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

It's time for everyone, including the NFL, to put this behind us and play the games. JMO

I find it somewhat odd to invoke "first offender" while coupling it with a decision involving dozens of offenses, lol

More power to ya, Sue, but it does sound kinda silly.


I continue to maintain my prediction that the NFL is going to just let it roll as-is. The ONLY way I see Goodell stomping on this is if they were never happy about this whole arbitration thing for punishments in the first place. Barring that, I think they want the impression of this new system to be on of validity and fairness and they won't step on any toes at all in its inaugural case.

Things I found interesting

-She did not say that "he did do these things"...She consistently used the term "circumstantial" concerning the evidence.
-She also did not like the extremely broad definitions within the 3 allegations of breaking the conduct policy...most of which are not written down.
-I think on the first count of sexual assault (and this is just me) I get the feeling she didn't think he "assaulted" anyone, but was abiding by a broad unwritten term used by an NFL Exec.
-But I think she did feel that the pattern established that greater than 50% probability on all three points.
-I am surprised to hear that none of the 4 were licensed therapists. We knew some of the alleged 60 were and some were not. The reason this surprised me is the incidental contact aspect of things. With non licensed people, there is a greater chance of a misunderstanding. With that said, none of us will know if it was incidental or not...we can only suspect.
-Upon the second count...again an extremely broad definition...And as far as the working environment aspect...If you believe the incidental contact was not incidental...then yes, general, "nonsafe" working environment protocols definitely apply. So it is logical for her conclusion on the second count. But I have to tell you...if the symptoms they are complaining about are valid for an unsafe working environment...I have a case against every employer I have ever had.
-The third count may have a broad definition, but in many ways it is by design as what is acceptable can change over time. But it is also the one point I felt would be easiest to prove. Having been found probable of breaking the first two points. The third is a no brainer.
-Concerning the discipline...I find it strange that she made no mention concerning the disparate discipline between the players and owners. Especially since she had been allowing such broad interpretations on the definition on the 3 counts. She stuck to player to player comparisons.
-Her points concerning prior suspensions and the notification to the players being too loose for what constitutes the behavior and how it will be disciplined I thought were very poignant.
-Lastly, I was a little let down as I didn't think there was very much to this document...given all the hoopla around it. And I also am a little disturbed(not the right term, but will have to do) On the focus of the Prosecution evidence and not so much the Defense argument. There was some...but in comparison to the NFL's info...hardly anything...

I believe 6 games is/was spelled out for first time offenders...and as such she ruled not by Kangaroo Kourt of Opinion, but against how the Collective Bargaining Agreement is written.

I really think that if you are upset in EITHER direction...Then you should blame the CBA...and not Robinson

I was really waiting to hear her opinion...I was hoping for more insight....but we didn't get that. As such I believe things are "probably" (since the term is important in this case) in the middle as they usually are...I think it probable he was using some of these instances for sexual gratification. I think it more than probable he did not physically assault, violently assault, nor coerce, anyone. I believe in some cases there was misunderstandings, in other cases there were people just looking for money, and in some cases he made an unwanted advance. The biggest issue (and I think I agree with the judge on this) is the pattern. I am struggling as to whether I would necessarily call it "predatory". Is going to a bar to try and pick up someone, predatory? It is not quite the same thing..I know...But he also can't just go out to a bar and try to pick up someone. So it could be argued that he tried to do it another way. AT this time I can't say

100% impressed with Robinson and her handling of this case. She's the right person for the job.

She worked completely within the framework of conduct definitions and expected punishment.

There was never any excuse for suspending Watson for more than six games given the language of the contract.

I absolutely love that she pointed out serious problems with the structure and how they need to be fixed going forward.


Most notable is that she is forced to work within the bounds of all of the NFL's "on the fly" definitions. I think she's pointing out to both parties that there are issues with this process that must be addressed going forward. And also that the league should have no right to amend punishment guidelines without players being warned of that in advance.




I hope this was enough warning to the league that she feels strongly that they have no leg to stand on by imposing a punishment beyond six games.

They should just forego the expected sh*tshow portion of their next move and tip their hat to her fair, impartial, governance of their contract language.

yep, because being a creep isn't illegal.

But in the eyes of Robinson, there are 4 cases, not 24. The NFL presented only 4 cases. Not sure why they did that, but that is what they chose.

So according to this, DW is a rapey predator. She was just limited to the precedent of punishment. It wouldn't surprise me either way if the league accepts this or goes for more games on the suspension. That entire report was damning to Watson. Lack of credibility, described as showing predatory behavior, no remorse, having committed numerous sexual assaults, intentionally exposing himself and touching them with an erection... He also used his status as an NFL QB to get them in private. It seems Watson is exactly who I and a few others have been saying he is. I am happy that she put the no outside the organization massages in his punishment because he seems to have a fetish or addiction to this AND JUST MAYBE there are 230 million reasons for him to not get into more rapey trouble here. He may be the next Gordon in that way, who knows?

But overall I'm happy the report answered some questions and that WE ALL now know for sure who DW is. We can root for the team we love and inevitably for DW, knowing the truth is out and he was found guilty by NFL standards, with safeguards in place to keep it from happening here. If it does happen here, he will be GONE. I can live with that knowing I think he is a true POS but is going to QB this team for the foreseeable future regardless of what I think. I can reconcile my feelings knowing that at least he has been punished to some degree as well as feeling that due to his youth, he should get a chance to redeem himself on a very short leash. But I have to admit, knowing he is a rapey sexual predator will always be in the back of my mind.

Did the NFLPA go to federal court to sue over insufficient punishment of owners?? No, they did not.

