DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Deshawn Watson News

Versatile Dog and hitt to name a couple.

I know I am calling you guys out, but come on, at some point you have to admit, he obviously did some things that are not ok..even if he can't be criminally charged for them.

I disagree...

It is offensive no matter what the gender is, but let's be realistic, the typical male would not be overly offended by a woman doing something like this, whether it is nature or what ever. The same is not true when it comes to the same sex. The reality is, gender does not matter. The act alone is offensive to people, that is all that matters.

I understood your point. I also don't totally disagree with your broad point.

I have never once said that. You make up lies to win an argument. I want to make sure that others understand my stance.

I completely understand the Personal Conduct policy. I understand the NFL's right to punish players under that policy. Is that clear enough?

I have argued that the PCP also includes the owners and that precedence is a strategy that is being used to defend Watson. I think that is clear.


I have brought up that Watson has not been convicted or charged w/a crime. However, I don't bring that up to dispute the Personal Conduct policy. I bring it up when folks convict Watson of crimes in the forum of public opinion. Assigning labels such a predator, rapey, bad dude, sexual deviant, etc are unjustly assigning guilt to a man who has not been charged or convicted of a crime. I think that is clear, but it won't stop others from perpetuating lies.

Yeah, it's the same thing. What isn't "normal" is having 24 women saying you did something wrong.

You have consistently said this is a Witch Hunt. By definition that means you believe Watson is being wrongly persecuted. Therefore you believe 26 women were lying. It doesn't work any other way. You aren;t interested in truth or justice - you already believe DW is innocent and the victim. Here's just one post:


Hitt has written multiple posts claiming the women all had consensual sex and there Watson is 100% innocent.

The only person lying here is Versatile Dog. You can claim to not know or be neutral - but as soon as you say it's a witch hunt, you have chosen a side. Anyone reading these boards and has read so many posts all in deference and defence of DW would know there was an agenda at play.

Hey 05, I know you are busy. However, if you get a chance, will you please give me your thoughts on the following?

From time-to-time, the subject of what will the NFL do if other women of the 66 mentioned by the NY Times or the 26 that Buzbee is representing after the NFL renders their decision? I have read the CBA and I'm not sure how to interpret the one-time penalty part of the document. Will you please take a look at it and give your opinion on if the NFL would consider these new charges or part of the investigation they have already performed?

Here is the link to the CBA: https://overthecap.com/collective-bargaining-agreement/article/46

Here is the part about one penalty.


I can make an argument for both sides after reading that. Thus, I'm unclear as to what it actually means. LOL Do you think that all the cases [both current and future] would fall under the one penalty rule or do you think the new cases would be treated separately?

Ask Josh Gordon.

I know you do not believe that certain individuals could possibly be right in posts that you are on the other side of, but I did give you an explanation of what this rule means and you just blew me off - a normal response from you.

The One Penalty rule is in place so that a player could not be disciplined by the team and then by the league. A league discipline will always preclude or supersede disciplinary action by any club. For example, if the Texans had suspended Watson from team activities because of his off the field issues, the league could not come back and suspend him again or if he was serving a 6-week suspension and the league decided on 8-weeks he would only serve 2 additional weeks because the team had already suspended him. It's for this exact reason that teams do not normally suspend their players if the NFL is investigating because soon as they are, they supersede any team action. It's also the reason most if not all teams turn their players in when they suspect something that could cause an investigation.

Your other question has nothing to do with this Section. Additional civil suits, criminal charges, guilty civil judgements and convictions are in addition to what Judge Robinson is looking at now. If in the civil trial evidence surfaces that Watson is guilty of sexual abuse and loses the civil suit, the prosecutor could still take that new evidence and present it to a Grand Jury to indict him for sexual abuse. The NFL could not ignore those charges. Likewise, if 20 women come forward with additional claims of sexual misconduct, those would be new claims against Watson and would have to not only be litigated but the NFL would have to take action - again. Case in point, if E. Elliott beats up his girlfriend again under the exact same circumstances is your thinking it's card blanche for Elliott since he already served a suspension for that previously? Or that Hunt has the leeway to beat the hell out of the same woman again since he already served a suspension for doing that already? We won't even get into the event if Big Ben was accused of allegedly raping another woman.

That has been the question that a lot of us concerned fans have about Watson and his current hearing. Watson has had 24 alleged sexual misconduct suits and 2 alleged sexual abuse suits filed against him to date. 20 of those alleged sexual misconduct suits have been settled out of court and while the settlements do not admit guilt but certainly in the smallest of terms does not mean he's innocent of the claims brought against him. Judge Robinson is not the trial or civil judge. She is the person who is going to make the determination is Watson's conduct violated the NFL's PCP. She has to look at the entire package to make that determination. That means she has to look at not only the 20 settlement cases but the 4 that were active at the start of the hearing.

