Quote:
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties. 25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson's use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect ***** of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect ***** contacted the therapists as claimed by them
to bilbo's point about precedent: key take away from the judge ladyQuote:
A demonstrative exhibit used during the hearing indicates that since the revisions to the Policy (from 2015 to date), by far the most commonly-imposed discipline for domestic or gendered violence and sexual acts is a 6-game suspension.
Only two players have been suspended for 8 games, one for multiple incidents of domestic violence and the second for the assault of multiple victims.
A single player has been suspended for 10 games, for multiple incidents of domestic violence for which the player pled guilty to battery.45
It is undisputed that Mr. Watson's conduct does not fall into the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension. It likewise is undisputed that prior cases involving non-violent sexual assault have resulted in discipline far less severe than what the NFL proposes here, with the most severe penalty being a 3-game suspension for a player who had been previously warned about his conduct.
Deshaun Watson after sexually assaulting 26 different women, getting $200 million dollars and only receiving a six game suspension: pic.twitter.com/EkzC3CcrLp
— Barstool Yinzers (@BarstoolBurgh) August 1, 2022
I'm not sure what this judge saw, but the 3-game thing is not accurate. One of the big talking points this morning was Big Ben getting 6 game suspension and was never charged with a crime (later reduced to 4). That was one woman.BMX Bandit said:to bilbo's point about precedent: key take away from the judge ladyQuote:
A demonstrative exhibit used during the hearing indicates that since the revisions to the Policy (from 2015 to date), by far the most commonly-imposed discipline for domestic or gendered violence and sexual acts is a 6-game suspension.
Only two players have been suspended for 8 games, one for multiple incidents of domestic violence and the second for the assault of multiple victims.
A single player has been suspended for 10 games, for multiple incidents of domestic violence for which the player pled guilty to battery.45
It is undisputed that Mr. Watson's conduct does not fall into the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension. It likewise is undisputed that prior cases involving non-violent sexual assault have resulted in discipline far less severe than what the NFL proposes here, with the most severe penalty being a 3-game suspension for a player who had been previously warned about his conduct.
Playing devil's advocate here....rbcs_2 said:I'm not sure what this judge saw, but the 3-game thing is not accurate. One of the big talking points this morning was Big Ben getting 6 game suspension and was never charged with a crime (later reduced to 4). That was one woman.BMX Bandit said:to bilbo's point about precedent: key take away from the judge ladyQuote:
A demonstrative exhibit used during the hearing indicates that since the revisions to the Policy (from 2015 to date), by far the most commonly-imposed discipline for domestic or gendered violence and sexual acts is a 6-game suspension.
Only two players have been suspended for 8 games, one for multiple incidents of domestic violence and the second for the assault of multiple victims.
A single player has been suspended for 10 games, for multiple incidents of domestic violence for which the player pled guilty to battery.45
It is undisputed that Mr. Watson's conduct does not fall into the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension. It likewise is undisputed that prior cases involving non-violent sexual assault have resulted in discipline far less severe than what the NFL proposes here, with the most severe penalty being a 3-game suspension for a player who had been previously warned about his conduct.
Something went wrong with this case and I can really only think the NFL screwed up big time. They have no choice but to appeal.
Quote:
The thing is though, the public doesn't care about the other aspects of his punishment. They want Deshaun to not play, and want the Browns to suffer.
Quote:
Something went wrong with this case and I can really only think the NFL screwed up big time.
I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying they screwed up in the ruling. I'm saying they screwed up in the case they presented to the judge.BMX Bandit said:Quote:
The thing is though, the public doesn't care about the other aspects of his punishment. They want Deshaun to not play, and want the Browns to suffer.
I'd say the public really doesn't care either way. Internet outrage will last a few days.Quote:
Something went wrong with this case and I can really only think the NFL screwed up big time.
You not liking the result is not in the NFL screwed up.
Agree or disagree, this Judge went by precedent from previous non-violent Punishments.
What specifically in the ruling do you think the nf screwed up on?
