevant with his history. And as far as Alomar, I never even heard about that one and I watch ESPN every day, so that isn't even a good example.

But trying to use Pac Man here as an example or comparison is a flat out joke fromwhomever tried to make that comparison. :rolleyes:

[GlasstheGrey]

I honestly Don't fault ESPN for not covering this. I'm pretty sure ESPN doesn't feel like covering every case where some woman decides to gold dig because she was in the same room with a star athlete.

It's a civil lawsuit a year after the fact that should get thrown right out of court because it's a matter of hersay, and the fact remains this should have been a criminal investigation THE DAY AFTER IT HAPPENED. if the woman didn't think her employers were looking out for her (and by extensions their own) best interests then she should goto the cops and if she gets fired for it then sue the hotel for wrongful termination, and whatever other charge she can hold them liable for because the assault appearently happened AT the hotel.

this thing smacks of the Duke LaCrosse case a few years back.

[Hawkeye]

That's because Pac man Jones had already left several trails of destruction all over the place several times before any of that had ever happened. Anything or any accusation with him is right off the top a lot more relevant with his history. And as far as Alomar, I never even heard about that one and I watch ESPN every day, so that isn't even a good example.

But trying to use Pac Man here as an example or comparison is a flat out joke fromwhomever tried to make that comparison. :rolleyes:

You're wrong here. If they have a rule that they don't report on civil suits, they need to follow it all the time or do away with the rule. You can't selectively report news.

[Texecutioner]

You're wrong here. If they have a rule that they don't report on civil suits, they need to follow it all the time or do away with the rule. You can't selectively report news.

All news stations selectively report news. Are you kidding me? Did you not follow the the election we just had in this country? Sorry, but you're assuming that news stations and networks actually carry ethics these days and follow some sort of guidelines.

[Hawkeye]

All news stations selectively report news. Are you kidding me? Did you not follow the the election we just had in this country? Sorry, but you're assuming that news stations and networks actually carry ethics these days and follow some sort of guidelines.

No, no, no.......you're missing my point. Yes, MOST outlets selectively report news because they don't have rules like this. If ESPN has a rule like this in place (and that is the impression I am getting), they can't follow the rule some times and disobey it at others. You might as well not have the rule if you are going to do that.

[Texecutioner]

No, no, no.......you're missing my point. Yes, MOST outlets selectively report news because they don't have rules like this. If ESPN has a rule like this in place (and that is the impression I am getting), they can't follow the rule some times and disobey it at others. You might as well not have the rule if you are going to do that.

Goes back to what I was just saying, and ESPN completely fits into that category. ESPN doesn't follow any real rules or guidelines, nor is it the network that it once was. It's really a trash sports network if you ask me. They pick and choose different sports figures to put on a pedestool and different ones to bash and ridicule for different reasons even though the many of the same athletes can be guilty of many of the same acts. ESPN has gone way down hill for quite some time now, and is a lot more interested in promoting smuck then they are giving sports fans like us a ton of coverage of all teams in all sports.

I mean hell, do you honestly think that they hire Skip Bayless because they think he's this great knowledgeable sports analyst? They have that guy around to push the bucket and to get people riled up and to say things that are ridiculous and to be an antagonist. The same reason why they hired Dennis Miller and Rush for a brief moment.

Now I hear what you're saying and your point is valid, but we're talking about a network that doesn't really have what I would call "ethics."

[Hawkeye]

I know what you're saying and that is exactly why I haven't watched ESPN for about 10 years now. The thing is that they hold themselves up as the end-all-be-all of sports news and then they don't even report the story. Guess they must not care too much about their ratings.

You have to understand that people like Bayless and Rome HAVE to exist in sports and be employed by somebody. If you have guys just sitting back saying "this team is ok" and "that team is pretty good," it gets boring fast. Those guys have to be over the top or in your face or no one will watch.

[Texecutioner]

I know what you're saying and that is exactly why I haven't watched ESPN for about 10 years now. The thing is that they hold themselves up as the end-all-be-all of sports news and then they don't even report the story. Guess they must not care too much about their ratings.

Well I'd switch from ESPN in a NY second if I could, but the truth is I can't and i know it until some other big network comes in and challenges them. THe fact is that ESPN is the only network that covers sports 24 hours of the day and gets the quickest updates on everything for the most part. They have like 4 or 5 ESPN channels as well, and with their being no other real big time network like theirs to compete they can do pretty much whatever they want unfortunately.


You have to understand that people like Bayless and Rome HAVE to exist in sports and be employed by somebody. If you have guys just sitting back saying "this team is ok" and "that team is pretty good," it gets boring fast. Those guys have to be over the top or in your face or no one will watch.

See I disagree big time here. They don't "need" guys like that I myself and thousands of others that constantly complain about both are proof of that. When do you ever hear someone say "Man, that Skip Bayless guy is great! I love listening to him every day and hearing his views." It's the constant opposite, and everyone I've ever heard only complains about the guy. Now Rome has his following (the clones) and probably always will as I used to be one of them, but he's lost a ton of luster as well. His act has gone really tired and old now. But I don't think guys like that have to exist at all. I think most people just want to hear good objective sports reporting and analysts giving their real opinions with a lot of facts and knowledge to go with it, over the over the top crap that Bayless and guys like Marriotti spew out of their mouths for "shock value." I'd rather hear or listen to guys that take these subjects seriously and give accurate takes and create good discussions and I think the majority does as well. It's just that ESPN is all that we pretty much have, so we still have to follow a lot of what they put on our tv's because we're avid sports fans.

