Innocent, But Not Free

I'm a Steelers fan. The thought of Dennis Dixon or, even worse (cue spine shivering), Charlie Batch starting the first few weeks of the season is enough to take 5 years off my life. After an incredibly disappointing 2009, nothing could be worse for Pittsburgh than starting the 2010 campaign without their franchise quarterback in Ben Roethlisberger. But after seeing how Ocmulgee Circuit District Attorney Fred Bright described the sexual assault case surrounding Roethlisberger, it should not matter to commissioner Roger Goodell that no charges will be filed. He has to suspend Roethlisberger, even if it is for one game.

I don't really care that no charges were filed in this case. Here is ESPN.com's summary of the report filed:

Roethlisberger, who was out drinking with friends to celebrate his 28th birthday, bumped into the student and her sorority sisters throughout the night. They linked up at Capital City, where he invited them to a VIP section and bought them a round of shots. As the night wore on, the student walked down a dingy hallway to a small bathroom, and Roethlisberger soon followed. What happened next remained unclear even after a monthlong investigation.

There was not enough evidence to go anywhere with the claims, but it is obvious something happened in that bathroom. Just because there was nothing to accurately prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean Big Ben is exonerated. Far from it. In listening to Monday's press conference, I could not help but notice how the DA kept calling the 20-year-old girl "the victim". A victim is defined as "one who is harmed or killed by another." There were no other suspects in the case. There never were and never will be any others. That means the "victim", who ended up with a cut and some bruises, could have been harmed by one person and one person only: Roethlisberger. What happened in that bathroom on March 5th will probably never be known. But while his innocence might have been proven by the justice system, to the public it is still very much up in the air.

The most powerful quote I heard in the 10-minutes I was able to see before baseball practice was when Bright said, "We do not prosecute morals. We prosecute crime." The police may not have been able to prosecute the crime, but Roger Goodell can surely prosecute the morals. The NFL Player Conduct Policy Goodell put into place in 2007 states:

It is not enough to simply avoid being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values upon which the league is based, and is lawful. Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.

There was no conviction, not even a trial, but I have a gut feeling the NFL was does not promote, nor was it based upon, accusations of rape and, at the very least, drunken sex (Of note, however, are the efforts of the Cowboys, who tried really hard in the '90s to change that). But if I'm wrong on that one, let me know. Goodell has to take action. He has no choice. The entire league is watching and expecting him to. On Tuesday's Mike and Mike in the Morning Chris Mortenson said Goodell was upset at the idea he punishes his black players worse than his white players. Yeah, in a league where at least 75% of players are African-American, it may seem that way, because there are more black players arrested than whites. Don't get me wrong: if the league were 75% white, there would undoubtedly be more white players arrested. In 2006 alone, 37 different NFL players were arrested. 33 of those 37 were African-American. While it may appear Goodell is racially biased, the fact is in a league dominated by blacks, more blacks will get arrested. But none of those statistics matter. Perception is everything, and the perception right now is that he coddles white players. Now is his chance to set a standard for all his players, no matter what color skin they have. Roethlisberger made the league look bad. He deserves to be punished. If he is not suspended, that "perception" may very well become reality.

So how long should Roethlisberger be suspended for? That is an interesting question. Anything more than 4 games is a tad much. Tank Johnson was given an 8-game suspension in 2007 for violating his probation when 6 unregistered handguns were found in his apartment, then getting in a fight outside a Chicago nightclub that left his bodyguard dead, then serving a 2-month prison sentence. 8-games for Ben would be too extreme. I think this should be handled the way Brandon Marshall was in 2008. Marshall received a 3-game suspension for domestic violence and DUI arrests. The suspension was later reduced to 1 game and a fine of 2 game-checks because he stayed out of trouble. The fact that Roethlisberger gave the league awful PR, yet no charges were made, both have to go into consideration. 2-3 games seems fair enough.

This should be a signal to all NFL players that even if no charges are filed, it does not mean you are free from the wrath of the commish. Professional athletes are role models, and everything they do is seen and scrutinized. Being held to a higher standard is a part of the responsibility that comes with the job. For Ben Roethlisberger, standing on the sidelines for the first few weeks of the season should remind him of that. And as a die-hard Pittsburgh fan, I have only one thing to say....

Thank God the Steelers don't have any cheerleaders.