DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Deshawn Watson News

I understand she's not holding a criminal or a civil trial. My brain (having worked both of those matters as an atty in court) sometimes defaults to that line of thinking, and I'm guessing that hers might as well, but at the end of the day, it's understood that the same burdens of proof and processes don't apply, although stylistically, with her asking for briefs and whatnot, it appears that you can take the judge out of the courtroom, but can't take the courtroom out of the judge.

Also, I know I go down the slippery slope at some points, but I'm not trying to compare the situations and the background. I could offer my opinions on which is worse, but that would take away from what I’m really trying to get at, which is precedent, and how the judge will make her decision.

The only two major instances she has to go off of that fall in the same realm as Watson’s are Roethlisberger and Kraft. In Roethlisberger’s case, Goodell suspended him for 6 games (reduced to 4) for facts that he cited in his letter that did not really touch on the allegations themselves, but on the undisputed facts surrounding the allegations. In Kraft’s scenario, you had a police report, and no real dispute regarding the facts, but you had Kraft basically leverage his wallet to hire excellent attorneys who got him off (no pun intended) on a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, I believe. So, the evidence couldn’t be used by the court, but could have been used by the NFL. The NFL (Goodell) did nothing. If I was Watson’s attorney, I would do exactly what Kessler is doing, and I’m sure he’s doing it far better than I would have. And that is paint a picture of disparity between how the NFL treats its players vs its owners and how the precedent for establishing punishment is arbitrary and capricious. On top of that, the evidence used against Roethlisberger, and the evidence NOT used against Goodell was pretty much open evidence with very little in practical dispute. I could be very wrong here, but in Watson’s case, I think the only objective evidence is the sheer number of allegations and the fact he settled a bunch of them. So it’s a he-said/she-said scenario where we have no idea what settlement was even reached in those cases. Many of which aren’t even coming into play for this hearing. In this scenario, we’re focusing on four alleged scenarios vs Kraft’s 2 and Roethsliberger’s 2. I don’t know how the NFL is bolstering those 4 allegations. All that being said, I’m not trying to factually compare the entire gravity of their situations and who’s is better or worse, but how they compare to each other in this vacuum-like scenario.

On top of that, Robinson is not Goodell, who, let’s face it, does carry himself as a dictator who gives the punishment he wants and then backs into the justification for that punishment. It appears Robinson is carefully doing the opposite. I just think it’ll be difficult for her to establish a common precedent based on Goodell’s actions and style. Because of that, the bottom line of my assertion is honestly that I have no idea what she’ll do. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk either way. If I had to guess, I think that she’ll give Watson anywhere between a 4-8 game punishment and Goodell will expand it.
Just one more thing…(in my Columbo voice). The thing that makes me rethink what I just wrote above, though, is that the NFL does not appear to be going hard in the paint, like we all anticipated they would. That is evidenced by Florio’s claim and the number of alleged victims they are focusing on vs the total amount of allegations that exist. That lends my own speculation (not based on anything other than the circumstances) that the NFL is secretly hoping for zero punishment so they can get a money-maker on the field and at the same time say that it wasn’t their fault that he wasn’t suspended. That’s again all speculation on my part.

Thank you Dawglover 05. That was a very helpful explanation in my opinion. You explained the legal side, while realizing the NFL does not have to comply. You also wrote in an informational, not confrontational or judgmental form. I sometimes have a hard time going on this thread to read because it seems to be a lot of "loud" noise just trying to change people's mind and not consider that others can have a different opinion, and not be a horrible person. Sounds kind of like today's politics, huh?

You can, but it does take some experience. For all intents and purposes, she is acting as an ALJ does in an administrative hearing, because this really is an administrative hearing.

This isn't about 4 woman or 100 women. It is about code of conduct rules being violated or not.

If the judge is doing the job she is charged with, she isn't getting bogged down with any legalities in the civil matter, she should be making her determination based on if the NFL proved Watson violated rules as outlined in the code of conduct.

She is there in an administrative capacity to arbitrate a dispute between employer and employee.

if Goodell overrides the arbitrator, then everyone will see the arbitrator concept as a sham, and she will be removed.

j/c:

I have another question even though I haven't found an answer to my previous question. It's a hypothetical.