[GlasstheGrey]

Goes back to what I was just saying, and ESPN completely fits into that category. ESPN doesn't follow any real rules or guidelines, nor is it the network that it once was. It's really a trash sports network if you ask me. They pick and choose different sports figures to put on a pedestool and different ones to bash and ridicule for different reasons even though the many of the same athletes can be guilty of many of the same acts. ESPN has gone way down hill for quite some time now, and is a lot more interested in promoting smuck then they are giving sports fans like us a ton of coverage of all teams in all sports.

I mean hell, do you honestly think that they hire Skip Bayless because they think he's this great knowledgeable sports analyst? They have that guy around to push the bucket and to get people riled up and to say things that are ridiculous and to be an antagonist. The same reason why they hired Dennis Miller and Rush for a brief moment.

Now I hear what you're saying and your point is valid, but we're talking about a network that doesn't really have what I would call "ethics."

But I can't fault Hawkeye for wanting his news readers to have some consistency in their unethical behavior.

[Texecutioner]

But I can't fault Hawkeye for wanting his news readers to have some consistency in their unethical behavior.

I can't either, but again this is ESPN we're talking about.

[Wolverine]

I don't know if this "Don't talk about civil cases" rule is recent or not.

[Sascha]

I don't know if this "Don't talk about civil cases" rule is recent or not.


Pretty sure it is. It was probably implemented sometime Monday evening. ;)

[l.a. no-teamers]

None of us know for sure if Roethlisberger raped the woman, but IF he actually did, then she really messed up by not reporting it to the police right away. That fact alone puts a huge cloud over her allegations.

[Whit Prowdy]

Said pretty convincingly earlier today or yesterday that he didn't do anything wrong or inappropriate. Look, do any of us really expect this sort of behavior from Roethlisberger??

[TexecutedInTampa]

None of us know for sure if Roethlisberger raped the woman, but IF he actually did, then she really messed up by not reporting it to the police right away. That fact alone puts a huge cloud over her allegations.

She should have, but that she didn't is not a defense.

[BigBenCan7]

She should have, but that she didn't is not a defense.

Really? You don't think the fact that she reported the assault nearly a year after it supposedly occurred hurts her case at all?

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer.

[Pudge king]

This is more than likely untrue. Why would she wait a full year before coming to the police?
If you have been assaulted you go to the police not to some punk security guards. This chick is trying to get another Vick story. Did she like seeing all those people so sad at Vick? Does she hate Ben. This is not another Vick story. This is light years away from that. My verdict... I find the defendant innocent.

[TexecutedInTampa]

Really? You don't think the fact that she reported the assault nearly a year after it supposedly occurred hurts her case at all?

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer.

It's a civil case.

Remember OJ walking in his criminal case? I'm sure you do.

His estate was sacked in the civil outcome, yet he was found Not Guilty in the criminal trial.

So - no criminal charges (BR) vs a criminal NG (OJS).

Seems to me OJ had a better case in civil court.....

I have no idea what happened. All I said was "Lack of charges is not a defense".

Don't have to be a lawyer to figure that out.

Sigh.

[BigBenCan7]

It's a civil case.

Remember OJ walking in his criminal case? I'm sure you do.

His estate was sacked in the civil outcome, yet he was found Not Guilty in the criminal trial.

So - no criminal charges (BR) vs a criminal NG (OJS).

Seems to me OJ had a better case in civil court.....

I have no idea what happened. All I said was "Lack of charges is not a defense".

Don't have to be a lawyer to figure that out.

Sigh.

Not one line of your response has anything to do with what you said.

You said the fact that she waited a year to file her charges is not a defense against her, but it most certainly is. Sorry, but waiting almost a year to file charges against a famous football player definitely makes her cases suspicious.

But you're right, you don't have to be a lawyer to figure that out.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Its definately a case against her. She is going to lose all credibility because of it and these types of cases due to a lack of overwhelming evidence, always center heavily around credibility. Bens attorneys are going to dig into this year long delay and find out exactly why she waited (or more likely what prompted her to make up a story) and they'll shatter her credibility. Once thats gone the case is over.

Only way she wins this thing is if she's got some incredible evidence, which is highly doubtful a year later.

[TexecutedInTampa]

Not one line of your response has anything to do with what you said.

You said the fact that she waited a year to file her charges is not a defense against her, but it most certainly is. Sorry, but waiting almost a year to file charges against a famous football player definitely makes her cases suspicious.

But you're right, you don't have to be a lawyer to figure that out.

No...I said it's not a defense for HIM.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

No...I said it's not a defense for HIM.

Sure it is, with a lack of hard evidence to support her claim he's not going to need much more than that to get this thing dismissed.

If he did it and she can prove it, then its no defense. What is the likelihood of that though a year later after never filing criminal charges and no investigation ever being conducted? Its her word against his at this point and her credibility is going to be killed by this year long delay.

[TexecutedInTampa]

Sure it is, with a lack of hard evidence to support her claim he's not going to need much more than that to get this thing dismissed.

If he did it and she can prove it, then its no defense. What is the likelihood of that though a year later after never filing criminal charges and no investigation ever being conducted? Its her word against his at this point and her credibility is going to be killed by this year long delay.

I'm assuming she has a lawyer. If there's evidence? BB will lose.

If not? Yeah, she's a psycho.

I only paid attention to this because BB has a history of Not Smart Decisions.

[BigBenCan7]

I'm assuming she has a lawyer. If there's evidence? BB will lose.

If not? Yeah, she's a psycho.

I only paid attention to this because BB has a history of Not Smart Decisions.

:lol2:

So much for your credibility.