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

I have a question. Posters like steve and mac have pointed to the fact that new lawsuits might be forthcoming due to the NY Times report about there being 66 women in all. Please read this from Article 46 of the CBA and then I will ask my question.



Would additional civil suits filed by the same attorney who has previously and is currently pursuing civil cases be considered new acts and conduct or would they be considered the same act or conduct?

I ask because I can see how that might be true either way. Any interpretations? Honest ones?

I am not sure anything would happen unless any new allegations had more substance than already heard. This is all related to one larger charge. That is why I was saying it didn't matter when many were clamoring about 22 women.

Suits and allegations by themselves don't change the situation imo.

I believe the danger would be for the NFL and the NFLPA - to hand out a minimal ban (0-6 games) and then have the outstanding cases or new cases go to civil trial and have DW be found guilty/liable for having coerced sexual activity from non-consensual therapists ... or for lewd acts of inappropriate behavior or whatever the legalize would be for non-consensual activity in front of a person.

Additional numbers of accusers who then settle would probably all be part of the same issue. Having the NFL settle the issue and then have civil trials where DW is found guilty creates massive problems. I believe that has been the point Steve has raised from the very beginning. And rather than Steve wanting to ban DW indefinitely - the opinion has consistently been, how can you settle this when there are outstanding cases. How can DW play or be given a determination when there is potentially a verdict that gopes against DW in the future.

I think your bringing up Kraft all the time is a reach. Kraft was never accused by any woman of inappropriate behavior. It was one instance and deemed consensual. Though Watson is claiming consensual, the women are not and that is a huge difference. 24 claims of alleged sexual abuse is much different than one case of consensual sex that Kraft paid for as alleged.

As far as Snyder goes, it appears to still being investigated and he has stepped away for the day-to-day operations of the team. I'm not quite sure what you expect the NFL to levy against Snyder because a suspension of an owner has far less effect than a player. The same basically goes for Jones. I'm not sure what you would deem appropriate punishment for an owner? Not trying to be difficult but clearly not sure what would be appropriate outside of a suspension which I don't see as a real punishment since there is no way the NFL (Goodell) can affect the earnings of the owner of the team outside of fines. Since the PCP doesn't actually spell out what would be done to the owners that is comparative to the severity of a punishment to a player, it appears very gray to me. The NFL cannot take ownership away from the owner, only a vote by the owners can make that happen. So, the question is what is appropriate, and shouldn't that have been negotiated in the new PCP? Just some questions about what you think should have been done but is just opinion like mine.

Just my opinion but I believe you missed the whole purpose of Section 4. Section 4 is in place to protect the player from receiving punishment from the team and then again from the NFL for the same act. That is the exact reason that it has been verified that Watson sitting out last year had nothing to do with the alleged claims against him. He sat out because he demanded a trade and refused to play while the Texans kept him on the 53-man active roster as a healthy scratch each week. This clause has nothing to do with additional claims. There is no way in the world that the NFL or any lawyer would agree to language that said Watson has already been judged so any future complaints are nonapplicable.

The NFLPA's high-profile attorney disagrees w/you. Also, I bring up all the time because it's part of the evidence we have been given. I choose to focus on what we actually do know rather than just hoping for something to happen due to an ingrained opinion.

We will see.

What? I'm not referring to last year. I'm talking about if Watson receives a 2 game, 4 game, 6 game, etc suspension, can the NFL go after him again if any of the remaining 66 alleged victims file charges in the future.

Will someone else take a look at my original question and let me know your interpretations?

Of course it would be a new act. Every time a player commits a drug infraction it's considered a second, third, fourth, and so on infraction of the same policy. What the quote you posted means is that a player can't be punished twice for the same case. Not separate acts or cases of the same violation. Just like the drug policy. Thinking that the original penalty would include things that were never heard nor was the original suspension based on would be quite a reach.

A judge can not rule on a case he or she has not seen nor heard. That would be a separate case that would need to be heard at that time.

It is not evidence in this case. We see it all the time. Different judges often rule on the same thing all the time. Even in cases where the circumstances are eerily similar, which in this situation isn't the case at all, judges do not set their penalties according based on previous rulings. " high-profile attorney's" on both sides have opposite opinions on this. I guess one can believe which ever high-profile attorney they want to. Putting aside what attorney's from both sides say, the fact that judges decisions vary so widely on very similar cases show that the Kraft argument is more positioning than factual. I mean it swayed you so it works on some people. Not so much on judges.

