Why Lawrence Taylor isn't Ben Roethlisberger

Two prominent cases involving NFL players have hit the headlines recently. First, current Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault [Will Brinson, NFL FanHouse] for actions in the bathroom of a Georgia nightclub with a drunk 20-year-old college student. This, of course, was the second time in less than two years Roethlisberger faced similar accusations [USA Today]. . Second, former New York Giants star Lawrence Taylor was accused of third-degree rape this week regarding an incident in a small-town New York hotel room [CBS]. Both incidents present serious image problems for the NFL [Scott Stinson, National Post], especially when seen in the light of all the other off-field criminal incidents involving NFL players.

However, there are significant differences between what happened in each case, and those are worth looking into. Despite compelling evidence that Roethlisberger may have forced himself on his accuser, he is currently facing no charges under the law. Meanwhile, Taylor is looking at up to four years in jail despite not being accused (at least so far) of forcing himself on the victim; he is accused of third-degree rape, which "is defined as sexual intercourse in which the victim is incapable of consent because the victim is under the age of 17 and the perpetrator is over the age of 21" [Dan Graziano, NFL FanHouse]. This gets into the murky area of statutory rape, which often involves sex that would normally be considered consensual if not for the ages of those involved [Jackie Burrell, About.com]. To me, Roethlisberger's conduct appears much more objectionable, but he's facing much less severe penalties.

No charges were eventually brought against Roethlisberger [ESPN], perhaps partly thanks to poor investigative work by the police [Raina Kelley, Newsweek], many of whom seemed more interested in posing for pictures [Colin Dunlap, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette] with Roethlisberger and calling the victim a liar and a "drunken bitch" [Barry Petchesky, Deadspin] than finding out what actually happened.

There also was a lack of conclusive evidence, and Georgia law requires a very high threshold of proof in these cases, demanding proof of "forcible penetration...against the will of the accuser" [Lester Munson, ESPN]. Finally, there was the accuser's own wish for the case not to go any further given the media storm. Add it all up and you can understand why the case didn't go ahead. However, that still leaves a truly disturbing [Kate Brumback, AP via The Star] police report and Roethlisberger's prior history [Jack McCallum, Sports Illustrated] of behaving badly [Mike Ganter, Toronto Sun]. Then again, being a good, well-rounded person has never particularly mattered in the NFL [Andy Hutchins, The Sporting Blog].

It shows you the severity of this case that despite the charges being dropped, Roethlisberger has been handed a six-game suspension [MJD, Shutdown Corner] by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. It's quite possible that Roethlisberger's history of head injuries played a role [David Epstein, SI] in the awful decisions he has made, but that doesn't excuse some truly awful behaviour. Roethlisberger may have gotten off in the eyes of the criminal justice system, but it's still going [Lya Wodraska, The Salt Lake Tribune] to be tough[Kevin Cowherd, The Baltimore Sun] for him to win back the Pittsburgh fans [Michael Bean, Behind The Steel Curtain]. Still, that's probably easier to deal with than the prospect of jail time.

Taylor may not get off so easily. He's already admitted to having some contact with the victim [Robert Littal, Black Sports Online], and that alone could be enough to put him behind bars. As Mike Florio writes, "Every state has selected an age below which no person — male or female — legally may consent to sexual relations with someone over a certain age. If sex happens, even if there is consent or (as in the case of Mary Kay LeTourneau) love or (as in this case) cash payment, a violation of the law has occurred. And it doesn't matter if the defendant didn't know the person's true age." Furthermore, under New York law, sex with someone under the statewide age of consent is considered third-degree rape [AP, via SI], regardless of if the victim was forced into sex, and it can be punished by up to four years in prison.. That's why we've seen plenty of headlines saying Taylor has been accused of rape despite no allegations so far that he forced the girl to have sex. Like Roethlisberger, Taylor also has a history of bad behaviour off the field [Peter King, Sports Illustrated]. Add all that up, and it doesn't bode well for Taylor.

I don't think the targeting of Taylor is right, though. To be absolutely clear, rape is abhorrent. Forcing someone into sex is abhorrent, whether it's done by means of physical force, drugs, alcohol or abuse of power. Taking advantage of anyone is abhorrent. Consensual sex, however, is far from abhorrent. The key here is to figure out which category Taylor's charges fall into.

