DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Watson Suspended 6 Games

Lol. The cracking of jokes about the Cheesecake Factory incident isn't quite at the level of what's been said about Watson.

Well the 2 instances are nothing alike..... but are you suggesting some didn't assassinate BM character after that incident ? While so e are trying to move on quickly from this DW judgement and what Sue Robinson stated? Are you saying some didn't make out like the DW allegations were only a witch hunt and unfounded?

Agree with much of that.

I agree with a lot of this. If I didn't know the outcome before reading that report, I would have expected a very long suspension. She really was all over the place, but having to work within the framework of the NFL's off the cuff definitions, especially that of "assault", explains some of it. I disagree that if the NFLPA forces their hand when or if the NFL appeals that it won't help Watson, the owners are going to want a quick and tidy end to this and DW will benefit.

Now that we have as close to a legal finding as we're probably going to get, a respected judge who spent several days face to face w/DW and accusers, I can form my own opinion. DW was a creep and I don't believe he was innocent of all the accusations. He's paid/will pay for his deeds to the extent the system allows, and the accusers got their settlement. Once the NFL makes their decision, it will be time for closure......if DW can keep the dragon in the cave.

I said this earlier, but it was buried in a post that was much longer, but I think the best move for the NFL is to put this thing to bed.

There will be some initial outrage and Watson will never live this down. It will follow him the rest of his life, just like the allegations against Ben have followed him to this very day. Things will allay over time but never completely dissipate. What's really important is that he does everything in his power to live a good life moving forward. He can become an advocate for worthy causes, such as women's rights.

Punishment is a tool to caution those who are thinking of exhibiting poor behavior. However, it does not provide a cure for one who has already committed the undesirable behavior. Acceptable behavior has to come from within and w/the support of others who encourage and help develop a person on their quest to live a life well served. He's 26 and not a hardened criminal. There is plenty of time for him to accomplish great deeds away from the football field.

I am interested to read comments on the my take on punishment.

Well stated, agree 100%. On what page in NFL guidelines is their definition of sexual assault. Watson isn't perfect for sure, but he isn't a predator imo. I'm convinced the NFL will increase his penalty and players association rightly will go to trial. Money talks- owners not held responsible, but players are- those FACTS will come out at trial. NFL in a no win position. Lastly, different era, but the great Jim Brown wasn't known for being pure back in the 60s throwing a woman off a balcony. He's a great man- with some warts.....GO Browns!!!!

I don't know how many he games he should have been suspended but I think he should have been fined as well. The judge should have taken the structure of his contract into consideration as a eay to avoid some punishment.

She should have then said, had his salary been equally soaced, he would have lost X amount of money to this suspension. Therefore I am also fining him to make his caoitol loss equivalent to what it should have been

one of the better readups I have seen concerning the decision...
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...takeaways-16-page-ruling-why-nfl-get-way

Deshaun Watson of Cleveland Browns suspended six games: Takeaways from 16-page ruling, and why the NFL didn't get its way
play
6:55 AM ET
Dan Graziano
ESPN Staff Writer

Monday's news of a six-game suspension for Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson has, predictably, triggered an intense reaction. This is fair and understandable, because the allegations of sexual misconduct against Watson are disturbing and deal with the issue of how the NFL polices players when it comes to behavior toward women. The history of the league includes enough mishandling of that to justify cynicism, and a lot of the reaction on Monday seemed to root itself in that cynicism. Many expected to be disappointed by the outcome, and to a large extent, they were.

Arbitration decisions aren't designed to make everybody happy. The decisions are supposed to be based on the evidence presented and precedent in place. As you read through the 16-page report from retired federal judge Sue L. Robinson, it's clear she tried to maintain that balance.

How did Robinson explain her decision, and how did she land on six games? And what did Robinson stipulate must happen for Watson's future massage therapy sessions? Here are 12 key takeaways from the report.


Fundamentally, the NFL won its case against Watson
Robinson found Watson guilty of violating the league's personal conduct policy in three ways: by engaging in sexual assault; by engaging in conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and by engaging in conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL.

That he was found to have violated the policy at all is a critical point, because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) states that the decision of the jointly appointed discipline officer (in this case Robinson), as to whether a violation of the personal conduct policy occurred, is binding. Meaning, if she had found no violation occurred (and thus no discipline was warranted), the league would not have had the right to appeal.

