DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Watson: Getcha Popcorn

My interpretation of Vers' posts is that he accepts her ruling but disagrees with it.
Re-read them with that viewpoint rather than being uber critical and see if that changes your perspective.
If not, fine. That is your interpretation.
Either way, I suggest we let this go and move on.
Agree to disagree and quit arguing about it.

I'll say it one more freaking time. I have no problem at all w/any part of Judge Robinson's decision. NONE! I don't agree w/the 6 games, but that is just my opinion and I accept her verdict and how she came about it.

When I talk about a witch hunt, I am talking about how the media has driven this and helped form public opinion which the NFL is sensitive to. It's a business. This is why I put Pit and 888 on ignore. I got tired of them twisting my words and the words of others. They are not here to discuss. It's freaking annoying reading things where they are quoted, but that's my problem.

Goodell is using the process as is outlined in the contract per agreement with the NFLPA. And it isn't questioning any of the evidence that was decided upon. He has every right to do so. You can disagree if you like and that's fine. But if the NFLPA hadn't agreed with this process they signed onto it anyway.

Here's the thing. The evidence and what was found in the evidence and ruled upon is one part of her decision. The other part is the penalty phase. Now as much as people try to join or confuse the two, in every trial or hearing conducted, even in a civil suit situation, they are clearly pointed out that way. The fist stage is what is known as the evidential stage. That's where the evidence is presented and based upon that evidence guilt or innocence is established. The second stage is the penalty phase. Where the penalty for the guilt is handed down.

What people seem not to wish to address is that there are no established guidelines as to how long such a suspension can be. There is nothing that states that the maximum suspension in this case is six games. That's what's being contested here by many posters. Robinson based her punishment on precedent. Then she plainly stated this was a case that was worse than any other case of non violent sexual abuse the NFL had ever seen.

So on one hand she plainly stated it was worse than other cases while using the precedence of cases she clearly stated weren't as severe. This certainly opened the door for the NFL to appeal for a harsher punishment.

I understand why you feel that way. When your own words come back to bite you in the ass I imagine that would be annoying.

So are you saying he accepts it but claims it's wrong? I don't think that qualifies as accepting it but if that's what you're saying I can live with that.

You are a trip. As someone else said a few days ago, do you like being wrong every time?

I have a problem, not with her verdict, which I would say is in range of fair to lenient with stated cause as explained, but with this process. The appeal has been made on behalf of "the NFL." I would like to see the names, list them, as those driving this. Is it Goodell? This seems like double jeopardy to me; the process ends with him unilaterally imposing his will after the process was executed and set aside. The "indefinite" smacks of "Double Secret Probation", a silly exercise just to wrack the victim who is kept in limbo.

It is what it is. Commissioners have always had broad powers. The problem I have with the NFL is it seems the Commissioner is too closely tied to the owners. It started to move that way under Tagliubu(sp). It doesn't seem to be as much of a problem in the other sports. They seem to be as intended, a more neutral figure between the players and owners to uphold the integrity of the game.

I don't think Goodell is bad, or has done this himself. I just think is kind of morphed in that direction over the past 25 years. The real problem is the commissioner doesn't hold a firm enough grip over the game. The owners have weakened the position.

Yes, they pay the guy, but they need to fear the commissioner as much as the players. I think commissioners should be on 10 year deals and can't be fired except in cases of gross misconduct.

It's like Sisyphys rolling the boulder up the hill.

Yes I can.

It was created after the alleged incidents, by investigators, to show he broke a policy, that wasn't described previously.

If you make it illegal after someone has done it then charge them with it, well, there's a word for that.

So yes, I can tell you. What you won't do is hear it. You willfully ignore the idea, because it doesn't fit your narrative. You will find some insults to fling and laughing emotes to use. But you will not understand you cannot make something against the rules after it happens then tell someone they broke the rules. It is also poor investigative form to be the ones to create policy. Investigators are supposed to decide the facts of the incidents, not create policy. You will ignore this as well, because it again does not fit your narrative.

Robinson's report says this. The decisions come from her finding things "probable" as true not unequivocally true. She is also bound by the standards and rules of the NFL in the matter.

This process is still legally binding, as all parties agreed to it by signing contracts.

I will say I think the process is still broken, and still arbitrary. If Goodell doesn't like the outcome he find someone that will give him the outcome he wants. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Unless the two sides cut a deal- I wonder how much of what's brought up in the video sees the light of day in court....lawyers suppressing stuff. JMHO, sure shows NFL is in the moral judging business and they let whites off compared to blacks....wonder how that works out for them in court.

