DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Deshawn Watson News

The only reason that Ben wasn't charged was because the "evidence" that they were missing was the victim, who was no longer willing to testify for whatever reason (we can all speculate as to what we think here). That's a huge distinction between not going to a Grand Jury and going to one where you get no-billed.

Also, Roethlisberger was sued civilly and settled.

It had been some time since I had read Goodell's letter so that does shed some light on the rationale behind the suspension outside of how I remembered it. However, has it been definitively concluded that Watson's conduct has risen to that level, in the same way that Goodell infers Milledgeville? We have settlements, but as far as I know, nothing has been disclosed from them.

I never said Judge Robinson was there to judge innocence or guilt. The question we are all dealing with is the threshold/burden of proof established. What you cite in Goodell's letter may be utilized as precedent, but I don't think it has been definitively established yet. I also disagree with the comparison to Ben. Yes, the quantity is worse, but if you go back and revisit the police report from the Georgia incident and compare it to a lot of the back-and-forth that has been going on in the Watson case, I am not sure that he at any point did anything rising to the level of what it was alleged Roethsliberger did. I could be wrong on that front since we obviously don't know all the details, but that is my interpretation of what we do know.

Now, this is all being said from my standpoint of someone who was very disappointed when we got Watson and wanted no part of him because of everything that went on.

j/c:

Thanks for the insight, 05.

A couple of things after reading the recent posts.

Sue Robinson was hired by both the NFL and NFLPA as the league's Disciplinary Officer. This is not a one-time assignment. It's her position.

Secondly, I think most people understand the Personal Conduct Policy in regards to it not being like a court of law. I do think some people are not acknowledging that the owners are also supposed to abide by the policy and that the NFLPA's hired gun attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, is using precedence as part of his arsenal in defending Watson. The lack of punishment for Kraft, Jones, and Snyder have been introduced. I don't know how much weight Sue Robinson will place on precedence, but Kessler and the NFLPA have threatened legal action against the NFL should they deem Watson's punishment too severe. I think that threat becomes far more realistic of occurring should Goodell, or his appointed designee, dramatically increase Watson's suspension from Judge Robinson's initial determination. I do not believe that the NFL wants their methods closely examined in a court of law.

That's a fair take. There also is now a disparity in precedence established by the NFL in "punishment." One one hand, you have the Roethlisberger example which I was debating with Steve, and on the other hand, you have Robert Kraft who pretty much went to a massage place where people were likely human trafficked and/or living, got serviced, and then nothing happened to him. I imagine Watson's attorneys would - at the very least - talk about the lack of consistency.

Yes, that was their main point of emphasis once Kessler was hired.

I posted some info on him earlier, but here are a couple of links for you to discover. He's an impressive attorney.


https://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/professionals/kessler-jeffrey-l.html

https://theathletic.com/2479522/202...finally-argues-before-the-supreme-court/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_L._Kessler

05, here are the first two paragraphs of the Personal Conduct policy. I have posted this info a few times, but I think you just started following the topic. I am posting this so you can see the connection to why the NFLPA thinks precedence is important to Watson's defense.

Thanks for reposting all that. I appreciate it. This may seem like semantics, but it catches an attorney's eye - the use of the word "AND" undercuts public respect vs "OR" undercuts public respect. That's interesting.

If the NFL had punished Kraft in a manner consistent with Roethlisberger, I think Watson would be in a lot more hot water. As it stands, the league pretty much hurt themselves by not doing anything. Could say the same for Snyder, but I suppose the counter-argument there is that it is still being investigated.

Dude seems pretty legit. I can't wait until this all finally shakes out.

Which I agree with thus the correction.

It was first reported by Florio.


I'm not sure if you're sidestepping what I'm saying on purpose or still just don't get it. I'm guessing the former but I'll say it yet again. What I'm questioning is the interpretation of what this person heard. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this for you to get it but many times people who hear the same thing arrive at different conclusions as to what that means. The judge in this case may not arrive at the same conclusion based on that very same testimony. This wasn't Florio's "take". It was a report about the conclusion his source arrived at.

We see it right here on Dawgtalkers all the time. People read the same quotes and articles and have different conclusions at to the meaning of what it says. I'm not sure how much more plain I can be.

You're not the only one.

Thanks for the intel, 05. I've been secretly hoping you would provide some of your personal expertise on this subject.