The league does have the right to appeal the determination of discipline, with commissioner Roger Goodell or his designee serving as appeals officer. According to the CBA, any appeal, either from the NFL Players Association or the league, "shall be in writing within three business days of the Disciplinary Officer's decision, and any response to the appeal shall be filed in writing within two business days thereafter. The appeal shall be limited to arguments why, based on the evidentiary record below, the amount of discipline, if any, should be modified."

The new process did some of what it was meant to do
If you're asking yourself, "What's the point of neutral arbitration when the commissioner still gets final say on discipline?" the answer is, under the new procedure, the league has to prove its case. It must, the CBA states, rely on "credible evidence" in front of an arbitrator, who in this case is a retired federal judge.


The NFLPA considers this a significant advance from when Goodell would simply hear the findings of his own investigators and rule on discipline without having to make those findings public.

Robinson was not presented with the cases of all 24 civil lawsuits filed against Watson
On Page 3 of her report, Robinson -- who writes that her decision is "limited by the record presented to me" -- makes clear the case presented to her was not about 24 different women but four. The NFL interviewed 12 of the 24 women who were suing Watson for damages in civil court and "relied for its conclusions on the testimony of 4 therapists, as well as interviews of some 37 other third parties."

The NFL's investigators do not have subpoena power and thus cannot compel all 24 of the women to talk to them. They interviewed 12, and of those 12, they decided four would form the basis of their argument Watson violated the personal conduct policy. It's unclear why they used only four, but that's what they apparently decided was the best way to make their case.

Robinson found Watson guilty of violating the personal conduct policy
The details of the behavior Robinson found the league to have proved are disturbing -- from the way Watson solicited the massages to the unusually small size of the towel he insisted on using to cover himself during them to the intent and manner of contact he made with the therapists. Robinson found the four women in question convincing based on circumstantial evidence (including the fact they said they would have refused to work with him again after the alleged incidents) and found Watson's blanket denial of all wrongdoing difficult to accept in light of what she called the "credible testimony of the investigators."

No one who reads this report can come away thinking Robinson found Watson innocent of wrongdoing. Robinson concludes Watson "had a sexual purpose -- not just a therapeutic purpose -- in making these arrangements with these particular therapists." Based on what she found to be the league's definition of sexual assault, Robinson found Watson guilty of violating the personal conduct policy by engaging in sexual assault.

Watson's actions fell under the same umbrella as Deflategate and Bountygate
In the portion of the report that decides whether Watson engaged in conduct detrimental to the league, Robinson cites "Tom Brady's deflation of the game balls used in the AFC Championship Game in January 2015 and the 2021 New Orleans Saints' 'Pay-for Performance'" scheme as past cases in which the league invoked its "detriment to the league" clause: "Although the above examples were focused on the game of football itself, it clearly is within the purview of the NFL to expand the scope of its supervision to a player's private life if he invokes his status as a player while engaging in prohibited conduct."

Because Watson identified himself as an NFL player when reaching out to the therapists in question, Robinson found credible the NFL's evidence that his actions were detrimental to the league.

If the NFL had its way, Watson would be suspended for the entire season
Having found Watson guilty of violating the league's personal conduct policy, Robinson moves on to the question of whether the league's proposed discipline was justified. The league proposed suspending Watson for the entire 2022 season and postseason and that he not be permitted to return until he satisfied certain conditions for reinstatement. Robinson writes on Page 11 she is tasked with reviewing that proposal "for consistency of treatment, uniformity of standards for parties similarly situated, and patent unfairness or selectivity."

To be clear: If you're asking why the NFL imposed only a six-game suspension, the answer is, it didn't. The NFL, which contended in the hearing Watson's conduct was unprecedented and therefore warranted an unprecedented suspension, wanted him suspended for a year.

In the final pages of her report, Robinson explains why she believed that was unjust: "Although I have found Mr. Watson to have violated the Policy, I have done so using the NFL's post-hoc definitions of the prohibited conduct at issue. Defining prohibited conduct plays a critical role in the rule of law, enabling people to predict the consequences of their behavior."

The Ray Rice discipline shaped this ruling
In citing the 2014 case of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, Robinson notes the NFLPA's characterization of what happened -- specifically that Goodell suspended Rice for two games (as was the standard for Rice's offense at the time) and only after public outcry revised its personal conduct policy to establish a six-game suspension as standard for first-time violent offenders.

