DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum watson-suspended-6-games 2

Goodell could appoint Judge Robinson - i guess?

If her opinion was really "I want to suspend him for longer, but have to go by precedent." then appointing her again to determine a reasonable punishment, without paying attention to precedent, would reasonably lead to a longer suspension without it appearing that Goodell is just picking a minion.

Let me be the Devil's Advocate on this one. The CBA was negotiated in 2020 with the new PCP guidelines. This is the first case heard under those guidelines. The NFLPA went to great lengths to negotiate a dramatic shift in the NFL's culture through the CBA. The benefit of fair notice was negotiated as a change by the NFLPA by agreeing to the new language concerning Article 46. For the life of me, I'm dumbfounded that people are crying foul because of the change of going against precedence when that is exactly what the NFLPA negotiated within the CBA. For the owners, there has been only 2 cases that I am aware of that fell under the new CBA. Snyder who was fined 10 million dollars and voluntarily agreed to step away from team activities for a year. In addition, Snyder is still being investigated so it is not necessarily a done deal as of yet. The 2nd was the Dolphins situation that was just ruled on Tuesday but clearly has invoked severe penalties whether you agree with them or not. If the NFLPA is going to argue that past practice has shown light suspensions for some serious offenses compared to others and a disparity between owner and player treatment during negotiations, they cannot expect to use those discrepancies within the context of a newly negotiated CBA that they approved.

You can bet that the NFL lawyers are ready to pounce on the fair notice and/or any past precedence because that was what was the whole point of the adjustments to the CBA that, like it or not, was duly negotiated and approved by the NFLPA. If the NFLPA wanted written detailed penalties, then that should have been negotiated. There's probably not a judge in America that is going to side with using precedence when that is the exact thing they just negotiated to have changed. You can't change the bad process by claiming the new incident should be looked at with the same guidelines as the old process because you don't like it now. Watson doesn't have a leg to stand on because this is exactly what the NFLPA negotiated, and no one is responsible for his behavior but Watson.

Why would she all of a sudden not pay attention to precedent?

j/c:



This seems to make sense from the team's perspective in that the first four games are against (at least at this point) weaker opponents. You know he is going to serve some sort of suspension no less than six games. Kick it off at week 1 as a sort of time served concept if this drags on through a lengthy appeals process.

Her previous ruling seems to say she was "bound" by precedent -- given the rules that were placed on her as an independent arbitrator. If she receives a new assignment (not as an independent arbitrator, but as a league official) that specifically states that she should determine what a fair punishment would be -- then she might make a different decision.

Of course, this might prevent her from acting as an independent arbitrator in the future -- i could very well see her denying such a position due to the potential claims of a conflict of interest.

I agree w/having Brissett ready to go week 1 and have Watson start the suspension at that point too … that’s the smart way to go

j/c...

Of course.



https://www.amtamassage.org/continuing-education/national-convention/

I think I agree with you 100% ... I was fine with the 6 game suspension because that's the framework. I was not fine with Watson being confirmed as a serial sexual abuser who acted in a predatory fashion ... which makes him a sexual predator no matter how people want to play games with the wording. I am not fine with Watson still lying and showing zero accountability. But how I feel about Watson - and the suspension are two different issues.

LOL

That's where my head has been on this for a while now too.

Nobody knows where this is all going to end up, although as Browns fans we probably have a good idea it will be bad for us. When Adam Schefter was asked some questions about the topic late yesterday, he said right now there are too many things up in the air and too many variables. That being said, if DW does not play for us at all this season how many games can any Browns fan expect us to win? I would say 6-7 and another lost season. With DW I think 11-12 wins would be realistic. Thoughts?

This seems to be the standard BS people toss out for trying to blame people who want accountability for watson's victims. Robinson plainly pointed out that he was a predator but people blame those of us who agree with her. She pointed out that watson is a liar. She pointed out just how egregious his acts were. She pointed out how he's shown no remorse. Yet rather than expect serious punishment for such disgusting things, they wish to continually shift the blame to the NFL, NFL fans and "Baker lovers" which I was never one of, to try and avoid the actual report Robinson put out. You know, if you were all a bunch of frat boys I would expect such childish behavior. But as it stands it's obvious you care more about football than how watson treated these women. And you've made looking to deflect the blame for it to everyone wanting watson held accountable a not so accomplished work of art.

You aren't wrong. Ignoring one person whose posts makes this place a cesspool has removed about 80% of the mention of Baker Mayfield for me. It's a really childish "Im a real Browns fan" argument and Mayfield's name seems to come up most from Watson defenders more than anyone else.

