Two weeks after ESPN breathlessly reported on domestic violence allegations against Raiders coach Tom Cable, ESPN is now reporting that Cable is not likely to be disciplined in connection with those allegations.
So the circle is complete.
But there’s another issue that an astute league insider raised with us a week ago.
Why didn’t Cable get the benefit of the same “do not report” decree that Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger enjoyed back in July?
In both cases, there weren’t -- and won’t be -- criminal charges. In both cases, an extended period of time passed between the incident and the allegations.
The obvious difference, of course, is that ESPN didn’t break the Roethlisberger story. As to Cable, the allegations of domestic abuse are their baby.
Then there’s the fact that Roethlisberger enjoys “most favored nation” status in Bristol, given the access he provides to ESPN.
Meanwhile, a source with knowledge of the situation tells us that Cable was first informed of the planned ESPN report, which debuted on Sunday, November 1, only two days earlier. Under normal circumstances, that wouldn’t be much time to respond to the charges in a meaningful way. On that specific weekend, the Raiders were heading to San Diego to face the Chargers.
So why not hold it for a week, when the Raiders had a bye and Cable could have provided a more thorough response?
Regardless of the manner in which ESPN handled the details of the Cable report, a clear disparity exists between its decision to milk the more recent situation for all it was worth and its decision to treat the news of the sexual assault lawsuit against Roethlisberger like a sh-t sandwich with a side of radioactive gravy.