First, let's take a look at the definition of rape. The word comes from the Latin verb rapere [Webster's], which means grab, snatch or carry off [Wiktionary]. It made the transition to "rape" in 14th-century English, at which time it was understood to mean "to seize and take away by force" (interestingly, "rapture" also comes from "rapere"). Neither the Latin nor the original English specified sexual activity; in fact, many early uses of the word were more about plundering raids in general [Random House] than anything particularly sexual. Over time, the sexual connotations of the word became more explicit, but the idea of force was still generally involved.

Force was removed from the equation with the advent of "statutory rape" [Webster's] in the late 19th century. This basically held that sex with someone under a legal "age of consent" was tantamount to rape, as they could not legally consent to it. The age of consent has long been a tricky subject, as just about every jurisdiction has its own ideas on how old is old enough to consent. Because the debate is more about what forms of sexual activity society finds acceptable than real research about the development of the human brain, this leads to some odd anomalies, such as higher ages of consent for gay relationships than straight ones [Wikipedia].

This can lead to numerous problems. For one thing, it can mean that sexual activity many people would consider consensual (i.e. two 16-year-olds) can wind up being labeled as rape. Many jurisdictions have so-called "Romeo and Juliet laws" [Wikipedia] to deal with this, which provide certain exemptions for people within similar ages, but it again becomes about drawing firm lines between what is and isn't acceptable and the application of the laws again differs from area to area.

For example, consider the case of Genarlow Wilson, a 17-year-old from Georgia. He was sent to prison for 10 years (although he only served two) for receiving consensual oral sex from a 15-year-old; he would have been protected by the state's Romeo and Juliet law, but it was found not to apply to oral sex. Current Dallas Cowboys DE Marcus Dixon wound up in similar trouble, and was sentenced to 10 years in jail for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old when he was 18; his case was later overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court. As Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb pointed out in a CNN.com column at the time of the Dixon case, statutory rape laws have some utility, but they also carry significant potential for abuse.

Furthermore, these laws reflect "standards", and standards change over time; keep in mind that the likes of Saint Joseph, Henry VIII, Percy Shelley and Thomas Jefferson all could be accused of statutory rape in New York State. What's really odd is that according to Wikipedia's list of marriageable ages, you can get married at 16 in New York State if you have parental consent, or 14 if you have parental and judicial consent. It seems, at least from that, that the NY statutory rape law is more about legislating what sexual relationships are acceptable than concerns about 16-year-olds being too young to give proper consent.

I'm not trying to whitewash Taylor's actions here. A middle-aged man having sex with a teenage girl certainly raises questions under any circumstances, and it definitely has significant potential for mental, emotional or physical abuse. A married man hiring a prostitute definitely isn't a good situation, either. Whether prostitution itself should be a crime is up for debate, but legal or illegal, it can lead to or exacerbate significant problems including homelessness, drug addiction and abuse. Patronizing a prostitute" itself is a charge in New York, which adds to Taylor's problems. He won't be winning "Man of the Year" any time soon.

I'm not sure Taylor deserves the label of rapist, though. According to what's come out so far, it sounds like he thought he was paying an of-age prostitute [Littal] $300 for consensual sex. That's certainly a poor decision, but whether it deserves the label of rape is another question entirely. We'll see what happens in court, but to me, Taylor seems far closer to a playboy athlete like Tiger Woods, who had questionable consensual affairs, than one like Roethlisberger, who's been accused of forcing himself on women. At the moment, Taylor's in far more legal trouble than Roethlisberger, and that doesn't seem fair or just to me.

Off to Seattle

A quick note that blog activity will be light around here today: I'm back in Vancouver, and heading down to Seattle to cover the first day of the court case between the Sonics and the city. I've got a preview of the case up at Out of Left Field (yes, I decided I wasn't busy enough with the Journal and two blogs, so I jumped at Neate's offer to join the team there) and will have more both there and in this space once I get back tonight. I'll also have a Euro recap of both yesterday and today's action up late tonight.

Apocalypse Now, soccer style

"We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig. Cow after cow. Village after village. Army after army. And they call me an assassin. What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassin? They lie. They lie, and we have to be merciful, for those who lie. Those nabobs. I hate them. I do hate them."