She states that this policy change, even though it was a reaction to public outrage, at least "gave fair notice to its players and to the public of the probable consequences of certain violent conduct."

The word 'violent' plays a key role in the report
The post-Rice personal conduct policy specifies the six-game suspension "for Policy violations including (1) criminal assault or battery (felony); (2) domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse and other forms of family violence; or (3) sexual assault involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent." These are very specific types of violations, and Robinson states on Page 13, "It is undisputed that Mr. Watson's conduct does not fall into the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension."


She also states prior cases involving nonviolent sexual assault had not led to six-game suspensions but rather no more than a three-game suspension. (Jameis Winston, then the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' starting quarterback, was suspended for the first three games of the 2018 season for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy.) It's important to note Robinson was not starting from the six-game baseline in the personal conduct policy because she defined Watson's behavior as nonviolent and stated it did not meet the policy's requirements for a six-game suspension.

Robinson strove for consistency where the NFL argued there was none
There's an extremely interesting passage on Page 13. Robinson states the NFL argued "consistency is not possible, because there are no similarly situated players." But Robinson looks at that differently and writes, "By ignoring past decisions because none involve 'similar' conduct, the NFL is not just equating violent conduct with non-violent conduct, but has elevated the importance of the latter without any substantial evidence to support its position. While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players."

Basically, Robinson is saying something akin to, You want to argue that this behavior deserves a more severe penalty, fine. Maybe you're right. But that's not in your policy, and you can't just make policy to support one specific case as it's going on. If the league wants to do what it did post-Rice and adjust its policy to account for the type of behavior Watson is herein found guilty of, it should do that -- then everyone would know.

Interesting argument, for sure, but it answers a lot of the questions about the length of the suspension vis-à-vis some others in the past. She goes on to write, "It is inherently unfair to identify conduct as prohibited only after the conduct has been committed, just as it is inherently unjust to change the penalties for such conduct after the fact."

The six-game duration of the suspension was not random
Remember, Robinson first decided she was not starting from a six-game baseline but from one of three games or fewer, based on precedent set by other nonviolent sexual assault cases. As "aggravating factors" (that is, reasons to increase the suspension), she cites Watson's "lack of expressed remorse and his tardy notice to the NFL of the first-filed lawsuit." As "mitigating factors" (that is, reasons to go easier on him), she cites "he is a first-time offender and had an excellent reputation in his community prior to these events. He cooperated and has paid restitution."

Very interestingly, she also notes the league could have placed Watson on the commissioner's exempt list last year and chose not to, which she appears to think means the league didn't consider his behavior worthy of such punishment until it saw the public reaction to it. She makes that clear in her conclusion when she writes, "The NFL may be a 'forward-facing' organization, but it is not necessarily a forward-looking one. Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson's conduct."

Robinson writes that she settled on six games because it is the largest suspension ever imposed for nonviolent sexual conduct but that Watson's behavior is more egregious than the behavior that led to previous suspensions for nonviolent sexual conduct.

Robinson appeared to consider previous cases involving team owner behavior in determining Watson's suspension

A big part of the NFLPA's argument during the hearing (and likely a key part of its reaction if Goodell overrules Robinson and imposes harsher discipline) is the notion the league has not punished team owners for similar offenses. In Footnote 51 on Page 15, Robinson notes that argument while writing the personal conduct policy is equally applicable to team owners and management. Basically, it seems as if the NFLPA's argument that she should consider the comparatively lighter discipline given to team owners as part of the precedent carried some weight.

Watson's massage therapy must be coordinated by the team for as long as he is an NFL player
It's important to note Robinson states that Watson, as a condition of his reinstatement into the league after his six-game suspension is complete, must "limit his massage therapy to Club-directed sessions and Club-approved massage therapists for the duration of his career." This means if he is caught going outside of his team's purview for massages again, the league would have the right to reimpose the suspension.

I agree with what you wrote, but the NFL won't. Goodell and the NFL front office care about one thing and one thing only...winning. And in this case that means winning against Watson. And Robinson opened the door wide open for them to do that.

I think they will appeal because they don't fear a lawsuit. I think this will be misstep by the NFL because they have a false sense of confidence after being sued in the past. But I think this time it will be more organized and more substantial than anything they've seen, and they will end up regretting that decision.