My take on it would be that a new lawsuit would indeed be a new, separate count and yes, they could immediately hammer him further. I can't see a situation where resolving the existing provides a carte blanche "get out of jail free" bypass on any & all potential future cases.

Remember, what happens here with the NFL has absolutely nothing to do with standard double-jeopardy protections under trial law. This isn't being tried in a court of law, so that doesn't apply. In essence, that means that the NFL can do as it sees fit and interpret as it sees fit when it comes to this.... and that means that if the NFL feels it is giving them a bigger black eye, they'll move fast to get ahead of that.

ok - I've been on vacation so pretty out of the loop... any idea when we'll expect to see a ruling?

Any time between now and August, I think.

I'd anticipate the week of 7/25.

Sometime after July 12. The NFL and NFLPA are asked to submit their written post hearing briefs by July 11th. My guess is she wanted a 4th of July vacation. Despite the briefs, I expect she already has a damn good idea of what she is going to do. I’m not sure what the briefs will tell her that she doesn’t already know. Regardless she bought herself a window until at least July 11 that she won’t be asked to submit anything. After that, both sides will most likely be eager to get her ruling.

I outlined this above. It's the week of July 11th, not necessarily the day July 11th. Also, she wanted time to ponder the evidence already provided to her in the initial 3-day hearing. No one knows for sure when she will render her decision, but some people are projecting right before TC opens on the 27th. Milk's guess of the 25th seems reasonable.

Can't answer your question for Peen, but I do believe that the NFL AND the NFLPA made the decision to hire this judge mutually.

As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, the hearing was a closed hearing. That said, anything that's been posted is either hearsay or a 3rd opinion. I also don't remember anything since the closing of testimony on Friday as far as official statements from the NFL or NFLPA as to what transpired. So, in reality, you have no idea what was presented by the NFLPA or the NFL so your posts are no less ingrained in opinion than mine are as you so state. The only official statements that I know of was the NFL was seeking an indefinite suspension with a 1 year minimum and the NFLPA was suggesting a much lighter suspension or no suspension due to past precedent. The NFL request and the NFLPA's request is not evidence but the request for the particular result.

Judge Robinson will now weigh the evidence presented (which we have no idea of) and present the discipline as she sees fit. However, no matter how much you want it to be over or talked yourself into it, the case will not be closed by anything she rules on. There are still 4 open civil suits against Watson. There is one civil suit currently against the Texans that will have a direct bearing on those civil suits. There are no less than 30 plus women that had interactions with Watson that no one has heard from as of yet. The plaintiffs have requested those names and filed paperwork on Friday seeking documents from the NFL regarding its investigation of Watson. Buzbee seeks among other things the transcript of the disciplinary hearing.

It’s fair game, especially since Watson’s testimony can be used in the civil litigation that Buzbee is pursuing. The materials also may contain others relevant information. These are facts that cannot be disputed.

That said, it puts Robinson in a no win position. If she rules in Watson's and the NFLPA favor, she surely knows that future testimony or evidence could blow up her decision since the case is far from being closed. Whether you want to admit it or not, the absolute worst decision that can be made is a light or zero suspension and then have more suits filed against Watson. The fallout against Watson, the Browns, and the NFL would be unprecedented.

Those statements does not make a person anti Watson. Protecting the integrity of the league and the team I support is way more important than having an elite QB playing for us that has this kind of baggage unresolved.

PROTECT THE SHIELD!!

No one is forcing you to root for the Browns. You are not an indentured servant or a slave to the team. Your constant trashing of everyone on the Browns other than Baker won't be missed by most.

Effective: June 1, 2012
Personal Conduct Policy

All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity
of and public confidence in the National Football League.” This requirement applies to
players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials and all others privileged to
work in the National Football League.

For many years, it has been well understood that rules promoting lawful, ethical, and
responsible conduct serve the interests of the League, its players, and fans. Illegal or
irresponsible conduct does more than simply tarnish the offender. It puts innocent people at
risk, sullies the reputation of others involved in the game, and undermines public
respect and support for the NFL.

Standard of Conduct:
While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons
who engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for
persons employed in the NFL is considerably higher.It is not enough simply to avoid
being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club,
you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is
responsible, promotes the values upon which the League is based, and is lawful.
Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental
and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a
crime. Discipline may be imposed in any of the following circumstances:
Criminal offenses including, but not limited to, those involving: the use or
threat of violence; domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse; theft
and other property crimes; sex offenses; obstruction or resisting arrest;
disorderly conduct; fraud; racketeering; and money laundering;

Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances
of abuse;
Violent or threatening behavior among employees, whether in or outside
the workplace;
Possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting, including but
not limited to stadiums, team facilities, training camp, locker rooms, team
planes, buses, parking lots, etc., or unlawful possession of a weapon
outside of the workplace;
Conduct that imposes inherent danger to the safety and well being of
another person; and
Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the
NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.


