DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Re: Will Watson play for the Browns this year..(continued)

You mean like the spin game that all 24 women must be lying? Like that spin game?

For those that believe watson should serve no suspension or a short suspension, the answer to why is obvious. You either don't believe these women or you're trying to minimize what was done to them. Let's not pretend that several posters haven't insinuated and even stated that they believe these women are lying. When their perspective is that these woman are not credible, it's not a complicated to process to understand what they're saying here. Above I laid out all of the FACTS we do know. If you think those that seem to pretend they mean nothing, aren't evidence and aren't credible are dismissing these women, then we certainly disagree.

You are obviously missing who The White Knight is around here. That would be someone who thinks he has the power to say whose posts are good, whose are bad , who is fair, who has class and who doesn't.

For those that believe watson should serve no suspension or a short suspension, the answer to why is obvious. You either don't believe these women or you're trying to minimize what was done to them. Let's not pretend that several posters haven't insinuated and even stated that they believe these women are lying. When their perspective is that these woman are not credible, it's not a complicated to process to understand what they're saying here. Above I laid out all of the FACTS we do know. If you think those that seem to pretend they mean nothing, aren't evidence and aren't credible are dismissing these women, then we certainly disagree.

You are obviously missing who The White Knight is around here. That would be someone who thinks he has the power to say whose posts are good, whose are bad , who is fair, who has class and who doesn't. Taking a stand doesn't make you a White Knight. It means I've actually taken into account all of the facts we DO KNOW and taken a stand based on that. And if anyone believes watson deserves to "get off" or be treated lightly, you can't possibly believe these women.

I mean sure you can make excuses to try to cover that up like *well other people didn't punished fairly for it so neither should watson* to continue downplaying what happened but in effect you're making excuses why that should never change. Why would anyone think that should never change? Why should they feel that these infractions should be downplayed just because that's happened before? You're a smart guy I'm sure you've already figured that one out no matter your post to me.

And people can scream allegations all they like. But let's face it, if a woman leaves a massage session crying and your answer is "I have no idea why"... If your claim is at first you don't even look at these women as being attractive because *you have a girlfriend* only to admit you had sex with three of them later.... If you have massage therapists signing NDA's so they can't discuss anything you did during your sessions, to paint the best face on things I'd be calling them allegations too.

I haven't followed all of the conversation because I put Pit on ignore

I am simply using your post as a vessel to deliver my message. I have always believed that the legal system should try the alleged breaker of the law. It's not a perfect system, but it's far superior than allowing the mob to rule and take the law into their own hands. And it disgusts me that some try to shame those that want to uphold the law and live by the laws of our land.

The conduct policy is not an excuse for the league to do whatever however also. They still need to weigh facts, not rumor, not supposition. Facts.

If they can't find appropriate facts that he assaulted or raped women then there should be no violation. Being skeezy and looking for some strange every day should not be against the policy. Assault and rape should.

The conduct policy is not an excuse for the league to do whatever however also. They still need to weigh facts, not rumor, not supposition. Facts.

If they can't find appropriate facts that he assaulted or raped women then there should be no violation. Being skeezy and looking for some strange every day should not be against the policy. Assault and rape should.

Technically, Watson does not need to be convicted of a crime nor does there have to be solid proof in the civil suit. The NFL PCP lists many items that are considered violations but the most important one is the last which states:

Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

Unless you have been sleeping under a rock, Watson has clearly put at risk the integrity of the NFL (which he duly represents) and his NFL Club at the time, the Texans, by his actions outside of work which is clearly looking to be considered unacceptable. The negative press by every sports network, blog, or twitter account generated by Watson's off the field activities has done serious damage to the integrity of the NFL and the Houston Texans. Whether you believe he sexually assaulted these women or not, the damage he is creating by his actions and only his actions are putting at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, and NFL personnel.

If Watson receives a lengthy suspension, a year or more, it will be because of the damage he's caused to the integrity of the league since the civil suits have not been decided. The add on of an indefinite suspension would allow the league to take appropriate action should Watson lose one or more of the suits while allowing the league to see if any more claims surface in the near future or new evidence. If Watson wins the suits with no additional claims, criminal charges, or evidence - then he could immediately apply for reinstatement in 2023.

IMHO, whether you believe Watson is innocent or he actually did what the women are alleging, downplaying his suspension time with so many unanswered questions would be suicide for the NFL if this turns ugly at a later date.