If I understand you correctly your issue is that the PCP, which the NFLPA accepted, contains phrases like "Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses;", "Disorderly conduct;" and "Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel. " instead of specifically stating "Ejaculating on a woman without her consent"?

No, the conduct policy doesn't attempt to define what sexual assault is. It was defined, in this case, by investigators after the fact.


Sexual assault can, and is, defined by many entities. It creates an arbitrary situation if it is defined on the fly like it was here. Without a definition in place Texas law would have been the best place to look for one, not some guy's notes during the 3 day hearing.

Again, it isn't a novel idea to define what constitutes sexual assault. Every state has already done it, and most corporations. It is in my policy handbook. The NFl is not a fly by night circus, it is a multi billion dollar corporation that should be expected to keep their own policies in order first.

So are you saying ejaculating on a woman without consent would not be considered a sexual assault? Is it your belief that a reasonable person would not think that ejaculating on a woman without consent could be considered "Disorderly Conduct" or "Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel."? Again this policy was agreed to by the NFLPA beforehand, as written.

Just decided to do a quick Google for Sexual Assault Policy

Edit:

www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person's sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

I’ve been following Garrett Bush’s stuff for a few months, so I’m going to find some time to watch that video

I wish we would get off this racial stuff. I don't buy that. Most of the players are black, so most of the actions are against black players. All but 1-2 of the owners are white so most of the issues are against white owners. I don't think the two can be compared. Even if a comparison can be made in some way, I still don't buy the discrimination angle.

The issue is that the NFL commissioner works for the owners. He/she does what the owners want him/her to do. Not that the NFL would ever want a female commissioner. It's a fairly unique set-up and one that is certain to lead to inequities, bias, and foul play.

Yes he is. While completely ignoring the process the NFL agreed to when it came to holding the owners to a higher standard. Hell to ANY standard. That's the part I have the real problem with.

That is your right, but racial discrimination has a long history in the NFL. Ben got 6 games for allegations of rape. Not one charge, but two. On appeal, he ends up w/4. Watson got 6 games for charges that did not contain evidence of violence, threat, force, or coercion. The NFL is going to appeal to add more games. Guys like Farve get off w/out even a scolding. But, it goes way beyond that. Hell, look at this board. The guys who are screaming the loudest to punish Watson have actually defended Snyder, Kraft, and Jones.

I'd say the people not accepting Judge Robinson's ruling are the ones twisting her words, making it say what they want to say, and adding things that aren't even in it, such as:

1. It was the most egregious case the NFL has ever seen (not true)

2. She said Watson had forced or coerced oral sex (never even mentions oral sex)

3. She wanted to give him a longer suspension, but was limited by past precedent (statement she made was more about the NFL wanting a longer suspension, not that she wanted one; she was mainly limited by the fact that this was non-violent sexual assault, not by past precedent).

So, who really isn't accepting Judge Robinson's ruling? In my eyes, there are 3 main offenders - you know who you are.

The report states "One of the therapists alleges that Mr. Watson not only contacted her arm multiple times, but that he ejaculated on her arm." It does not indicate that Robinson found that this was likely to have occured. As such, it would not be part of the decision per se.

As far as the policy, there was not one. Only label of sexual assault. It was no defined prior to this. I think part of what Robinson indicated was her displeasure that things like that were not defined, that the NFL plays too loosey goosey with this. Had the phrase been defined prior to the incident then saying it was agreed to would hold more weight, but using a definition given by investigators that was created after the investigation was not part of what the players signed.

Consider too, if this was the definition the NFL wanted to use all along, how hard would it have been to put it in the policy book? People have suggested the NFL can't define things because they can't cover all cases, but the definition they created ex post facto covers a very broad amount of behaviors. I personally think it is too broad, as it doesn't narrow assault to only include threats of force or use of force. Assault is generally defined to be "an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done." The NFL really described described sexual battery. Battery is "the crime or tort of unconsented physical contact with another person, even where the contact is not violent but merely menacing or offensive."

While it may seem a semantics game, words matter, especially in legal proceedings. THis was a legal proceeding, even if it didn't happen in a court. Regardless I would feel better about how the NFL proceeded if they we not working to make the definitions used fit the investigation and the facts found therein.

As long as we are selectively quoting pieces of the Judge's decision.

It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties.

Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of
massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them.

I find this sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the NFL’s contention not only that contact occurred, but that Mr. Watson was aware that contact probably would occur, and that Mr. Watson had a sexual purpose – not
just a therapeutic purpose – in making these arrangements with these particular therapists.

Finally, I find that the NFL has produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the last prong of the test, that Mr. Watson knew such sexualized contact was unwanted.

It did not state, however, that this claim was not likely to have occurred either.