This is a separate issue, with a punishment being levied, which can now - by CBA agreement - be increased by the league.

That can be on the NFL. Watson's actions led to over 50 settled lawsuits, if the NFL chose to only pursue 4 that can be on them. We now know his punishment from the NFL and how it will impact the Browns. I feel a bit more comfortable that Watson has to have the team arrange all his sessions now, except we most likely will screw that part up too.

I think this new system w/having a Disciplinary Officer is better than the old system. But, I agree that the system has a ton of flaws in it.

I did not think that Watson deserved 6 games. However, I'm not going to go off on Judge Robinson. I think she tried to be fair given what she had to work with. The NFL's history on these types of issues is all over the place and it's hard to fix that in one swoop.

I think what we can do is use her first decision as the foundation for establishing precedence moving forward. New cases can be compared to this particular case. I also think the league and the NFLPA can tighten up some of the language of the Discipline section of the CBA the next time it is negotiated.

Put this 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.

This is judge Robinson's ruling....


In her ruling she says watson's conduct was predatory. The entire case surrounded sexual misconduct.

At the end of the day, not even that matters.

Watson could have 700 people complaining. That would not change the fact that he is a first-time offender of their conduct code. Their language dictates more extreme punishments for repeat offenders. We, of all fans, should know that... Josh Gordon was in a position where a marijuana seed could result in a lifetime ban, if the commish saw fit. That's the way the contract language works, and framework for first-time offenders is clearly spelled out.

Like it or not, that's the letter of the law here.

Interesting how she described the court settlements as "paying restitution". Some seemed to see it much differently than she did. Restitution seems like a reasonable conclusion considering she found his acts to be predatory.

But it appears being a sexual predator isn't either. Right?

Hey wait, she forgot to include the exhaustive investigation done by the Browns prior to pursuing Watson!

THREE of the four were licensed therapists.

"Of the four massage therapists who are the subject of the Report, only three were licensed and operating their own
businesses; the fourth therapist was working towards her licensure."

You guys read in to it any way you want. If 6 games isn't a strong enough punishment, then he probably wasn't much of a predator. He got what the judge felt he deserved based on the evidence.

Now Goodell can levy a stricter penalty if he wishes. That is going to cause a problem. If he does, the NFLPA will sue. They will try to show the commissioner issues penalty with prejudice as it pertains to the players and the owners. The lynchpin to that argument will be an independent, former federal judge gave her opinion that the commissioner elected to ignore.

You don't need to read anything "into it". All you have to do is read it.....


This isn't complicated nor do you need to read anything into it.

Yep, it's easy to tell who didn't bother to read the ruling or who could not understand the words in the ruling.

Don't feed the trolls.

Just take your L Vers. Calling us trolls for telling the truth is a very cheap look. And I'm ready to move on from all of this. He is exactly who we said he was.

So what is it you are trying to prove here? I am not sure where you are going with this. I am not sure that you know where you are going with this.

Is this about the wording? Maybe the suspension? The judge who wrote the words also issued the penalty so it is logical there is no disconnect between her wording and the suspension.

He has settled 23, not over 50. The Texans settled, but there was nothing released on who or why that was, thought it was obviously in relation to Watson.

Some may argue that there is a distinct difference between the adjective "predatory" and the noun/ phrase "sexual predator". Especially since one is generally associated with violent acts. Insisting that Robinson called Deshaun a "sexual predator" is a bit of a stretch imo.

Ahhhh...thanks for the correction...(towards the licensure of the therapists) That makes much more sense then...

When she said he was guilty of sexual assault as defined by the NFL, then called his behavior predatory, she was saying exactly that; DW is a sexual predator.

Don't feed the trolls. That group is wrong on almost every single issue. They are the Washington Generals of this board.

They didn't because the NFLPA has no authority over the owners or their punishments. But I guarantee if they extend the suspension to a season, or indefinite, that the NFLPA will file a lawsuit. They would use the precedent from the owner punishment to show Watson's punishment is excessive given the language of the CBA. Applying the CBA more harshly to the players than the owners, even when it is expressly written that the owners will be held to a higher standard, is what would cause the lawsuit.

LOL....true dat

lmao at you. You will say anything that serves your agenda, even in light of being proved wrong by Robinson's report. The simple thing you are missing is that he only got 6 games and none of us that I've seen so far are saying anything about him deserving more. So we are not the unreasonable trolls you want to make us out to be. We just wanted the truth and now it's out. You were duped again.

j/c

So, what's the bottom line? He got suspended for 6 games. Period. Who cares what the language said/insinuated. Geesh, people looking to argue, that's all.

He got a 6 game suspension. The end.

Let me clarify for you.

As I stated "Watson's actions led to over 50 settled lawsuits". Due to his actions the team had to settle 30 lawsuits themselves, correct? Now you say he has settle 23 himself. 30+23 is over 50 right?

But but but Watson didnt settle 30!

Correct, the team had to settle 30 because of his actions though and his third charge was Conduct that Undermines, or Puts at Risk, the Integrity of the NFL So even if he hadn't settled the ones directed at him his NFL team had to settle 30 lawsuits brought against them because of his actions.

Well let's look at what the term sexual predator actually means instead of what people think or take it to mean.....

A sexual predator is a person who seeks out sexual contact with another person in a predatory or abusive manner.

Now let's look at what Robinson said....


Robinson made it plain in her ruling that watson was searching out sexual contact with women who were not expecting that. She called his actions predatory and this is certainly of a sexual nature.

I think anyone having trouble understanding that, it is of their own doing.

This isn't one of them and I think even you know that. Watson was labeled a predator by the judge in her decision. People who won't own up to that are the one's making themselves look like fools here.