What they didn't seem to prove is that this case was "unprecedented" in Robinson's view. Therefore, she levied a suspension similar to precedent. This is where I'd expect the NFL to appeal and try to lay the hammer.Quote:
"I find this sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the NFL's contention not only that contact occurred, but that Mr. Watson was aware that contact probably would occur, and that Mr. Watson had a sexual purpose not just a therapeutic purpose in making these arrangements with these particular therapists....
I, therefore, find that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report. Mr. Watson violated the Policy in this regard."
Texan_Aggie said:
Not sure what's worse for Watson - 6 games suspension or the stipulation that he's no longer allowed to get massages away from team facilities.
After sleeping on it, I still think that the judge is considering the entire punishment as pretty severe, and maybe considers this his first offense so leniency is justified. She wants to see him stay clean before really coming down on him.BMX Bandit said:
I understand what you're saying. The finding outlines the evidence that the NFL put on. What did the NFL not show the judge?
Why were the Watson deposition make you think he would get longer? That's bringing emotion into the equation, whuch the judge was not doing.
It's not like this judge did not believe the accusations. She did. She outlines how Watson did what he was accused up. So I'm not following what you think the NFL should've done differently
I think the simple explanation is that 2 of those things are directly related to the product on the field and the other is not. It's the same reason the NCAA comes down harder on recruiting violations than felonies. Right or wrong, they see their primary objective as to protect the integrity of the product on the field.Texan_Aggie said:
I think in reading the ruling, it was pretty clear the NFL presented it's case and Judge Robinson agreed that Deshaun committed unwanted sexual acts on massage therapists while not feeling remorseful. I think she went light on the punishment.What they didn't seem to prove is that this case was "unprecedented" in Robinson's view. Therefore, she levied a suspension similar to precedent. This is where I'd expect the NFL to appeal and try to lay the hammer.Quote:
"I find this sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the NFL's contention not only that contact occurred, but that Mr. Watson was aware that contact probably would occur, and that Mr. Watson had a sexual purpose not just a therapeutic purpose in making these arrangements with these particular therapists....
I, therefore, find that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report. Mr. Watson violated the Policy in this regard."
Where it's hard is to reconcile the following:
- Gambling on games when you're not playing is a 1-year minimum indefinite suspension
- Violating the performance enhancing drugs is is 6 games
- Sexual assault (non-violent) is 6 games
Yeah, the idea that he's a first time offender because he got away with it dozens of times before being caught so we have to just lump them all together as 1 "offense" is an odd conclusion.Max Power said:
After listening to some podcasts and doing some reading the biggest thing I gathered was that the judge decided on the punishment specifically within the context of precedent from the NFL and what is written into the CBA. The lack of precedent for this specific situation resulted in her levying a suspension that aligned with precedent for other instances. I think she was actually frustrated at some of the ambiguity from the CBA specifically and didn't believe it was up to her to set precedent for this specific situation. Especially when the NFL also still has Goodell in the wings to make a different decision.
The NFL presented 4 specific cases to the judge, not all of them. The judge agreed that the NFL met the evidentiary standard necessary to establish that Watson violated the personal conduct policy in each of the 4 cases. I think her intent was to ultimately put this back on the NFL and have them be responsible for the precedent that is set for this situation. I believe the NFL basically has to appeal to Goodell at this point for no other reason other than to set additional precedent for the future. After the Ray Rice situation I don't think Goodell wants to appear soft on allegations of this nature (the initial Rice suspension was 2 games.)
The thing I'm curious about is if the evidence presented by the NFL for each individual case met the standard, why was it only 6 games? Based on the precedent of individual cases, why would it not be 24 games? Each is an individual plaintiff and act, he's not a first time offender for all the cases, he's a habitual offender.
Goodell has the option to either hear the appeal and determine punishment on his own, or he can appointment someone else to.Ags #1 said:
NFL spokesman @NFLprguy said "Roger Goodell will determine who will hear the appeal."
What does this mean? I thought nfl appeals and then they can levy whatever suspsension they want
MAT said:
Read the following quote:
"Under the 2020 NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining agreement ('CBA'), the factual findings of the Disciplinary Officer are binding and may not be appealed."
Which was followed by the fact that the NFL could appeal and make their own ruling.
Which is it? Is the first quote what Watson's camp is basing their possible suing the NFL if it overturns her ruling?