While Kraft went to a massage parlor - once to my knowledge - and received a H.E.
DW was accused by 26 different individuals of unwanted/non-consensual sexual / misconduct / coercion. In addition to which there were 66 different massages he went to - quite possibly each time looking for what Kraft did.

Do you really think they are equal transgressions? If Kraft was treated leniently does that set a precedent forever and now, no matter what or who, guilty players/coaches/owners all should expect little to know punishment for transgressions of their conduct policy?

Here's something that seems to be neglected in all of this. The NFLPA attorney is saying that's the course he plans to use is precedent. At the exact same time those using that very scenario have no idea what will and will not be allowed into a case as evidence. Many times we have seen judges rule almost exactly the opposite in many cases. They judge a case on its own merit without taking judgements in other cases into account. So whether the NFLPA can even enter the outcomes in other cases into such a legal battle is yet to be determined. And even if allowed to do so, the judge in such a case many not use that in determining the case.

So while the precedent angle does seem like a good strategy, that is totally dependent on the judge. The judge has to permit that to be used as a defense in such a case. It could just as easily be that how other cases have been decided carries no weight with the judge and that case will be decided on its own merit.

Let's face it, we've seen very similar cases decided with a huge disparity in the judgements. We've all seen how certain things have been allowed into evidence in some cases and not in others.

For clarification, Kraft went twice. It was the owner of the spa that gave him a handy and oral. Another worker took part with the owner in the initial handy.

From the Vanity Fair article....

Kraft, the 78-year-old owner of the New England Patriots. Kraft, who visited the spa on the afternoon of January 19, spends part of the year in a double oceanfront apartment he owns on Breakers Row, among the most coveted addresses in Palm Beach. Earlier that day, according to a man I spoke with who asked to be identified only as Kraft’s “best guy friend,” Kraft had gone to the hotel spa for a massage. When he was unable to get an appointment, he conferred with his old friend Peter Bernon, the dairy and plastics tycoon who also lives in Palm Beach. Bernon offered to drive Kraft in his 2014 white Bentley to a place he knew in Jupiter, 20 miles up the Treasure Coast.

At Orchids, according to the Jupiter police, Kraft paid cash to the spa’s co-owner, Lei Wan g, who goes by Lulu, and received a hand job from her and another worker, later identified as Shen Mingbi. After Kraft ejaculated, Mingbi wiped his penis with a white towel. Then she and Lulu helped him get dressed.

Later that day, Kraft called his friend. “You won’t believe what happened to me,” his friend recalls him bragging. Kraft explained how he had gone for what he thought was a regular massage, but that the masseuse had given him a hand job instead.

The friend excoriated Kraft for getting a “rub and tug.” Kraft, seemingly hurt, insisted that it “wasn’t like that.” He said he had felt a real connection with Lulu and Mingbi.

Later that evening, Kraft received a call from Orchids, asking him to visit again. (At the time, Kraft’s number in Palm Beach was publicly listed.) Kraft, according to his friend, was thrilled. He did not seem to understand that the spa was merely soliciting repeat business.

The next day, Kraft returned to Orchids, this time with a driver in a 2015 blue Bentley. He arrived before 11 a.m., qualifying for the early bird special: $15 off. He received a hand job and a blow job from Lulu, and left after 14 minutes. That afternoon he flew to Kansas City, to watch his team play the Chiefs in the NFL playoffs. The Patriots won.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/the-disturbing-saga-of-robert-kraft

I appreciate your impressive commonsense response.

As far as comparisons go, two of the women have filed civil claims of sexual abuse by Watson for forced oral sex. Now you may or for that fact many may think Roethlisberger's case is more serious but in the eyes of Texas Law, forced oral without consent is on equal footing to the crime of rape as they are both detailed and are included together in the explanation of sexual assault. Those are the facts that cannot be disputed and in addition, this case has much more substance because the accusing parties are available to testify. If we use Texas Law as a basis, Ben was charged as to allegedly committing sexual assault on 1 woman where Watson is alleged to have sexual assaulted 2 different women. Equal crime in the eyes of Texas Law, different number of alleged victims. Are we expected to ignore that Watson has alleged to have had more claims of sexual abuse than Ben?