In her report she states:


I think she subtly let the NFL know they were not up to snuff with this. There was a rule without definition that was defined by an investigator after doing an investigation, that is a horrible look. It really screams of "we don't know how to define it ubt we know it when we see it". That is arbitrary and capricious. I would think it would have been better to stick with the legal definition sans any language in the CBA that defines sexual assault, and nothing that has been mentioned would violate the Texas penal code in that regard as far as I can see.

I also think this may be why there was no grand jury indictment, the behavior did not rise to the level indicated in Section 22.011.

While that's true there are other factors to consider. Both the NFL and NFLPA agreed that the old process was flawed and rewrote the policy because of it. So why would it be that if you felt the old way was so wrong you wrote an entire new process into your contract, that you should somehow use precedence of findings and punishments based on that old policy? It's like saying let's throw out the way we did it before and only hold onto the precedence set in those cases. They set up an entire new process with which to rule and yet the excuse is given that the new process adhere to prior decisions under a different set of rules.

I think if this thing goes to court the NFL can easily establish that this was several infractions all being adjudicated in one hearing and not a single infraction. Again, Robinson's own report spells out several infractions, not just one.

And while everyone is complaining about the NFL stepping in to ask for a harsher penalty, that was the structure of the new contractual agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA. The NFL has every right under that agreement to appeal the penalty. I'm not even sure I like that idea myself, but for people to complain about the NFL exercising its contractual rights I feel is quite short sighted and displace blame.

Robinson made it clear this case was worse than any non violent case the NFL has ever seen. That as such she could understand a stiffer penalty. So it's worse than anything the NFL has ever seen but the penalty should not be stiffer than the NFL has ever seen?

Since the old NFL policy was rewritten and agreed upon by both parties, I do not think using the old precedent under the old policy will hold up if the NFLPA sues in court. I think the very report Robinson wrote will be used by the NFL to show that these cases are worse than anything the NFL has ever seen and will reinforce their call for a longer suspension.

Yeah, I think that's a good assessment. This whole thing should be a wake-up call to the league, but whether it actually will be or not is another thing. From just looking at the way he has conducted himself since 2007, I feel like Goodell wants to preserve a wide range of interpretations and punishments because that essentially makes him the gravity of power. The cumulative effect of all that has led to the lack of formal definitions, lack of formal punishments, and like you said, inconsistencies leading to arbitrary and capricious determinations.

Perhaps the next NFL commissioner should be someone who has worked within Louisiana's legal system

Totally out of context.

Seems to be inline with what others are saying...

She's not wrong. I mean, you could have all the analysts talk about precedent, past laws, common law, civil law, bird law, and everything else until their faces are blue...

...but at the end of the day, the dictator does what he wants to do, because he has all the power.

Just some food for thought, bro. Goodell is the Commissioner of the league, yet he works for the 31 owners. Think about that for a moment. Ask yourself how many other businesses, cooperations, etc have such a set-up? Now ask yourself who is really controlling the NFL's decisions?

Calvin Ridley, a black player, received a year long suspension for violating the "integrity of the league." He lost his salary for the year which is the neighborhood of $11 million. What did he do that was so horrible. He played a parlay sheet during a time when he was not even active as a player.

Stephen Ross, a white owner [btw, there are no black owners in the NFL] was charged w/compromising the "integrity of the league." He is suspended through October 17th and was fined $1.5 million, which is basically tipping money considering his wealth.

I could go on w/the details of the Snyder and Kraft situations, but you have probably read them by now. If not, I'll send you links that talk about illegal sex trafficking, intimidation of witnesses, improper breaching of emails and texts, running a shadow investigation, bribery, intimidation of witnesses, pornography, forcing women to work as escorts, sexual misconduct, etc, etc.

Kraft received no punishment and Snyder was fined.

Who is really calling the shots? Goodell or the owners? Do you think that may be the genesis and ongoing "inconsistencies leading to arbitrary and capricious determinations?"

I was strictly speaking as to the intent behind her ruling and how I did not view it as a joke.

Hey Roger I'll do it for free 😉

What is out of context? I gave examples of what the NFL may use as legal strategy if the NFLPA sues. Robinson plainly laid out three different things watson was guilty of, not one.

The old policy was rewritten and agreed with by both sides. It's the new policy and not the old one. The only thing anyone seems to think should be held up in regards to the old agreement is the punishment phase while the rest of the new policy is fine. Why would you think that the NFL wouldn't use that in court? That if you have a totally new system in place you can't cling to a singular portion of the old policies?