- Marlon Brando as Colonel Walter E. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now (Photo from Michael Heilemann)

"The European Union is an economic and political power with 27 members and 30 (soccer) associations — 15 per cent of the total of the FIFA family. Shall they make the rules for all the others? This is political interference. We should not be afraid to intervene."

- FIFA president Joseph S. "Sepp" Blatter



What's the connection between one of Hollywood's most interesting characters and the world soccer El Supremo? It's not as far-fetched as you might think. One is a power-crazed maniac willing to do anything to accomplish his nefarious goals; the other was famously played by Marlon Brando.

If you're one of the five people who have never seen Apocalypse Now, I highly recommend it: it's one of my all-time favorite movies. The special edition I have is particularly cool, as it features both the original movie and the 2001 "Redux" edition and has some very interesting commentary by director Francis Ford Coppola. I was watching it again the other day, and was struck by some of the similarities to the current world soccer situation, where Sepp Blatter's about to get into a no-holds-barred fight with the European Union over his proposed "6+5" rule. Like Kurtz, Blatter seems willing to do absolutely anything to accomplish his end goals, even when those goals contravene laws.

Apocalypse Now interlude:
"He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops." - General Corman


The EU has made it absolutely clear that this proposal is blatantly illegal, and they've stopped behemoths before (just ask Bill Gates!). Consider these comments from EU spokesman John MacDonald (I assume he's no relation to McGlovin, McPrimeMinister, McPremier or McFootballer):

"'The 'six plus five rule' of FIFA is simply a rule that is based on grounds of nationality so that is incompatible with community law,' he told Sky Sports News.
'If they were to implement the 'six plus five rule' in Europe what would happen is any professional football player who feels aggrieved by the rule would be able to take the football club concerned to court and he would probably win the case.'"

That's a pretty firm stance, and the comments about anyone feeling aggrieved taking the club concerned to court should bring back enough Bosman memories to give any sane man room to ponder if he really wants to fight an extremely powerful multinational government that has shown before it isn't afraid to get involved in the business of football. MacDonald's comments were later further backed by the commissioner responsible for employment issues, who took an even stronger stance.

"'The European Commission is showing a red card to the 'six-plus-five' rule,' said European Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs Vladimir Spidla.
'This would be direct discrimination on the basis of nationality, which is unacceptable. It's a non-starter.
'Professional football players are workers, therefore the principle of non-discrimination and the right to free movement apply to them.
'If EU member states allowed the application of the six-plus-five rule they would be in breach of EU law and players who are discriminated against could take the member states to court - and they would win.'"

Apocalypse Now interlude:

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like … victory." - Lieutenant-Colonel Bill Kilgore

At this point, most people would be bowing and scraping to the E.U. and sending them baskets of flowers and chocolate so that they might be allowed to escape with their hides. However, Blatter hasn't backed off one iota. From this Soccernet story:

"Blatter last week cleared the first major hurdle for his controversial rule when the FIFA congress voted 155-5 in favour of him pursuing the plan.
That vote in Sydney kept Blatter on a collision course with European lawmakers who say the rule, which would limit the number of foreign players who can start a match to five, would contravene its free movement of workers regulations.
Blatter, however, disagreed.
'I am sure it will be done... I am very confident about it,' he smiled after the vote. 'They are saying it is illegal. For what, for whom and when? And if there is a law ... you know a law can be amended or altered.'"

Doesn't that just sound slimy? You can picture Mr. Burns rubbing his fingers together while saying that. You think of a rogue soldier like Colonel Kurtz, doing whatever he deems necessary to achieve his end goals. If it's illegal, so what? I'm sure legalities don't mean all that much to someone who's already faced substantial allegations of corruption (I highly recommend Andrew Jennings' excellent book "Foul!" if you want more details).

Apocalypse Now interlude:

"Well, you see Willard... In this war, things get confused out there, power, ideals, the old morality, and practical military necessity. Out there with these natives it must be a temptation to be god. Because there's a conflict in every human heart between the rational and the irrational, between good and evil. The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a breaking point. You and I have. Walter Kurtz has reached his. And very obviously, he has gone insane." - General Corman

The soccer version:

"Well, you see... in the murky world of international football, things get confused out there, power, ideals, money and practical political necessity. Out there, running one of the world's most powerful sporting organizations, it must be a temptation to be god. Because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and the irrational, the idealistic and the pragmatic, the good of the game and the good of those running the game. The good of the game does not always triumph. Sometimes, the dark side of world finance and politics overcomes the better angels of our leaders' nature. Sometimes, the tremendous power they hold leads them to think they're above the law and can challenge the world's most powerful governments. Every man has got a breaking point. You and I have. Sepp Blatter has reached his. And very obviously, he has gone insane."