The same applies to the settlements you reference. In fairness to the process, Watson has settled with 20 of his accusers while Ben settled with his only one. Is it yours or anyone else's contention that the 20 Watson settlements are equal to the one settlement Ben negotiated? If we're looking for precedent, if 1 allegation warrants a suspension of 6-games, where's the fairness of seeking for an equal or less suspension for 20 settlements. Just on that fact alone, are you contending that threshold/burden of proof established in the Ben PCP violation with the one case is greater than the threshold/burden of proof already established with the 20 settlements for a Watson PCP violation? Keep in mind, Watson still has 4 civil suits active alleging sexual misconduct with 2 of the 4 alleging sexual abuse in addition to the 20 alleged sexual misconduct claims already settled.

People can call it a "witch hunt" or that my posts are aligned with being a "Baker Supporter." Unfortunately for those who are using that as a means to call names or support their argument, if you want to use precedence and actually compare Ben's case to Watson's in relation to the PCP - Watson clearly and without a doubt is a far worse set of circumstances than Ben's especially since his stretches out over a 17-month period compared to Ben's 1 night. This is not accusing Watson of guilt or innocence. This is comparing the two cases as based on the laws of the states where the events happened and their effect on the negotiated PCP policy.

No. Nor did I ever infer that. It was a citation to both the goal posts and the inconsistencies in the application of the league's policies.

Yeah, it all depends on the judge, hence the wild speculation that we're all hashing over here and all the media personalities on Twitter.

That being said, judges like her in this case I imagine would take a de novo review of the facts like you are inferring, judging it on its own merits, but a huge part of briefs that attorneys put before the judge involves precedent in previous rulings, as well as precedent in civil outcomes (jury awards, bench awards, etc.) that were ultimately determined in prior cases which either party would assert is similar to the one at hand. Judges generally follow those - again in a court of law, though. We don't know if she's going to carry that same mentality forward here. Even if she did, who will effectively argue what the precedent is? That may have very well been the subject of the briefs that were submitted - but I'm just speculating at this point.

Not to try to put a political spin on this but we just witnessed seven judges overturn precedence that had stood and been upheld for 50 years. I think this is a prime example of how that if a judge feels prior precedence came to the wrong conclusion that they will not take it into account in their ruling.

I mean I think one would have to ask, if a judge sees previous cases as being settled too lightly, would they in turn feel they are obligated to do the same thing based on precedence? Now I'm not saying that's the way a judge will or will not see this case. But I do think it's a valid reason to question that precedent may not carry the weight some think it will.

How many women lodged complaints or filed lawsuits against Kraft? Not saying you are trying to compare the two. But for those who are, I don't think the two cases are even close if precedence is the goal.

Same to you. We don't have to agree to have a good discussion. I think your points are very well thought out.

I have to ask: why are we using Texas law as a basis? To me, it's an interpretation of the facts that occurred and not how it folds into each respective state's statute. To me, that's res judicata at this point (as far as the criminal side goes).

I'm not arguing one or two settlements vs the settlements that Watson has reached. From a mere quantitative analysis, you'd be correct on that front. Two points, however. 1) Like you mentioned in your earlier post, the Roethlisberger suspension was not based on the settlements themselves, but what I surmised to be the indisputable facts surrounding the settlement. So I don't even know if the settlements will come into play on this matter. To your point, Watson may get nabbed on that front, but it's not Goodell going above-and-beyond this time. It's the judge. I don't know if she'll do the same. 2) To go back to the quantitative analysis of "incidents," Roethlisberger had his two "incidents" where did receive punishment, whereas Kraft had his two "incidents" where nothing happened (to my recollection at least). The surrounding facts of the two cases are different, obviously, but you also have two extremes of one, instituting punishment on a player, despite the fact charges were dropped, by citing the league's PCP, and entirely neglecting to do the same to an owner despite his own two incidents (even a fine, or whatnot). If I'm Kessler, I'm hammering that as arbitrary all day. If I'm the NFL attorneys, I'm citing the disparity in the facts, which is what seems so puzzling, because Florio seemed to indicate they weren't really doing that, which is what I was initially discussing, hence the murkiness of the outcome.

I'm certainly not accusing you of witch hunting.

I definitely think it's valid to question it, for sure.

Like you mentioned in trying to avoid the rabbit hole, I'll just say that the SCOTUS event you mention is a rare event where the court overrules itself. Most of the time, stare decisis and the rulings from previous decision carry a lot of weight in making a new determination. Every now and then, though, you do get that disregard. The biggest self-overulling I saw on the Ohio level back in the day was Scott-Pontzer. That made the insurance world go crazy in Ohio for quite some time.