Robinson made it plain that this was the most egregious non violent case the NFL has ever seen. So why wouldn't the NFL argue that and such, the penalty should also be harsher than previous cases?

I'm certainly not saying the NFL would win. I have no way of knowing. I'm just saying these are points I think the NFL may use if it goes to court and it's understandable why they would use this approach.

And I used the part I quoted as a jumping off point as to how I think the NFL may rebut the penalty phase of her decision.

The legal definition is different from state to state. There is no one national definition for what "sexual assault" is or is not. That's why there had to be a single definition put in place for the hearing. The definition that was implemented meets the requirements in some states and not in others. This wasn't a matter of her finger pointing at anything. It was simply a matter of her showing the guidelines she was using in making her ruling.

Maybe I’m alone in this but I can’t let Andrew Berry and Kevin Stefanski escape heavy criticism after reading judge Robinson’s assessment of the character of Watson in her 15 page documents.

In late mars 2022 the Browns GM hold a lengthy speech to America and the NFL community about his reasoning why his organization agreed on a groundbreaking monster contract who was worth $230m guaranteed money to a player who’s accused of multiple sexual harassment and had 20+ civil law suits that was hanging over his head. His opening monologue was similar to a husband who was being caught cheating and then trying to explain the unexplainable and in the end of his defense painted himself as a good guy who just had a little bit of unlucky moments, but in the end it’s nothing to worry about.

“We’re comfortable with what we know”
Our investigation team has worked with this for several months”

He and Kevin Stefanski then used the word “comfortable” several times and in the end of the press conference Stefanski went on almost as these allegations never existed and it was nothing to worry about and now it was business as usual.

A couple weeks later the NY Times published a article who painted a completely different picture and just a few days ago judge Robinson wrote in the 15 page long documents a piece where her assessment of Mr Watson that was devastating for those who vouched for him just a couple of months ago.

A lier.
A predator.
Egregious acts.
No remorse.
No accountability.

Totally the opposite of what we heard from Cleveland Browns GM and HC.

It raise the question if the Browns actually made a professional investigation or was it just lies?
It raise the question of how is our GM and HC skills regarding judging a players character?
It raise the question about the integrity and the moral compass among several key members inside the Browns organization?

I want to know of someone inside the Browns organization was against this? How was the internal discussions? A large organization where everybody think the same? Does this sound like a healthy environment? Why haven’t we heard from those who was against it or found the whole situation questionable?

It also raise questions about the integrity among local journalists.Especially the outspoken Ms. Mary Key Cabot? Simple question. Is she “comfortable” with her earlier assessments of his whole story or maybe she simply doesn’t care?

I know perfectly well that many of these questions will be kicked under the carpet. Nobody seems to be willing to take accountability for this fiasco and thats why the Cleveland Browns is always before the season starts in the spotlights for the wrong reasons.

So the big risk for Watson, as far as deciding to take the NFL to court, is losing.


The NFL suspends him indefinitely, with a year as his possible reinstatement. He decides to file suit, if the NFL doesn't exempt him he then plays this year. He then loses his case and begins his suspension next year. So he played for his million dollar salary and is suspended the season when his salary sky rockets.

Follow
View Profile
Report: NFL will appoint outsider to handle appeal of Watson ban
Dan Mennella - 2h ago
Comments
link

Share

The NFL has signaled its dissatisfaction with the six-game suspension levied on Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, by filing to appeal the decision.

The appeal process, as agreed upon by the league and the NFLPA in the most recent collective bargaining agreement, can be heard by none other than NFL commissioner Roger Goodell himself.

But according to a new report, Goodell won't be playing the judge in the appeal of Watson's case. Instead, the league will farm out those duties to "someone outside the league office," per Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk.

The reported development comes just a day after it was revealed that the league would be appealing the six-game ban handed down to Watson by arbitrator Sue L. Robinson, a former federal judge who was commissioned to serve as the jury and judge, so to speak, in the first suspension case of its type in league history. Prior to this process, cases were adjudicated by Goodell, with his judgments often coming under withering criticism. The new process was installed to relieve Goodell and the league of that burden, and to assure the players and fans that a fair decision could be reached by an ostensibly independent party.

Robinson's decision found that a six-game suspension was appropriate given the precedent set by the league in similar cases in the past. Critics said it was too lenient, given that Watson was accused of sexual assault or harassment by upward of 30 women, with the number of alleged victims virtually unprecedented for an NFL player.

Among those dissenters, apparently, was the NFL itself.