The biggest problems with this whole idea are that it isn't good for the game, it isn't good for the fans and it isn't good for the players. People can speak all they want about providing opportunities for local players, but the fact remains, those opportunities already exist. There currently aren't any leagues where the local players aren't good enough to compete. Consider England, often used as a case in point: except for Arsenal, I'm quite sure that every side regularly starts at least one English player (and Arsenal do as well from time to time). The Premier League attracts much of the best talent from around the world, but there are still plenty of local players in it. The situation in Italy, Spain and Germany is quite similar, except with even more local talent. If you listen to Blatter and his cronies, you'd think English players are being kept out of their own league, which simply isn't the case. The ones who are good enough to compete at that level have jobs: the ones who aren't have to go elsewhere.

When you start mandating a "6+5" rule, not only do you diminish opportunities for foreign players, you reduce the overall quality of the game and you spread the players far too thin. Do fans really want to see Didier Drogba and Solomon Kalou playing for some no-name team in the Ivory Coast league because English teams have used up their import quotas? They'd probably catch on somewhere, but this is the logical conclusion of these kind of rules. Is it good for the game to remove a creative foreigner like Patrice Evra solely on his country of origin and replace him with Nigel Walker from Brighton? My answers are no and no.

One thing that's helped with soccer's recent rise in popularity, especially in North America, is the prominence the English Premier League has gained. Fans want to see the best players in the world competing against each other on a more regular basis than just at the World Cup every four years. England doesn't have them all yet, but the English league is attracting more top-quality talent than ever, which in turn fuels massive TV revenues, which makes the clubs richer and allows them to buy even more expensive players. If you bring in 6+5 and reduce English soccer to a dull, plodding game with only a few top-level talents, say bye-bye to that popularity surge. This isn't intended as a slight on English players: their best players can compete with the best in the world and deserve the Premier League positions they have. Their middling talents, however, cannot compete with the best players in the world: that's why they are middle-of-the pack players. They're the ones who you'll see if 6+5 comes in, and they'll be responsible for the demise of entertaining top-level soccer as we know it.

Apocalypse Now interlude:
Jay "Chef" Hicks on Kurtz: "He's worse than crazy, he's evil!"

In my mind, this is a typical Blatter move, pandering to his support among African and Asian countries while hurting the Europeans (who voted for Lennart Johansson back in 1998). The thing is, though, it isn't even good for the players in those countries, as you're now taking away their chances to play on the big stages, gain valuable experience and earn a decent salary. It's also going to hurt those countries' national teams: competing against the best has a dramatic tendency to improve your own game, but their players won't be challenged if they're stuck in a crappy domestic league. The people it is good for are the elites running soccer in those countries. They don't care about the welfare of their players, and they probably aren't even too concerned with how their national teams do, but if their domestic leagues all of a sudden get an influx of stars who used to play in Europe but now have nowhere else to go, their revenues rise dramatically and their pockets get lined.

Apocalypse Now interlude:

Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

In the end, though, this is likely moot, as I can't see FIFA winning this if they go to court against the EU. Thus, it turns into another ill-advised publicity stunt by Blatter (remember the short shorts fiasco)? It's interesting that this comes at a time when the Swiss bribes trial (involving Blatter) is still going on. Blatter also managed to turn "6+5" into the big issue of the FIFA General Conference last weekend, nicely avoiding most of the discussions of the trial (the chair of the ethics committee, Lord Sebastian Coe, didn't even bother to turn up).

Perhaps the whole thing is merely an attention-grabbing ploy? In any case, we'll see if this comes to the ominous showdown I expect where Blatter finds out that he can't just follow Kurtz and act unilaterally, or if he decides to back off. Will the European judges have the guts to play Willard to Blatter's Kurtz? In any case, like Apocalypse Now, the journey just keeps getting more and more surreal.

P.S. Thanks to Mike for pointing me in the direction of the original Globe piece on this.