Let's look at the NFL definition as outlined by the Judge. "The NFL contends that Mr. Watson committed sexual assault by allegedly “touching [his] penis to the women without their consent.” Is your stance that it is unreasonable to think someone "touching their penis to a woman without consent" could be considered Sexual Assault? Given the comments attributed to Watson his expectations were clearly sexual and he did not have consent. His testimony was that he did not have erections, even though his intent was for a sexual encounter and the women were paying attention to areas that would normally get customers aroused whose intent was only a massage. According to him he didnt have an erection but his lawyer publicly stated that Happy Endings were not illegal.

The statements of Watson and his lawyer make it probable that the event most likely did happen...not that it did not.

I was pointing out the fallacy of her ruling being based on the point that he ejjaculated on someone. This is a point that keeps being used, and while the judge points out the allegation, it is not addressed afterwards. It was not part of the finding, unless you believe an erection is the same as ejaculation.

The definition quoted used was not in force during the incidents, it was created after the fact to ensure the facts of the case fit the definition. Also, there is the undisputed fact that contact with the penis occurs during these types of massages. Did Watson force someone to touch it? Did he grab a hand and force the hand onto his penis? There is nothing that indicates that. Did he roll in such a way to facilitate contact that might have happened in other ways. This is a "more likely than not" type scenario, especially since it was stated there was no evidence of force. This is skeezy behavior certainly, but I don't think that rises to the level of assault.

I really don't care what their definition ends up being, though I think this one (this case does set precedence) is too broad for assault.

Watson contended he did nothing wrong. With the facts given he did not seem to break Texas law, which is a good reason for the grand juries to not send down an indictment. He did not meet the definition of sexual assault in the CBA at the time of the incidents (as there was no definition). Had the NFL already had a proper rule in place, which is to say one that is defined and not left for someone to guess what it means, would this still have happened? Would Watson looked at the broadness of the rule and decided to not pursue this avenue? I can predict what most people will say, but in reality we just don't know. Rules don't stop everyone from doing things to break them, but they do stop some people. Having a rule there might have been enough for him to realize skeezy behavior was to high risk from a career point of view. It might not, no one can adequately predict how that would have gone, though some will regardless.

This thread has become worthless. The facts are out on DW. He's not going anywhere. He will serve a suspension. The length of that suspension is still in the air. Our investments of pics and cap space are gone. Part of the fanbase dislikes everything about this trade and DW. Part of the fanbase embraces him and wants to defend him no matter what the facts are.

I love the browns. I will always be a browns fan. I'm no fan of RDW, but I know he will be our QB for the foreseeable future after serving his suspension. I will accept whatever the NFL ends up doing, and was willing to accept 6 games based on precedent even though I thought it was light. That said, I won't lie, I will be happier if the final suspension is a little longer or even indefinite because I think RDW deserves to be punished and lose money over what he has done. But at this point, those wanting him to have no suspension, those not wanting him here at all, and everyone in between should all just realize it's out of our hands. The NFL is going to do what it does and at some point, RDW will be our starter because they will not take that away. So all the hateful back and forth, all the divides on RDW, and or all the whining and crying in the world is not going to change a thing. So this thread is essentially useless beyond being an outlet for despair and division. go browns...

No, I don't wish to join you in that club. There's only a few of you but I don't consider it some exclusive club I want to join.

You pointed out zero problems with the actual definition itself. That was the question posed to you. Your issue is with the timing of the definition. You do realize those are two totally different things, right?

I think an indefinite is on the table. I also believe the odds that Deshaun never takes another snap again in the NFL is greater than 0.

As for the indefinite, I believe if he were to get an indefinite suspension, he'll be able to get reinstated if he admits wrongdoing and issues some type of public apology. That's why I would just retire if I were him.

Honestly, I'm not sure if anyone shares my opinion. I'll reiterate it again. I don't care about what Watson did or didn't do. I don't care if he's a good guy or bad guy. I only care about one thing...watching winning football by the Browns on Sunday. That's it.

I was content with 6 games because I thought it could still lead to winning football. Now, my enthusiasm for the season is just about zero.

Once again we see the excuse of how the NFL knows they got it wrong in the past and how correcting that now is not the right thing to do. It's hilarious to even bring Kraft into this. How many women filed lawsuits against Kraft again? People will reach to any length to make excuses why the NFL shouldn't do the right thing this time and moving forward because they know they didn't handle it seriously enough in the past. There was a time in this country where, "slapping your woman around" was fairly accepted. I'm glad they changed that and didn't use the excuse, "Yeah, but it was okay before".