I do not think that Kessler, who is arguably the most prominent sports labor lawyer ever, would make precedence a focal point of his defense if he didn't think he could use it as ammunition in absolving his client. I think he knows more about sports law than guys on a message board who are pretending it isn't a viable defense. I know you are not the one suggesting that. I just read your entire post where you quoted another poster.

With that said, no one knows how much credence Sue Robinson will give to precedence. Her record is squeaky clean and I feel good that she was jointly hired by both the league and the NFLPA, but I just don't know how much of a factor precedence will be in her ultimate decision. I just can't wrap my head around the idea of Kessler not knowing what to use or not use while defending his client. It's not like he is some guy off the street. He understands sports law.

To be totally honest, if anything it's the latter.

I can't wrap my brain around someone having the pay grade to be in these hearings not being able to tell what is and isn't evidence. I guess, after beating this dead horse for about 24 hours, it would make less sense for the NFL gameplan to include nothing that would pass as evidence. Again, it would be really annoying for such a strong statement in his report to turn out to be a dumb interpretation.

He definitely seems like a hell of an attorney. I imagine if this goes well that we will see him again in future cases.

My feeling is she will limit her decision on her interpretation of the conduct policy. Her interpretation of that is going to be the key. Those can allow for a fairly wide range of leeway rather than the usually narrow construct of the laws.

Yeah, I agree with that. The problem - like you infer - is that it is so broad and/or unguiding in terms of meting punishments that one might expect she would moor herself to some type of precedent or guidance, but I have no idea what that is, outside of Goodell, who has been inconsistent.

Just checking to make sure we don't have a ruling yet...

Nobody knows anything. We'll know when we know.

I assume not or this site, ESPN and Facebook would be exploding.

05, the witch hunting comment was not directed at you.

To your points, the Ben suspension was wholly based not on a conviction of a crime or his settlement but where his conduct 'imposed an inherent danger to the safety and well-being of another person. The Personal Conduct Policy states that discipline is appropriate for conduct that 'undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.' By any measure, Watson's conduct satisfies that standard as it did with Ben. Ben has had one such event while Watson has had 26 where we know that the women have filed civil claims against his alleged actions with another 40-75 women who have not given sworn dispositions yet while Ben had a grand total of 1 instance that initially got him a 6-game suspension that was reduced to 4 by him seeking treatment.

As far as Kraft goes, none of the women have or have they ever made any claims against Kraft for any type of alleged sexual misconduct. Some may say that it is unimportant whether Kraft was allegedly accused or not but the cases are totally different just on those known facts. I'm not even in disagreement that Kraft should have received something for his conduct but trying to say that what Kraft did is anywhere close to the conduct Watson has exhibited is just a fallacy in thought.

I still believe the point many people are missing is that Judge Robinson is not holding a criminal or civil trial. She is tasked with the determination of the violation of the PCP. It should be based on the merits of the case and currently those say that Watson's conduct with an unprecedented amount of women has displayed conduct that has undermined or put at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs and NFL players.

Do you really think Ben and Kraft are equal transgressions to Watson's conduct? IMHO, they are not even close by any stretch of the imagination.

I think we’re talking past each other now that I read your last post. Im swamped tomorrow but I’ll try to respond.

Who knows? And in reality, the way this process works, at least as I understand things, the Commissioner can still issue any punishment he wants if he disagrees with the arbitrator. I am not sure he would do that, but he could.

As for precedent, the guideposts are anywhere from a 1 game suspension to indefinite. Think about indefinite. That is like something you might receive in China. "You're going to jail, and I will let you know when you're getting out", LOL.

This is all on point IMO. I want this behind us; figure it out and be done. These guidelines are not much help, and past decisions are not of much assistance. To refer back to something I noted earlier, part of Robinson's holdup is risk of a double standard, but most of all, that she is consciously creating a serious precedent going forward in light of the looseness as written. I also don't like that she could be creating a double jeopardy situation where DW get her punishment ruling, but can then receive the other barrel from Goodell. Due process good. Undue process?

Get this done. Please.

No. The latest news is that Sue Robinson will take her time. Her ruling might not even occur before TC opens. We are probably looking at 2-3 weeks.

The NFL and NFLPA are scheduled to submit their briefs this week. It was reported that one of the parties was going to submit theirs yesterday, but there hasn't been new of that actually happening.

It's been said that the NFL still wants a long suspension and maybe an indefinite suspension while the NFLPA is pushing for zero games.

It is my opinion that those who are talking like they have an idea of how long the suspension will be or even if there will be one are talking out of their butt. None of us really have an idea how Sue Robinson will rule.