Now it's just my opinion but I believe that the reason why the NFL had to present the 4 active cases is because Judge Robinson must be fully aware of what could transpire with those 4 cases going forward. She also has to be aware of the possibility of future cases being filed and what that will do to the image of the NFL. I've read the same articles plastered all over the internet just as you have. I see where the talking heads are predicting a 4-6 game suspension for Watson's conduct. However, how is the NFL going to respond to the public outrage if the civil complaints keep coming and/or criminal charges when they had the same information that we have that Watson was with at least 66 women and as high as over 100 women during the 17-month period and let him off on a 4-game suspension? That they knew the risks and allowed a player to play after exhibiting unprecedented conduct that has already generated 26 civil suits and never sought out these additional women for depositions? What about the reported claim that there is now a woman from GA (another state) that is claiming sexual misconduct? Remember, this is NOT a hearing as to the innocence or guilt of Watson, that is not Judge Robinsons position. What this is supposed to be is a hearing that is to determine if Watson's conduct was of a proper higher standard as an NFL player, and right now there doesn't appear that his conduct can remotely be described as admirable, responsible, or consistent with either the values of the league or the expectations of the fans. JMHO

Your explanation makes sense.

I was working, but the TV was on and I heard Graziano talking about how the league couldn't try Watson twice. I didn't catch it all. Perhaps I misheard?

For additional infractions? That makes no sense.

I think when saying...what if another lawsuit is brought up after the NFL decision...would it be cause for a second hearing.

Well lets think about that in a different way...If The League suspends Josh Gordon for Smoking weed 10 times between October 10th and October 15th....Josh Gordon serves his time and is back...or possibly is in mid suspension. If it is uncovered that he actually smoked weed 12 times during that period...does the NFL bring Josh back for more suspension or not. That is essentially the crux of the question here.

Is the hearing being held for specific numbers of individual offenses, or for his actions within a certain timeframe??? Frankly, I don't have an answer to that question.

But since the NFL only provided 4 cases out of 12 they interviewed and out of 24 in Buzbee's clients....And Robinson cannot rule upon those other cases...She cannot rule on an ALLEGED 66-100 women...she can only rule on FOUR. And if those 4 cases don't sway her to that 51% of it being against the Conduct policy...you may not like it, but Watson might not get any suspension....THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. As we don't know what was presented, and only opinion that no "proof" was shown, we don't know how big of a possibility it is...And Frankly if the NFL did not provide the information...with all of the resources available...then no suspension is probably the right decision...Or I should say the CORRECT decision... Right implies a measure of morality. And this is not about whether Watsons actions were, were not, or are moral...it is about whether his PROVEN actions, in those 4 cases, violate Judge Robinsons interpretation of a written stipulation.

It is my guess that unless new criminal charges stick, or an event outside of the established timeline (also being in the future of from that timeline...) any new lawsuits will not bring new charges as it pertains to the NFL Code of Conduct Policy. But that is just a guess.

Your entire argument was not really about the process but about how you can try to fanangle an interpretation in order to punish Watson more...

And you keep forgetting the importance of the word ALLEGED. You continually forget that there is a difference between what you believe, what you think , and what you KNOW.

And frankly I don't think Robinson gives a single iota as to the PR of the NFL or the player (nor should she...that isn't her job). And POSSIBLE FUTURE cases means absolutely NOTHING as it pertains to FACTS in the case brought before her. She is not a swami and she cannot rule on what MIGHT happen in the future. If she is who I believe I have read her to be, she is going to interpret the Conduct Policy as it pertains to the evidence that was brought before her...PERIOD. She will be careful as this is the first ruling and it will set precedence. She will consider prior precedence doled to players as well as owners, but that does not mean she won't blaze her own trail. She will be completely thorough with her ruling opinion. Because any appeal has to abide by her findings and reasoning regardless if the suspension is raised or lowered in the end....So Goodell just can't say, I don't like 8 games...lets make it indefinite with applying for reinstatement after three years (or whatever...number you want to place) The appeal...any appeal...has to find something wrong with her reasoning and opinion.

She also can't consider or rule on any cases that are not in front of her. Even if those cases are in the past. She is ruling on what's in front of her. I've never heard of any such ruling that constitutes a time frame instead of the infractions that are currently under consideration. I'm not saying that's impossible but it would be very unusual and nothing I can think of would compare with that.

I think there is a difference between smoking weed and violating or transgressing against people.