But it still won't help Deshaun get on the field for the Browns.

My hope is they don't appeal and it's over. I just don't see that as a likely outcome given Robinson's conclusion. No matter if you think what he did is severe, minor, if he's really a good guy, if he learned his lesson, or if he will live a great life helping others the rest of the way, it's not about any of that for the NFL. It's about winning and beating Watson at this point. Goodell lost the round one battle. He can still win the war.

I pointed out that the statement was not absurd. They simple quoted what Watson already said. That he was sorry for the situation, not that he was sorry he had done anything wrong. Big difference.

As far as waiting months for proof... well we still don't have ANY. We have Sue doing her job and saying in her opinion (which is the only one that counts right now) that it's more likely that he did these things than that he didn't. That's her job and many people will agree with her. She didn't prove anything. We are still where we were a year ago... Watson could actually be guilty of everything he was accused of (I don't know) He could also be innocent of everything he was accused of (once again I don't know) The truth could be in between (like I said I don't know) IMO It's in between but that's only my opinion. It's not fact, or proof. It could be right or wrong.

I agree w/much of what you say. The NFL is under a lot of pressure from the media and public to lengthen the suspension. And I agree w/you about the NFL cares about their image over what is right or wrong. It's a business. Thus, they might appeal and try to increase the suspension.

With that said, Jeff Darlington just reported as I was typing that if the NFL does appea, the NFLPA will sue and that the process will take a long time to play out. Thus, the suspension would be put on hold and Watson would be available to play starting game one and continue to play until the courts provide their ruling. LMAO...........that's crazy to even think about.

I wonder if that possibility would make the NFL hesitant to appeal?

I didn't say it wasn't simple, I just said that no matter what, he's got a price to pay.

As I read it...Robinson was not happy about the vague (and especially unwritten) definitions...specifically for sexual assault. We have to remember she is not making a judgement based upon a legal definition of assault by federal or state laws. But by the CBA...and since this is a private company, therefore it is the NFL's decision. So she could have ruled specifically to the letter of the CBA which has no definition...and had she thought that Watson was not using this method for sexual gratification...she might have. But she leaned towards the NFL's "adhoc" definition. and by that adhoc definition, he was in violation. He was in violation of the broad definition of point #2 based on the violation of point#1. After that, point #3 is a no brainer...

I think the the NFL is going to have to tread very lightly here. It is my hope that this event helps to create better definitions within the CBA. But it is also my hope that it doesn't have to get ugly in order to do that. If the NFL appeals...it is going to get VERY ugly. But they are accustomed to getting their own way. They are going to have to decide which hit is going to be greater...the hit against all the dirt that comes out on the owners or on Watson...In my eyes....I think the hit is potentially greater on the dirt with the owners...I think we have seen in the past, that Watson would eventually blow over faster. But the social narrative of the rich getting away with anything and the owners not wanting any dirt to come up might linger longer and have more far reaching effects...But that is just an opinion...Not to mention the contention already between the NFL and NFLPA...this can only exacerbate that....what good will come from it??? again...JMO

Oh....if there is an appeal by the NFL....Watson will at VERY LEAST start the season...because an appeal will start the federal Lawsuit process and his suspension won't go into effect until that process has completed...heck that could take a year or more...

You articulated very well my central problem with the ruling, the parsing between the terms assault and non-violent. That has been a sticking point with me though I haven’t said it nearly as well as you did. I think most women would view assault of any kind as being versions of violence.

BUT… this is not a law or a semantics class and as far as I’m concerned the same holds now as held over the last few months; that no one is going to move off their established beliefs and trying to bludgeon each other into moral submission is a stupid waste of time. The decision to support or abandon the team is each individual’s to make. What the ruling is now or ends up being really shouldn’t factor in much. I’ve heard some say they will support the team/city and not the individuals but sort of blurring my eyes to the player numbers and just rooting for the colors is a contortion I’m not sure I can pull off. For some the ruling becomes the structure around the intellectual gymnastics needed to continue supporting the team. The lighter the sentence, the easier the justifications and ease of sticking the landing. I’m not sure I’m that good at it.