This situation just stinks. The NFL sure has painted itself into a box. How does a league punish "only players" for different cultural morals. Wonder if they'll start to suspend guys or gals who have kids out of wedlock. If you are a nudist we'll suspend you for 4 games because we don't like that image. JMHO, humanity is very diverse and who says what is "normal". Innocent until proven guilty- no force, no foul- zero games.....GO Browns!!!

I think we are skating past some important facts.

The conduct policy states:

"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."

Some posters keep stating that they think he is going to get off for little or no punishment based on lack of criminal charges and/or specific evidence from each case. I think Deshaun's case is much different than other's because it isn't based on a single incident, it is based on putting himself in a situation that undermines the integrity of the league, being an ambassador. As an adult, he should understand that contacting women for massages online, he is putting himself in a situation that could lead to a negative impact. That alone is evidence of irresponsibility, especially when it comes to light that there were 66 confirmed women, reports are north of 100 women, but focusing on the 66 number, this is not just based on whether or not he pulled a woman's head towards his private area... It is THAT also, but this is a bigger picture of irresponsibility that he put himself in harms way, if this ever turned into a conspiracy to blackmail him. If you need a massage, your employer has them ready and waiting. You can't then use the excuse you needed a massage, so you contacted an exorbitant number of women to get something your employer arranges for free.

The number cases alone has shed a negative light on the league, which by definition goes against the policy itself and is subject to punishment. NOW, any specific acts that could be verified, that should be punishment on a different level.

Name those posters. You can't!

People only bring up Watson not being convicted or charged w/a crime when other posters refer to Watson as rapey, a predator, a bad dude, a sexual deviant, etc.

Stop making crap up.

A) big difference between making a life choice of being a nudist and exercising that right in a legal atmosphere. Now take the nudist attitude to a public forum where it is not legal or acceptable and damn right they would fall under this policy.
B) A lot is being said about double standards. Yes, I know what the wording is in the policy, but let's be realistic. They OWN THE LEAGUE. When you are talking about suspending an owner for 4 games, what are suspending him from? The league is punished in different ways, fines are where it hurts the owner the most. Daniel Snyder was given a historical fine for the environment he allowed to cultivate under his ownership. He voluntarily removed himself from day to day operations for a year, which I think was part of the deal to settle the NFL side of the punishment. I can't say I agree with Kraft not being punished in any way, but what I can say is the Kraft family has grown the shield from a casual league in the 70's and 80's to the conglomerate that the players now enjoy being multi-millionaires, even if they flunk out of the league in 4 years. It wasn't always that way. Only the absolute stars of the 70's and 80's enjoyed life changing money. In the case of Kraft, their is going to be a little leeway.

In real life, we have policies in place that we need to abide by certain guidelines. For instance, most of our jobs require driving in some way or another, thus if any of those jobs that have driving as part of their description, if an employee gets a DUI, it is cause for immediate removal. The owner gets a DUI, no one is removing him from owning the company.

You need to put things into perspective when it comes to a double standard. Without investors (the owners) there is no league. Without a top ten QB, the league just moves on without him.

The owners will NEVER be punished on the same level as the employees.

C) Humanity and who says what is "normal"... That is a cop out. He had NO RESPECT for their place of work, their jobs, the expectation of it being ok to ask for a sex act is abnormal. The expectation that moving in a way to expose himself in their place of business is abnormal. Making light of these abnormalities is abnormal, for the lone reason being you want your QB available to help you win games.

Are you OK with your wife/girlfriend/daughter answering the door and someone opening up their trench coat to show them nothing underneath? Would you be ok with a female co-worker having the same thing done to her in the workspace next to you?

Would YOU be ok with a male walking into your place of work, showing you his junk and asking if you want to touch it?

Regardless of whether he touched any woman in any way.. There has been no denying at all, that is became common practice for his towel to fall off during sessions... EVERY session... How can you not question this behavior and think it is ok because there was "no force, no foul?"

Forget the double jeopardy thing. That is in legal process, and this isn't legal process.

I also don't think the NFL would accept her findings, then when they are over start imposing more sanctions.

Forget the double jeopardy thing. That is in legal process, and this isn't legal process.

I also don't think the NFL would accept her findings, then when they are over start imposing more sanctions.

I think to keep it in proper context, you would need to say "a female walking into your place of work, showing you her junk and asking if you want to touch it?"

Just saying.