Evaluation, Counseling and Treatment:
Apart from any disciplinary action, persons arrested, charged or otherwise appearing to have
engaged in conduct prohibited under this policy generally will be required to undergo a formal
clinical evaluation. Based on the results of that evaluation, the person may be encouraged or
Effective: June 1, 2012
required to participate in an education program, counseling or other treatment deemed
appropriate by health professionals. The evaluation and any resulting counseling or treatment are
designed to provide assistance and are not considered discipline; however, the failure to comply
with this portion of the Policy shall itself constitute a separate and independent basis for
discipline.

Discipline:
Upon learning of conduct that may give rise to discipline, the League may initiate an
investigation to include interviews and information gathering from medical, law enforcement,
and other relevant professionals. On matters involving NFL players, the League will
timely advise the NFLPA of the investigation and outcome. As appropriate, the employee
will also have the opportunity, represented by counsel and/or a union official, to
address the conduct at issue. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Commissioner will
have full authority to impose discipline as warranted.

Discipline may take the form of fines, suspension, or banishment from the League and
may include a probationary period and conditions that must be satisfied prior to or
following reinstatement. The specifics of the disciplinary response will be based on the nature
of the incident, the actual or threatened risk to the participant and others, any prior or
additional misconduct (whether or not criminal charges were filed), and other relevant
factors.

Unless the available facts clearly indicate egregious circumstances, significant bodily harm or
risk to third parties, or an immediate and substantial risk to the integrity and reputation of the
NFL, a first offense generally will not result in discipline until there has been a disposition of
the proceeding (or until the investigation is complete in the case of noncriminal
misconduct).

With respect to repeat offenders, the Commissioner may impose discipline on an enhanced
and/or expedited basis. In such cases, the timing and nature of the discipline will be
determined by the Commissioner based on several factors including but not limited to: the
severity of the initial charge and later charge; the facts underlying the later charge; the
length of time between the initial offense and later charge; and the player or employee’s
compliance with counseling and other programs. Following a full investigation and/or
resolution of the proceedings, the Commissioner will review the matter and make any
appropriate adjustments.

Hearing Rights:
Following the imposition of discipline, the affected person will have the right to appeal the
decision. (For players, the disciplinary decision must be appealed within three (3) business
days.) Persons filing an appeal shall be entitled to a prompt hearing pursuant to Article 46
of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, to be conducted
by the Commissioner or his designee. In cases involving players, the NFLPA will be entitled
to participate in the hearing.

Effective: June 1, 2012
Reinstatement:
Any person suspended indefinitely or for at least one year may seek reinstatement beginning
one month prior to the one-year anniversary of the suspension. As part of his consideration
of the application for reinstatement from a player, the Commissioner will seek the views
of the NFLPA and may consult medical, law enforcement, and other relevant professionals.

Other Provisions:
Covered Persons – This policy applies to all players under contract; all coaches; all game
officials; all full-time employees of the NFL, NFL clubs, and all NFL-related entities; all rookie
players once they are selected in the NFL college draft; and all undrafted rookie players,
unsigned veterans who were under contract in the prior League Year, and other prospective
employees once they commence negotiations with a club concerning employment. Clubs are
strongly encouraged to communicate this policy to independent contractors and consultants
and to make clear that violations of this policy will be grounds for terminating a
business relationship .

“Disposition of a Criminal Proceeding” – includes an adjudication of guilt or admission to a
criminal violation; a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nolo c ontendere or no
contest; or the disposition of the proceeding through a diversionary program, deferred
adjudication, disposition of supervision, conditional dismissal or similar arrangements.

“Probationary Period” – Persons found to have violated this policy may be placed on a
period of probation as determined by the Commissioner. During such period, restrictions on
certain activities, limitations on participation in Club activities, or other conditions may be
imposed.

Repeat Offenders – Persons who have had previous violations of law or of this policy may
be considered repeat offenders. When appropriate, conduct occurring prior to the person’s
association with the League will be considered.

Reporting of Incidents – The League must be advised promptly of any incident that may
be a violation of this policy, and particularly when any conduct results in an arrest or
other criminal charge. Players and club employees must report any such incident to the club,
which must then report it to NFL Security at (800) NFL -1099. Failure to report an incident
will constitute conduct detrimental and will be taken into consideration in making disciplinary
determination under this policy. Clubs are also required to report incidents that come to their
attention.

