OK, let’s clear something up. I’ve been accused of accusing Ben Roethlisberger of being high on something else the night that he had his encounter with the 20 year old college kid.
I was responding to eyewitness accounts that I read and heard that said that Ben did not appear to be drinking much that night. Many of those comments were made with the implication that the accusation had less cedibility because he was probably in complete control of himself.
I only pointed out that a person, any person, can be high without drinking. Let’s say that Ben wasn’t accused of a serious crime but, instead, was seen in a bar walking across tables with a lampshade on his head and somebody said, “I didn’t see him take one drink.”
Wouldn’t your next thought be, “Geez, I wonder what he was high on”? That wouldn’t be an accusation. It would be considering another possible cause for a person’s erratic behavior. Ben may have done nothing wrong that night and he may have been sober as a judge. But if he did lose control and commit a crminal act and evidence suggests that he wasn’t drunk, isn’t the next logical question, could he have been high on something else that might have caused him to do something so stupid?
I’m not discounting the possibility that Roethlisberger is innocent in both cases where he has been accused of sexual assault, but I’m not discounting his guilt, either.
And if he is guilty in both insatnces, wouldn’t that be a sign of a guy who is out of control?
And if a guy shows an inability to control himself, why would anyone in this day and age stop at alcohol when speculating on what might be causing the erratic behavior?