If the NFL rules and makes a decision based on today's cases and allegations, and in the future new and different persons came forward, then I think the reaction might depend on a couple of different scenarios:

- If they were from the same time frame and took an agreed settlement from DW, I could see that being part of this same issue.
- If they came forward and had sufficient evidence that a GJ wanted to prosecute - then I think there would be a further investigation and the new incident(s) treated separately from what we see now, possibly irrespective of the verdict.
- If it went to civil court - any action by the NFL migh depend on an outcome: Not-Guilty/Liable - no action. Guilty/Liable - I think the NFL would treat that as a separate issue.

No idea how that aligns with legalize or conduct policy - but it would seem to make some sense.

I am not arguing one way or the other. I am genuinely curious. I just went over Article 46 of the CBA line by line. It's hard to find the answer.

I guess what has me confused is if you are trying a man for sexual misconduct that allegedly occurred during massage sessions, would future claims about the very same subject be considered new? I fully understand that if Watson is charged w/rape or physically restraining or hurting a woman that it would be a new case. I just don't know if additional cases of the very same charges warrants a new charge?

I'd like to know that answer because it's important.

I do think that is why the NFL is pushing for an indefinite suspension. It makes sense, right? If new information comes out, they can address that information as they decide his punishment. It seems like it might be tricky to try him again for the same accusations that he has already been tried for previously. But again, I don't know the answer and I really wish we had a legal expert who could provide us w/that answer. Hell, I wish a reporter would question the league about this very topic because I think we may all agree that the threat of future punishments is a very large deal.

Something I just thought regarding what happens if the NFL ends up giving DW a light suspension, at least from a lot of peoples' perspective, especially normally disinterested non-football fans. For this particular question, say he gets 4 games, and at the stadium for game 5 there are rather large protest crowds and a few nasty signs inside the stadium.


I could see this having a significant impact with the NFL should one of the civil cases ends after this season, even in DWs favor, but less than flattering things are "uncovered". Would the NFL be under added PR pressure to place additional game suspensions to protect the image of the NFL?

I am not looking to start any arguments or keep any going, so please don't turn this personal against me or to continue current arguments with other posters. I just assume when his suspension ends, there will at minimum be signs that will be visible during the broadcast or at least on ESPN coverage. I also would expect some sort of protest that will just draw additional attention.

Does anyone else see this happening?

I agree, I also think that is why the NFL is calling for an indefinite suspension.

I do NOT believe if other cases (of nearly similar nature, since all but a couple of the 26 known women who have spoken out are of similar nature) from the same time period come out, that it will warrant a new investigation and/or suspension if a finite number of games are handed down by Judge Robinson. Like you said, if the new cases warrant a criminal act, or are of a different nature, then yes I think it would warrant a new investigation. For instance, if there was a video that emerged, post suspension announcement, etc.. I don't think any suspension is closed similar to a legal case being closed and no double jeopardy. If new information comes out, then the accused lied to the NFL and they can take action.

Similarly, if he moves to Cleveland and does the same thing here, it would warrant a new investigation due to the new time period.

I think THIS investigation is based on a timeline that has been established and any new acts that come up during that pre-established timeline, and of similar nature, will just be thrown into the mix. If the Judge gives him 6 games and another (2) civil cases stating the same thing as the other 22 of 24 cases, then I don't think they come back and say they are adding another game or 2.

But, then again, I know as much as you or any other person that doesn't have a clue knows...

My simple answer..YES I definitely see protests occurring at every game Deshaun Watson participates in, as long as there are remaining cases open. Once the cases are resolved, I don't think it will linger very long. It's the nature of the beast. Out of the news cycle takes away the will to fight. Once there are no more cases, it will be out of the news cycle.

We see it in a similar manner, but like you said at the end:




That's why I would like to know for sure. I can understand the logic behind both arguments. It just seems like it's very important moving forward.

Neither does deciding to punish him when he has pending cases and may have more coming... especially when you consider that his trials are being delayed, at this point, because of the football season. There are so many parts of this process that seem completely arbitrary.

I think there will be protests and negative pub. I think some will be outraged if Watson gets off "easy." I think it will die down rather quickly w/always some snark thrown in. Similar to the Ben thing, I guess.

I will say that I have been reading the comments after a lot of these videos and articles and already, many Brown's fans are changing their tune. Things like "Free Watson" are popping up more and more.

I'm so confused from where some of you are coming from. Just because Watson settled 20 of the cases, that in no way excuses his conduct during those encounters. The settlement doesn't admit guilt but it sure doesn't make him innocent. The hearing with Judge Robinson is supposed to be to determine if Watson's conduct was unacceptable to the guidelines of the PCP. According to what some have expressed, the NFL wouldn't even be having a hearing if Watson had been able to get all 24 women to settle out of court, thus they are in the past and can't be scrutinized. That thought process tells me that there's now a belief that any NFL player can mistreat any number of women at their leisure as long as they have the means to settle with them before it goes to court and the NFL has a hearing.