Let's say Sue Robinson suspends Watson for 6 games. What happens if both the NFL and the NFLPA are dissatisfied w/her ruling because the NFL wants a harsher penalty and the NFLPA wants a lesser penalty? We know that either side can appeal the decision that the Disciplinary Officer hands down, but can both sides appeal her decision?

Either that - or is there a possibility that the code of conduct was written poorly?

As I understand it the intent of the code of conduct is to address and suspend players (and coaches and owners) who bring the game into disrepute. I would guess that is there to protect the NFL and it's income.

If that is the intent - is there anyone that thinks 26 allegations of sexual misconduct and 66+ different massage therapists over 17 months doesn't fit the bill of "brining the game into disrepute" ? Does that matter - is everyone good if Watson can skate based on the letter of the agreement instead of the intent of the agreement?

Knowing that Kraft and possibly other owners have not been held accountable - is it more important that DW gets treated with the same leniency as the owners? Or would it be more appropriate to, at some point, try to get it right?

And circling back to the same issue that's been raised a lot - with 4 cases still outstanding where DW could be held liable/guilt in a Civil Trial ... should the NFL rule now and possibly have to re-adjust any findings later? Should they let DW play until there is a resolution of all outstanding cases? Or suspend DW until a resolution is determined?

Never mind. That was a dumb question. Goodell or his appointed designee makes the final decision on the appeal, thus the players appeal would have no chance.

Understand that side. When I said civil, I meant to infer admin law as well. I'm also not even speaking to the "whether" point. I'm going directly to the "sentencing." In this case, there is no codified sentence and the precedent is shaky as well. It goes back to I don't know WTF she's going to do.

Thanks FBF! It's hard to avoid confrontation these days because we're basically told 24/7 that we need to be confrontational in today's climate. It gets us to stop thinking for ourselves and a lot of people in charge want it that way.

05, I am going to try and ask this question again. I'll reword it.

The topic of what happens if some of the other women that have been identified decide to file a lawsuit against Watson after this current case is settled. Do you think that if there are no additional claims, such as rape, sodomy, etc, would the NFL hold a second hearing or would it be more likely that the concept of double jeopardy or res judicata be followed?

That's a great question. There's obviously no written laws or other precedent that says you can't have a second bite at the apple. That being said, if there was no additional information that came out about the claim - and I'm sure any settlements would be sealed - I really can't see a scenario where it would be relitigated, barring something new and shocking coming out. Kessler would have a field day with that.

Thanks. I went over Article 46 of the CBA line by line. I couldn't find anything either way.

I'm good with Watson "skating" on the letter vs the intent.

I think the point you made about Robinson not being Goodell may carry weight in a direction opposite of what you think it might. The fact that she's not Goodell and this is an entirely new process may be the very reason why past precedence will be of no bearing on her decision. As we have seen in all kinds of civil as well as criminal cases, the sentences and judgements handed down in very similar cases, which in this case there are none, can vary widely with no consideration of other sentences and judgements decided in other courts by other judges. That could be the case here as well. That said it could go in either direction by being as little as no suspension or an indefinite suspension.

But I think one has to consider that the very reason she was appointed by the NFL and the NFLPA is because the former system was found to be so very flawed. That being the case, why would anything handed down use precedence of such a flawed system that they felt the need to fix it? I mean isn't that like saying the way it was being handled before is wrong so let's use examples of that as a determining factor in this case?

I have a lot of friends that feel the same way.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There's no adequate precedent other than what Goodell has done and he's inconsistent, hence no valid precedence, which could blow this any which way.

My point is that I believe her thought process will be different. He was punishment then justification whereas she, based upon her career profession and history, will be just the opposite. That's further bolstered by the fact she's asking for briefs from both sides to mull over.

Not sure what your reply has to do with mine, as I stated that if Goodell override the decision, by the person they put in place to make these decisions, especially on the first case, then it ends up looking like a sham for the whole process should be disbanded, as neither side will trust that it means anything if Goodell can just say "Nope, I don't like that punishment, here's what they get instead."

I think any appeal by Watson would be to the NFL? I am not sure if the appeal goes back to Robinson. If Watsons team appeals, and the NFL wants more and the appeal goes to the Commish....lot's of luck with that.

It seems to me that Robinsons decision might need to become binding at some point in the future.