I have been thinking about this a bit for the past several days. I think we have a handful of butthurt Baker fans on here that are causing problems and they aren't worth any more time than it just took to type that.

However, there are guys on here who are very uncomfortable w/the accusations against Watson and there are some of us not as concerned. My musings have centered around why is there a discrepancy among rational thinking folks?

I have read the legitimate concerns from guys like Clem, oober, 10 Years, cfrs, etc. They have expressed their opinions honestly. They aren't spamming the board w/constant negativity. They are simply uncomfortable w/the situation and I respect that.

Some of us aren't as troubled. I don't know about all others, but there is something in your post that has been on my mind. I have that highlighted in green in your quote. I have similar feelings. Mine are a bit different, but basically, I have never idolized or worshiped players. Not even when I was a kid. I have never looked at them as role models. I don't put them on a pedestal and think they are heroes. I have no off the field expectations of them because I know there are way deeper problems in this world and more heinous acts that are overlooked on a daily basis. My thinking centers around what does that player add to the team? Is he productive on the playing field? Does he work hard enough at his craft? Is he a good teammate? How does he benefit the team? Thus, I am not as emotionally involved as others may be. I also think that when it comes to personalities, all I care about is how the player interacts w/his teammates and coaches. I don't care if he goes to church or not. I don't care if he is a leader in the social justice movement. I care about he fits into the locker room and how he performs.

Therefore, I can understand why guys like Clem and myself are viewing this differently. He won't bad-mouth me for my feelings and I won't bad-mouth him for his feelings. In fact, I completely understand why others may be uncomfortable rooting for Watson and the Browns. That is the beauty of free choice.

From the actual report......

"I find the evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Watson knew, or should have known, that any contact between his penis and these therapists was unwanted. I therefore, find that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report.29 Mr. Watson violated the Policy in this regard."

"Mr. Watson’s pattern of conduct is more egregious than any before reviewed by the NFL."

" I, therefore, find that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report.29 Mr. Watson violated the Policy in this regard."

" I find that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson’s conduct posed a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person. "

" Mr. Watson’s predatory conduct cast “a negative light on the League and its players,”39 sufficient proof that he violated this provision of the Policy. "

" 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. "

If anything people are trying to downplay what the report says.

vers, get your facts straight Ben was never, I repeat never was charged with any rape just like Watson has never been charged with the same level of crime with nonconsensual oral sex. Ben was only investigated by the NFL a SINGLE time for violation of the PCP related to sexual abuse (nonconsensual intercourse.) Watson has been accused of 3 cases of nonconsensual oral sex and has been investigated for 24 separate cases of sexual abuse/misconduct/harassment. Even if you want to split hairs and say Watson was only investigated of 4 cases (which we all know is false), Ben was only investigated 1 time for 1 occurrence. Please quit spreading your totally false narratives. BTW, Ben only had his suspension reduced after he entered and completed a mandated program by the NFL. Maybe Watson should admit he needs help.

For me:
I want to enjoy watching Browns football.
Is it more enjoyable watching when they win? Yes
Is it more enjoyable watching and rooting for players I like? Yes
Is it going to be less enjoyable watching with DW as our Qb? Yes

How will all that balance out in the end? I will have to wait and see.
If DW wins leads the Browns to a superbowl win will I enjoy it? Probably
Would I enjoy it as much as I would be if Brian Sipe or Bernie led up to the superbowl win? Definitely not

I have to give you kudos. At least you're being 100% honest about it. Others? Not so much.

See, I respect this point of view.

I also want to add to my previous post. I am a strong believer in having sound morals and possessing high character. Those things are found in everyday life. I view sports like the NFL and NCAA football as entertainment and I like getting away from all the complex issues that everyday life brings us and to just enjoy the sport for part of the time. I will never meet Watson. I'll never talk to him. My life isn't going to be affected by him one way or the other.

But again, I respect those who feel differently and I understand their position.

Man, you've adopted the Pit mentality. I never said what you are claiming. Look at the two quotes I highlighted in green.

Look man.........>I don't want to talk to you. But please, stop lying about what I am saying.

It is a fallacy because nobody has said her ruling was based on the point he ejaculated on someone. Her ruling was based on the fact he violated the PCP. That action is one of several known actions Watson took that would violate the PCP. Your entire process is just a strawman argument. He was found to have violated the PCP. EOS

Nice try, please read the exact 5 words that you wrote after your first highlighted green stuff. "NOT ONE CHARGE, BUT TWO." First of all, you clearly don't say alleged - you say charged with two and second of all - Ben was never, I repeat, NEVER charged with any rape charge much less two of them. You said exacty what I am claiming and continue to hide behind your false claims and Watson (The Predator) Fan Club badge.