Don't you love questions in titles? Don't you love questions about questionable titles? Either way. We're not sure how to take it. First, the Jean-Claude Van Benson part of the story. When we say that Cedric Benson assaulted his supposed former roommate after said roommate allegedly hasn't moved out at Benson's request, we actually mean that the Bengals running back beat the holy living hell out of his formerly alleged roommate. The roommate, according to TMZ (don't hate me):
told police he was standing on a street corner in Austin, Texas yesterday ... when "he was approached by a hostile and aggressive Benson who told Clavens they needed to talk about their problems. According to the docs, Clavens claimed he and Benson "began to talk and argue about their living arrangements when all of the sudden Clavens was struck on the left side of his face with a closed fist thrown by Benson."
"Clavens went on to say that Benson continued to strike him with several more closed fists all over Clavens face resulting in severe injury to his face. Clavens told police he was experiencing "severe bleeding from the mouth, possible loss of teeth and massive swelling of the left cheek." Benson was arrested -- and was released after posting $10k bond. Benson has been ordered to stay at least 200 yards from Clavens.
This is obviously a different point of view from what Benson's attorney released:
"The two had difficulties resulting from Mr. Benson asking the former male roommate to leave his home a few days prior to this incident. The conflict became physical early this morning and we intend to fully investigate. There is not enough information available at this time for further comment.
Somewhere in the middle, this is how we're interpreting it. Benson asked Clavens to move out a "few days prior". Benson, from Clavens' point of view, was foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog, on steroids and coke, aggressively approached Clavens on a street corner in Austin on the night of the incident. As they "began to talk", and then argue, Benson clocked Clavens repeatedly, causing severe bleeding, massive swelling and "possible loss of teeth" (how is that possible? Either you have teeth or you don't).
When contacted by the Bengals representative, this rep told TMZ that the team doesn't comment on legal issues (which we know full well). What's interesting is what was said next by this rep:
"Also, just to note, Cedric is not under Bengals contract presently. His deal expired and he’s due to become a free agent when normal business resumes.”
Technically true. But completely unnecessary. In our mind you just don't add that little bit unless you're pointing the completely obvious. Benson isn't returning. Then again, who knows how this team thinks. We get that the comment makes sense and in the realities of technical points of views, a truthful enough statement. Yet if you intended to keep Benson, why say anything? Do you're "no comment" routine and move on.