So personally I’m indeed still very conflicted. I have a wife who was assaulted years before we were together and this whole thing has pretty much put a black X on the team for her. I have a 17yr old daughter who is just starting to navigate the world of men and boys (late bloomer) and I’d hate for her to think I don’t take it seriously. But I’m a life long Browns fan and I’d never be able to root for another team. The idea of just burying football altogether is just bleak and frankly, not terribly realistic. It’s a quandary. But I’m pretty sure no one this board nor any revisiting of the existing evidence is going to move the needle a whole lot for me. So I’m not here to try to move your needle. It might just be that I don’t wear the Jersey and I don’t toot the horn but I low key keep an eye on things and just hope the good eventually overwhelms the bad. Kinda pathetic.

We’ll see how the ruling shakes out. And I’ll see how my fandom shakes out.

I respect your position and understand where you are coming from.

Just removed the article text to avoid a huge quote.

Lots of interesting parts to that story.

Given that Robinson found Watson guilty of the violations the league now has the option of going for a harsher sentence. Hopefully they do not do that because the punishment given was due more to the league structure than to Watson's behavior. Robinson had to start at 1-3 games minimum instead of 6 because of the league's framework for violations. Much like with Ray Lewis the league needs to take it's lumps, learn from this and build a better policy if it wishes to prevent future similar incidents. The NFL really needs someone competent to manage it's Conduct policy and hopefully this is a step in the right direction.

I agree with Robinson that the NFL did not pay attention to the 'Watson incident' until public outcry forced their hand. Sadly I think the Browns giving Watson the huge contract to woo him ended up bringing the incident to more people, what once was a city issue became a national issue.

The ruling that his massage therapy must be coordinated by the team for as long as he is in the NFL seems like they feel he would/could continue this behavior, which concerns me that he will try and do it on the down low going forward. Hopefully this doesn't become a series of rolling 6 game suspensions ala Gordon.

I must be the only person on this board who has no idea about the Cheesecake factory "incident". I don't want anyone to provide details as I am sick of reading salacious details of players making poor decisions. I am trying to figure out how I can read this board frequently and have no clue.

Baker was not vilified for the Cheesecake Factory thing. A few guys joked about it. I personally said I would not get on Baker about it for the same reasons I wouldn't say Watson was guilty of allegations. The above claim is yet another example of a poster trying to deceive others.

I disagree. In terms of the guy that's the face of our franchise, an impartial judge saying he engaged in predatory behavior is kind of a big deal. I guess we'll just have to see if he's remorseful after the specter of civil action is done.

I am not arguing w/you, but a word of caution. Judge Robinson was presiding over a case that was about whether or not Watson violated the terms of the Personal Conduct Policy. Her decision was not in an actual court of law. In that regard, it's not really fair to claim that he is actually guilty of a crime and assigning labels to his name is unfair.

That is true. He was before 2 separate grand juries and they did not have enough evidence to take the case to trail. In this Country until you are found guilty you are to be assumed innocent.

I want to be clear. I am not saying Watson is innocent. I don't know the truth. I was just pointing out that Judge Robinson was ruling on the Personal Conduct Policy and this wasn't an actual legal hearing under the laws of the land.

The "predatory conduct" thing is right there in her report. I guess you can try to argue her on that, but that's her statement from her own report. Long story short, she believes Watson engaged in predatory behavior, but the NFL is such a clownshow that her hands were tied in terms of the length of the suspension.

Sorry in advance as this is a lengthy post, but I think this guy really broke the situation down without any bias:












Continued.....

NFL in no win situation....as you pointed out if this goes to trial, the owners conduct will see a lot more light....therefore, I now predict the owners will tell Roger NOT TO APPEAL because they don't want their conduct examined in the court of law. Go Browns!!!

What? I wasn't arguing w/her. I said that she was ruling on the Personal Conduct Policy and this was not an actual case in a court of law. You don't have to agree. But, I'm pretty confident that the NFL isn't a court of law.

Continued....

That was a good read. Thanks.

Thanks Memphis, that is a concise coverage of where we are today imo.

Holy cow, dude.

Verbal assault

j/c...

Said by the man who claimed he would respect and honor her decision. I guess that means until he didn't like what it said. Then he adds qualifiers to it.

Or maybe placing you penis on women who doesn't want you to? Spitting on someone is considered assault. Is that violent?

It amazes me that you can tell people that under the law spitting on someone is assault and they at the same time can't comprehend how putting your unwanted penis on a woman is also assault.