Prior to Robinson's ruling, the league had reportedly offered to settle Watson's case with a suspension of 12 games and a fine of nearly $10 million, but Watson's camp turned down the offer.

Meanwhile the NFLPA has vowed to adhere to Robinson's decision but has threatened to pursue a federal lawsuit if the length of Watson's suspension is changed through the appeal process. Watson's six-game ban was set to begin in Week 1, but according to Josina Anderson of CBS Sports HQ, Watson's legal team could pursue a temporary restraining order against an unfavorable decision levied through the appeal process, potentially making him available for the start of the season while the federal lawsuit plays out in court.


JosinaAnderson
@JosinaAnderson
·
Follow
Some are asking when Deshaun Watson would start to play & whether a potential temporary restraining order could be sought to get him to play WK1. My understanding is the NFLPA's statement still stands, at this time, to abide by Robinson's ruling--thereby not pursuing Wk1 via TRO.
11:03 AM · Aug 4, 2022
174
Reply
Copy link
........................................................................


JosinaAnderson
@JosinaAnderson
·
Follow
My understanding is the Union & Deshaun Watson's counselors haven't yet made an official determination to pursue a federal lawsuit--as such a lawsuit would set aside an improper decision by the appeal officer. Obviously u can't assert an improper decision until a final judgement.
10:53 AM · Aug 4, 2022
137
Reply
Copy link


Watson, who turns 27 in September, was not charged after two separate Houston-area grand juries declined to indict him following criminal investigations. He has settled 23 civil lawsuits, including several in recent days, reportedly leaving one outstanding civil case.

That's good insight. I've been contemplating his relationship with the owners for quite some time. At times, like you mention, he seems to be very subservient to the owners. Other times, he seems to go against the owners, or at least some of them. His leverage on that front is that he's really good on the front that they care the most about: making them money. He's also outstanding at being a lightning rod, which I'm sure is another thing the owners appreciate.

I don't necessarily think that the NFL and the NFLPA agreed the old process was wrong. I think the NFLPA wanted to negotiate more leverage away from Goodell and the owners and the current construct was as far as the league was willing to go. The problem, too, is that while the NFL agreed to a new process, they didn't agree to "sentencing guidelines" like have been discussed. As far as I can tell, it all centered around who makes the decision, and the league even retained its ability to overrule that decision. Also, processes and punishments are two different things. Comparing it to the courts, for instance, you can completely rewrite procedural rules while having no effect on what the sentencing rules are. If no further guidance is given to sentencing rules, all that you are left with is precedent. I'm 90% confident that is where her mind went.

I don’t think that argument would even come up in court, to be honest with you. If it did, I don’t think it would be a central one. If this goes to court, I think it would center on the contractual nature and focus more on the NFL’s willingness to negotiate in good faith, like Peen mentioned. I do think Watson would have an uphill battle in court, though, based more on the lack of the NFLPA to stick to their guns on that appeal provision.

As it all currently stands, though, without some sort of formalization for infraction penalties – and this goes way beyond Watson – the league definitely is upholding a punishment nature that is coinciding with being arbitrary and capricious.

j/c...

Buzbee currently holding a press conference. This will only ratchet up pressure on the NFL to hammer Watson.

"Crazy enough it just might work!"

I appreciate your response. It's certainly well thought out. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out. The only thing I will say in response pertains to this....

I have no idea if you're right or wrong about the NFL trying to use the strategy that this hearing involved multiple infractions in a single hearing. However, if they could establish that it would blow the entire premise of looking at this as a single infraction out of the water. That would provide ample justification for far more than a six game suspension.

Now we will hear what a scum bag Buzzbee is yet again. Let the noise begin.

Thanks. Likewise. Honest question: did the NFL already make the assertion before her that it should be viewed as multiple infractions with one review?

From one non-expert outsider to another....

Wasn't that already baked into Robinson's report, though? She talked about a "pattern of behavior" and "egregious". I think she acknowledged that they were talking more than 1 infraction, and without getting into hard numbers, I got the feeling she believed the real number was much closer to 20-some than it was 0. What I think she was referring to later on was the fact that he hadn't been in trouble before. As you know, players get punished much more harshly if they have been in front of the principal before.

They won. Watson was found to have done the things he was accused of. It was written for all the world to see. He was punished. The entire media is in full mob mentality railing against Watson. The NFL is likely to add to the suspension. And Buzbee's clients, and presumably himself, got paid.

What's the point of the press conference?

I already beat you to that question three minutes earlier, multiverse me.