I don't believe that's how it is worded. That's why I said earlier that it's more like a civil trial. The burden of proof is less. It has to be probable. Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just based on numbers it'd be reasonable to argue it was probable.

If he’s guilty or not doesn’t matter, legal cases involving sexual allegations against multiple women is that kind of cases that a healthy organization just walk away from until everything is solved.

What do you mean by solved? This is never going to be wrapped up into a neat little package with a bow on top. If we were to wait until dust settles, suspensions served and settlements paid....there's no way in hell that DW is a Brown. The FO saw him as a franchise qb and did what they felt they had to to land him.

I think that's the point. Meanwhile in corporate America if a CEO had 26 sex assault allegations pending civil trial no Company would touch them with a badge pole.

What do you mean by solved? This is never going to be wrapped up into a neat little package with a bow on top. If we were to wait until dust settles, suspensions served and settlements paid....there's no way in hell that DW is a Brown. The FO saw him as a franchise qb and did what they felt they had to to land him.

j/c:

Have you ever once considered that the plaintiffs are chasing money? Have you ever once considered that the NFL is acting like they want Watson severely punished because of public opinion has been so negative while being fueled by Florio? Or, is it just as simple as Watson is a predator? For someone who complains about the alt-right and fascists on a daily basis, you sure behave just like them.

It seems crazy, but once the few leaks came out from the hearings led by Judge Robinson and also seeing what the sport's attorney said about legal action taken against the NFL if they punish Watson........I actually think there is a chance that Watson isn't suspended at all. I am not saying that will happen, but there is a chance.

A media offensive from Deshaun Watson’s camp could be coming

Posted by Mike Florio on July 1, 2022, 9:35 AM EDT
link


It may be too little and too late when it comes to reversing the verdict in the court of public opinion. That may not stop Deshaun Watson‘s camp from trying to do just that.

Currently, there are indications that, as soon as next week, Deshaun Watson’s representatives will launch a media offensive aimed at challenging the lingering allegations against him. With 20 cases officially settled, four lawsuits remain — along with the vague notion that more lawsuits could be filed.

Since the first case began, Watson’s camp has been unable to commence or sustain a P.R. strategy that has secured any real traction among the media or the general public. At this point, there’s only one way to make it happen — by releasing smoking-gun excerpts from witness testimony that reveal serious if not fatal flaws in the allegations against Watson.

It’s unknown whether such evidence exists. If it did, it should have been released previously. Regardless, it’s possible if not likely that the next stage in this 16-month saga will include a far more aggressive effort by Watson’s lawyers and agents to fight back.

There’s a distinct sense of optimism for Watson emerging from the three-day disciplinary hearing before Judge Sue L. Robinson, based on the quality of the evidence submitted by the league in support of its quest for a minimum suspension of one year. If Watson doesn’t receive a significant suspension, there will be a strong negative reaction from some. However, there’s a distinct chance that Judge Robinson’s decision will fall far short of the outcome the NFL wants (indefinite suspension of at least one year).

Although any effort to get Watson’s side of the situation out more aggressively should have happened a while ago, especially since attorney Tony Buzbee has been working the media zealously and effectively since Day One, it makes even more sense to do so now. With Judge Robinson’s decision quite possibly being announced as training camps start to open, and given the potentially seismic reaction to a short suspension or none at all, it becomes critical for everyone involved — Watson, the Browns, the league, the NFL Players Association, and even Judge Robinson — for public expectations to be properly managed to account for the possibility that Watson won’t miss much time at all, if any.

Of course, the ultimate vehicle for making the case to the public will be Judge Robinson’s written decision. It needs to be clear, it needs to be logical, it needs to make sense to the average person who reads it. Unless the four remaining cases go to trial, Judge Robinson’s decision will become the only real adjudication of the facts, allegations, and defenses involving Deshaun Watson. Judge Robinson’s decision will be heavily scrutinized, and it will need to be bulletproof — whatever her decision may be.

Is it? Why were there no police reports? Why did more and more join the suit after public opinion deemed Watson guilty.

Here is the truth, Flo. Neither you or I know the real truth. Pretending to know the truth while dismissing alternative theories is biased, unfair, and dangerous to our society. The witch-hunt days of Puritan New England should be long behind us. Many of us have evolved. Some of you have not.