Assistance – Players and employees are encouraged to consult with your Club’s Director of
Player Engagement or with the NFL’s Player Engagement department to obtain access to
educational, counseling, and other programs and resources that will help in avoiding
misconduct that may result in discipline.

The NFL is saying Watson will probably be suspended for the whole season.

"Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the
NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players."

"or an immediate and substantial risk to the integrity and reputation of the
NFL,"

"Repeat Offenders – Persons who have had previous violations of law or of this policy may
be considered repeat offenders. When appropriate, conduct occurring prior to the person’s
association with the League will be considered."

I think these are the most pertinent portions of the policy that are involved in this case. This is an old version, but I couldn't find the new version, which actually adds more language to that above.

No, there were no criminal proceedings, but 24 cases of civil litigation, as well as 20 of those cases resolved by paying off the plaintiffs is detrimental to the reputation of the league. I don't know how anyone can argue that.

The next question to be answered is if she will look at each individual case and look at it as a repeat offender consecutively. If so, not only could you not be looking at little to no punishment, she could simply impose a game per instance. She could look at it as 20 games, per 20 cases that were filed and settled. Then set a precedence for at least 4 more with the pending cases.

Truth is, everyone is speculating, but this could go in 50 different ways. None of us have any idea whatsoever.

I would be shocked..and appalled..if he didn't get a suspension of any kind.

Honestly, if I were to take my best guess, I would put it at an indefinite suspension. That would give Watson time to settle the court cases, get counseling and begin reconciling the damage to the reputation of both himself and the league.

You can cite every case that has ever gone through this process(even though this is the first of this new process), but the fact is, there has never been a case where 24+ individuals were involved in the accusations. It is unprecedented. Like many have stated, there could be more to come. Hell, the way Buzbee has been rolling this out. It wouldn't surprise me if he is holding something back, waiting for the announcement, just so he can undermine the NFL and give his current and future cases against Watson and the Texans more credence in the court room. If they give him a small suspension, he will probably be naming the NFL and NFLPA in the suits as well, saying they condone the actions of the players by not holding them accountable to their own by laws. Not that he would win, or it would give him more credence, but it would be admissible as evidence most likely.

Precedence.

well, that's a completely irrational response from out of left field.

There is absolutely nothing in there trashing anyone or anything. Seriously... what is wrong with you???

Precedence as it pertains to 24 different cases?

If reports are true, the NFL isn't inept as they are requesting an indefinite suspension. Indefinite would lend time to additional cases, including the 4 that are still pending.

And if that is the case then the suspension should be put off until something is determined. Being this is not a legal case, there is less of a precedence to act immediately. IMHO

Funny that my comment was that I'm concerned about the image of the Cleveland Browns and the NFL if Judge Robinson gives a light or zero suspension with the number of unresolved civil complaints being problematic warrants an irrational response post to me from the forums self-appointed guru Vers. I cannot even count the number of times he has told forum posters to go root for another team. This is not the first time or the only forum poster that he's lashed out at because their views do not coincide with the chosen one's opinion.

Just because he's spent the last 4-years engineering the Hate Baker train, anyone questioning the way Baker has been treated gets his irrational response because they differ from the chosen one's opinion. I usually ignore the hate posts because the vast majority of the time they are as sad as they are comical. What I find interesting is that more and more forum posters are recognizing his disdain for anyone's passionate opposite opinion of the chosen one even if it is fact driven.

Thanks for recognizing the continual trend of completely irrational responses directed at anyone who doesn't agree with him. Funny considering there has not been a single poster that I can recall that hasn't agreed that Watson's football skills at this time is an upgrade over what we have seen from Mayfield, yet the attacks continue..........

That depends on whether you believe the cases on their own merit are detrimental to reputation of the NFL. If you do, then settling 20 of the current 24 would give you ample reasoning for the suspension to begin immediately. Leaving it open ended would only lend to the fact that the situation is not resolved entirely. It would be a cleaner start than giving him a 10 game suspension, then if the cases aren't resolved or there are another 10 cases added between now and the 12th week of the season, they need to add to that suspension. This could be a perpetual issue for the league to address.

Now, if they were instead to give an indefinite suspension, with a minimum of 10 games, that would allow for Watson's team to apply for reinstatement before the 12th week. If all is resolved, they can allow him back, if it isn't, they can simply deny the request. It is a much simpler process than starting this current process over, if/when more cases are added to the docket.