That is why this system is screwed up. In a traditional set-up it would be the NFL and the NFLPA would hash it out, and then any appeal down would have to be appealed to the arbitrator to make a binding decision.

I don't understand how you can have the NFL and NFLPA present a case to a 'neutral' person... then if the NFL doesn't 'win' their case then they can appeal it to... the NFL... makes zero sense.. I think they present to a neutral party and if either side wants to appeal they get one final chance to go to another neutral party but have to accept whatever judgement is given out... or to make it quicker... there's no appeal process...

Yeah, while the new system is better than the previous system, it still sucks. The NFL still has the power to punish a person who has never been charged or convicted of a crime. They still have the power to not punish some of their members due to their status while severely punishing those lower on the totem pole. For the life of me, I can't fathom how that makes this even close to "getting it right."

Here's the issue I see with a settlement at this time. The PCP is there to protect the integrity of the game and the image. For Watson to accept a deal, that would mean that he would have to accept or admit to wrongdoing or at a minimum doing something that was not considered proper conduct. Watson can maintain his innocence stand if the league suspends him for their interpretation of bad conduct, but I don't believe the NFL will bargain a deal without him admitting his conduct was questionable. With 4 alleged civil claims of sexual misconduct still active of which 2 of them are alleged sexual assault, the plaintiffs would love to have Watson admit to wrongdoing or questionable conduct. IMHO, if the NFL accepted a settlement without Watson admitting to a conduct violation the question then would be, "Why is the NFL taking a plea deal without some type of admittance of some type of conduct violation by Watson?

None of us do. I suppose in ways, she doesn't/didn't either. As we have discussed, she is looking at a previous suspension range of one game to indefinite. With no written, agreed upon guidelines, at least none that I am aware exist, we find the current quagmire.

Don't quote me on this, but somewhere in all of this I thought I saw something that the counseling was more in line with dealing with the stress of the situation.

Again, don't quote me.

That was my take on it as well.

I don't think they said one way or the other. I know I brought up him using counseling to help him deal w/all that is going on after others said it was about the accusations. I think that is the way it looked while reading the article, but I don't think they said one way or the other.

This is just me speaking from a personal opinion.

I would not agree to a 6 or 8-game suspension if I were Watson. I would probably agree to a 2-game suspension just to get it out of the way and feel that 15 games would be enough for me to get my team to the playoffs and perhaps a division title.

I would not accept the 6 or 8-game suspensions because I think the NFL's case is weak. While the number of accusers is high, their tangible evidence is weak. No video evidence. No written correspondence that directly highlights a crime. There is video evidence that Kraft went to a massage parlor and he admitted having sex. No penalty. Snyder has tons of evidence working against him, including documentation of trying to intimidate and bribe witnesses. The penalty was a $10 million fine. Watson's accusers have very little in terms of actual tangible evidence.

Many will disagree w/my take and that's fine. I'm just saying that if I am Watson, there is no way I would agree to a 6 or 8-game suspension. I think the NFL's case is looking weaker and weaker, especially because Kessler has threatened to sue them and if he does.......the NFL's grimy insides might be exposed for all to see.

It is puzzling. The outcome can be confusing, suspect, even rejected by public. And NFL can look bad as a result quickly in multiple ways, one of which is: Do you lose many, NFL, I mean appealing to yourself? Seems rigged unfairly to favor the owners. You are moving from a nominally appointed "impartial" setup to a partisan appeal, or could be construed as a giant step backwards and down from"impartial."
A negotiated settlement that has the support of all parties, after settlements are noted, would be better. The NFL really has need going forward as to precedent and how this situation will better guide future similar situations IMO.
I want this in the rearview mirror soon. Please.

tab.......the NFL can still change Robinson's ruling provided she does impose a penalty. Goodell can decide to change the length of the suspension or even appoint a designee to change it. The only way that Goodell or his designee can't do anything is if Sue Robinson says there is no suspension at all. I think that is why Florida was complaining about the system.

J/C

So we will wait until next week (maybe lol). I think the longer it goes it’s probably good news for Watson.

Goodell can always up the suspension (unless Robinson rules there is no suspension), but I’m not sure he would do that and usurp her first big case.

I still think 6 games will be the result

j/c...

30?

Did I blink or something?

Good deal that at least that aspect is done with. Now, let's get the punishment drama out of the way.