Roger Goodell says he does not have power to remove Commanders owner Snyder

Washington have been accused of allowing toxic workplace

Associated Press
Wed 22 Jun 2022 15.13 EDT

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says he has no authority to remove Dan Snyder as owner of the Washington Commanders after a series of allegations around the team.

Snyder conducted a “shadow investigation” that sought to discredit former employees making accusations of workplace sexual harassment, hired private investigators to intimidate witnesses, and used an overseas lawsuit as a pretext to obtain phone records and emails, according to a document released by a House committee on Wednesday.


The Committee on Oversight and Reform is investigating the Commanders’ workplace culture following accusations of pervasive sexual harassment by team executives of women employees. It released the memo ahead of a hearing on Wednesday morning at which Goodell testified remotely.

Goodell was asked by Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib if he would remove Snyder. “I don’t have the authority to remove him, Congresswoman,” Goodell replied. Goodell can recommend a vote to remove Snyder, but three-quarters of Snyder’s fellow team owners would have to agree with the motion for it to pass.


Snyder was invited to testify but declined, citing overseas business commitments and concerns about due process. “The NFL is unwilling or unable to hold Mr Snyder accountable,” House committee chairwoman Carolyn Maloney said. “That is why I am announcing now my intent to issue a subpoena for Mr Snyder for a deposition next week. The committee will not be deterred in its investigation into the Washington Commanders.”

An email scandal cost Jon Gruden his job. Dan Snyder must not evade accountability

The 29-page memo alleges Snyder tried to discredit the people accusing him and other team executives of misconduct and also tried to influence an investigation of the team by attorney Beth Wilkinson’s firm.

Snyder’s attorneys presented the NFL with a 100-slide PowerPoint presentation including “private text messages, emails, phone logs and call transcripts, and social media posts from nearly 50 individuals who Mr Snyder apparently believed were involved in a conspiracy to disparage him,” the committee said.

In a statement, a spokesman for Snyder characterized the report and the hearing as “a politically charged show trial” and said Congress should not be investigating “an issue a football team addressed years ago.”

The NFL fined the team $10m last year and Snyder stepped away from day-to-day operations after Wilkinson presented her findings to Goodell. However, the league did not release a written report of Wilkinson’s findings, a decision Goodell said was intended to protect the privacy of former employees who spoke to investigators.


When announcing the discipline, the NFL said none of the people accused of sexual harassment still worked for the Washington franchise. But two separate accusations of sexual harassment by Snyder himself have since surfaced.

Former employee Tiffani Johnston told the committee that Snyder groped her at a team dinner and tried to force her into his limousine, which Snyder denies. And the Washington Post reported on Tuesday that a woman accused Snyder of sexually assaulting her on a team plane in 2009, resulting in a $1.6m settlement.

Johnston’s allegation prompted the NFL to hire former Securities and Exchange Commission chairwoman Mary Jo White to conduct a new investigation of Snyder and the team, and the league plans to release her findings to the public.

Maloney has introduced legislation to curb the use of workplace nondisclosure agreements and to offer protections for employees whose professional images are used inappropriately. Among the accusations against the Commanders are that team employees produced a video of lewd outtakes from a photo shoot involving the cheerleading squad.

According to the memo, Snyder used a defamation lawsuit against an obscure online media company based in India as a pretext to subpoena emails, phone records and text messages from former employees who spoke to the Washington Post about workplace harassment. The subpoenas were unusually broad, and many of the people targeted “had no plausible connection” to the Indian media company, the committee said.

The committee also alleged that Snyder sought to blame former team president Bruce Allen for the problems with Washington’s workplace culture and that Snyder’s lawyers provided Wilkinson and the NFL with 400,000 emails from Allen’s account, highlighting specific ones they deemed “inappropriate.” Some email exchanges with Allen included homophobic and misogynistic comments by Jon Gruden, which were leaked to reporters last fall and prompted Gruden’s departure from the team.

Witnesses also told the committee that Snyder sent private investigators to their homes and offered them hush money. The NFL was aware of Snyder’s use of private investigators, according to documents obtained by the committee, but that did not stop the practice, witnesses said.


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ed-to-intimidate-investigation-witnesses

To be fair, regarding paying back $10M for last year, it was one article that speculated without much basis as far as I know - and it would be a complete farce. Everyone knows last year Watson didn't play and it had zero to do with his legal issues and what he is being accused of.