The NYTimes identified 66 women Watson had encounters with over the 17-month period and stated that it could be more than 100. The making of arrangements (and even using the teams reserved hotel room) to receive massages from women unlicensed in massage therapy at a rate of 4 to 5 a month while having an in-house team of massage professionals available to you is not questionable conduct. JMHO, the thought processes like that are the exact reason the NFL PCP is so screwed up. Again, JMHO, Watson might not have violated any Texas Laws at this point, but his overall conduct and the way he trolled the social media sites looking for potential "Happy Endings" is not acceptable conduct for a player in the NFL.

This is something every Pee Wee football player should be told now. Watson is a Brown idol and face of the franchise now and if you can make it to the NFL, it's open season on women as long as you have the money to shut them up.

jc

Would the scrutiny and criticism directed at Watson and the team be this intense if he would have been picked up by NO or ATL? I really don't think so.

JMHO, the people who will protest are probably the same ones who dislike/hate NFL for the obscene paychecks given guys throwing a ball/ tackling a man. And the same ones who dislike the drinking, cussing, unmarried hookup resulting in births....that type of behavior which they judge people by. I don't think there will be many of them, nor will it last long. New or more ammo from DW, same thing, short time span and small numbers. No legal crime....no punishment.....GO Browns!!!!

I think the NFl needs to take the lump of what they have and rule on that. They interviewed 4, they did not interview more. I think once a decision is made it needs to be done.

If he continues to do stupid things in the future, then that opens a new "incident" so to speak. But they got to choose what they wanted to pursue this time around and it was 4 cases. Suspending him then holding old stuff over him is wrong, especially if they decide to rationalize a long suspension by "24 women can't be lying".

If it was a CEO of a corporation or a politician - do you think they'd have a job now? And yes, wherever he went I believe the scrutiny and media spotlight would be 100% as bright.

Would it be as intense HERE? No.
Would it be the same with the fans of whatever team he went to? I have no doubts at all that it would, just as I have no doubts that the national media isn't simply "keeping the story going because they hate CLE". It's a big, real, story that impacts a major high-profile player and a blockbuster trade.

Thanks Vers... works been crazy so I haven't had time to actually pay attention to the timelines or what's be going on

The reason I asked, is that I was listening to Sirius NFL today and they were focusing on how NO and ATL really missed the boat by not getting DW, and how much he would have immediately helped each franchise. The sexual accusations were barely mentioned as an afterthought. They made no mention at all of how a suspension would be dealt with there, it's like they didn't think it would be an issue. Yet when they talk about the Browns, it's the lead story.

It's because we don't have the respect that a lot of the other franchises have. Let me rephrase that MOST of the other franchises have.

There are fans and people I know that don't care if DW is guilty or not as long as we win a SB ... I'm guessing there are others who feel the same way who root for other teams. The vast majority of what I have seen, the off field issues are significant .

Steve...the reason Robinson can only rule on 4 women has nothing to do with the settlements. The NFL interviewed 12 of Buzbees clients...went to present on 5 women and ended up only providing their case on 4 women. we don't even know if it is the same 4 women that did not settle. The number outside of the NFL has NOTHING to do with what Judge Robinson has to decide. heck the number could be 3000....and it still would not matter because only 4 cases were presented by the NFL.

Who thinks DW will not do this again if he gets off easy? Serious question as many have pondered if he has a sex addiction. The guy thinks he done nothing wrong, if he gets no suspension or fine, I could see him continuing his habit here.

It's a big story, but not nearly as big as it is on this board. The ESPN and NFL Network shows are talking more about Baker than Watson. I think that the New Orleans and ATL markets would not have reacted as negatively towards signing Watson as the Cleveland market did. Carolina is hard to predict. It's the Bible belt, but folks are not all that passionate about pro sports down this way. They care more about collegiate sports.

Obviously, the national media was going to talk about Watson no matter what. I do believe that the initial reaction at the PC and Florio's daily articles changed the tone of the coverage. This has nothing to do w/the national media hating Cleveland. It's about how perceptions affect ratings and clicks. I do want to reiterate that it would have been a big story no matter where he went. People like to make things black and white and they rarely are. I'm just of the opinion that the tone and intensity would have been different had Watson signed w/Atlanta or New Orleans.

To those of us outside the Cleveland Media area, the only place I hear about this is on sports channels and here. It's not something that comes up on my local news.

If I were not someone who followed sports media, I probably would have forgotten about it all by now.

It's kinda interesting that all this sorta stayed on ice until the trade machine finally started moving. IMO, the spark that really ignited the fire was the contract... and since at least one team was allegedly miffed that the they weren't given the opportunity to match what Cleveland offered, I think the outrage would've been the same.