I have posted numerous articles that have quoted attorneys and other informed sources about the NFLPA's strategy of using biased decisions regarding owners and players. Read them for yourself. Hoping and wishing that Watson is severely punished does not mean it will happen. Ignoring the opinions of attorneys is short-sighted.

With that said, I have no idea how Sue Robinson will rule or even how much weight she will give the NFLPA's high-profile lawyer providing evidence of that information. I do know that there has been a sudden shift in regards to just how strong the NFL's case is. Like the Browns, the NFLPA, and Watson's defense team have said all along.......they will let the facts of the case speak for themselves.

I'm not disagreeing that owners get preferential treatment, I was asking the question of whether there has ever been an owner with that many accusations. If not, it isn't precedent. This is unprecedented territory.

Do I think there should be a hearing on how lenient the NFL has been on owners? Yes.. Wait, there is one going on as we speak, no?

Doesn't mean they will throw out punishment for this case based on bias towards ownership. The bias towards ownership is a totally different issue that the defense of Watson is using desperately. It doesn't mean it has anything to do with the case, but desperate times call for desperate measures. It could have merit in the decision of the former judge, if there was a case similar to Watson's, which there hasn't been, player, coach, owner or otherwise.

Jimmy, Berry and Stefanski replying to your post:

How many women accused Kraft of unwanted sexual advances? I'll tell you.... None.

There is nothing about trying to compare these two cases that suggests precedence.

No, they don't have 24 cases. There were 15 in Washington. Also, Snyder is being investigated by Congress. However, none of that matters. What matters is that the high-profile attorney that the NFLPA hired to defend Watson against the NFL's personal conduct policy has said he was using that as a strategy. You have to at least consider that he knows what he is doing more than guys like us.......right?

Of course, I suggested this course of defense before anyone in the media even suggested it. Once I recognized that the Personal Conduct Policy did not need a guilty verdict in a court of law to punish a league member, I looked at the policy as a whole. Owners were included. Thus, precedence has to be considered. No two cases are absolutely equal, but punishments should be consistent.

This part is just an opinion: I bet there is no way in hell does the NFL want the NFLPA and Watson's personal defense team to sue them and go before a real court while demanding full disclosure. Oh no! That would be a horror story for the league. They might not be as willing to protest Sue Robinson's decision as some of you think.

And of course the NFL attorney's know nothing, right? You have decided to believe those who are saying what you want to hear and ignoring everything else. Which is fine if you're presenting an opposing view on the situation. Many including myself do that same thing. But pretending that attorney's on one side are the only ones who know what they're talking about is not going to work here.

I remember when watson was claiming his innocence before he settled with 20 of the women. How Hardin was claiming he had this mountain of evidence to discredit them all. You were all excited about that too. Then watson paid them.

You think they are afraid of Watson's attorney? They, as you have already mentioned, are in front of congress as we speak. That would be more terrifying than being sued b Watson's attorney. As for the NFLPA, THEY BARGAINED for the current contract. The league has done nothing wrong according to that contract. Bias is not part of a collectively bargained agreement. They could sue to get a lessor suspension, but that would be all they would get out of it. Spend tens of thousands of dollars, or more, to get it reduced to what 6 games instead of 17? I don't think you are looking at the big picture. The picture is this... the league has shown that any act (other than Kraft's) that is deemed detrimental to the league in any way can and will be punished. The other owner's that have been cited have been fined, so they have been punished. They have shown a precedent that they will punish an owner. Whether it is fair in the amount of punishment is up to interpretation. If they had never punished an owner, but continue to punish players, that is precedent and a means of a defense.

I will repeat, Watson has 24 cases against him, not one...or even 15 as you stated against Snyder...which isn't even accurate. There was only one specific sexual allegation against Daniel Snyder. The rest of the investigation pertained to other employees and most were not sexual in nature. As the owner of the team, he should be held responsible for the workplace environment, but saying he had 15 accusations similar to Watson is downright wrong.

The facts are 10 women petitioned for criminal charges against Watson and lost. 25 women filed civil cases against him and he settled 20 so far with another one dropped when she found out she couldn't remain anonymous. This is so far different than any single case against an owner, yet you continue to throw it out there as if that changes everything when it comes to punishment for Watson. They aren't the same and it doesn't change anything for Watson.

If the former judge comes out and says Watson will get no suspension, it will be revealed that it is because she doesn't feel the civil cases hurt the integrity of the league. It won't be because she feels the league is lenient against owners, so she is going to be lenient on Watson.