DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum DeShaun Watson in perpetuum et unum diem

Based on Sue Robinsons rulings and the words she used, do you think its more probable DW is guilty or innocent ? Its not hard. The burden of proof for the NFL is about the same as a civil trial. When it looks like, walks like and quacks .... it's probably a duck.

That was your only takeaway from what I wrote? I agree it was a bad example, but I won't even drive if I have had 1 or 2 beers. The main idea of my post was about what do people think about punishment and that spite is a terrible character trait. But yeah, I would have no problem killing a mother and her baby. Whatever you say.

Uh-oh....does ESPN have some info we all don't? Gonna check those betting odds.

j/c

Re; Sue Robinson.

As a judge, she was bound by the law. As an affiliate of the NFL in "extra-judicial" matters, PR (and the league's financial bottom line) plays a much bigger role.

I kinda feel like the whole NFL process is as much about the owners trying to minimize/get rid of the precedent of fully guaranteed contracts as it is about anything Watson did or didn't do. This way, in future negotiations, owners can say Watson actually didn't get the full 230M if he's fined, and they can claim extraordinary circumstances. They obviously also want to alienate as few potential customers as possible. The ones making the money at the top don't care about what Watson did except for how it effects their ability to keep raking in as much money as possible. Sad, but likely true.

I think I'd put odds for the division as follows:

Bengals 42%
Steelers 2%
Browns and Ravens each 28%


Bengals WR all coming back. All healthy, which they weren't 100% last year. A top 6 or 7 RB. They will score a lot of points and will be hard to beat.

I think they know how they have handled sexual situations like this in the past far too lightly and it's never too late to right a wrong. As for the motivation of their actions you may very well be correct. I mean it is a money motivated corporation which all corporations are. So there's no doubt money plays into it. And statistically it makes sense.

They have been heavily marketing the game toward women more and more to expand their fan base. Over half the population of Americans are women. I think it's past time they treat such things with the severity it deserves and according to the agreement this is founded on, there are no set punishments for such infractions and it up to the leagues discretion.

Raven +155
Bengals +180
Browns +300
Steelers +1000

Interesting about the settlement talks. IMO, the league obviously has leverage because it pretty much knows how Harvey will decide. Watson isn't without leverage, though. If Harvey issues a ruling, the new CBA will be confirmed to be a lopsided horrible deal (more so than it already has) and Watson would have the option to go to federal court, as slim as the chance of success is there.

I'll be interested to see what happens to that appeals clause during the next round of negotiations.

Amy Trask had some food for thought on this yesterday...

If only DSW had your mindset when he approached all these women we wouldn’t have this conversation.

I’m not trying to convince you to anything but from me perspective I see red flags all over the place.

Booking massage therapist’s over internet.
Using hotel rooms.
Small towels.
Inappropriate sexual approaches.
66 women.

Even when some of them refused to continue he didn’t stop and started to reflect why all meetings didn’t went as smoothly as he wanted. Just like those idiots who continue to drink before driving despite earlier small incidents.

Zero self control.
Total lack of consequence analyses.
Zero responsibility against these women, his family and his employer
Zero self respect.

Just like an addict he just keep on doing his thing no matter what is happening around him.

There you have it Vers! The difference between a responsible man like you and someone who simply don’t care.

This makes a ton of sense.

Thus, the person who simply doesn't care should pay the steepest price for his uncaring attitude.

Let's not forget either that Watson signed the second largest contract in the history of the NFL at over 170M right in the middle of his predatory behavior in 2020. Great way to show thanks to your employer that just made you a multi-millionaire.

Mike Garafolo just said on NFL Network that odds are better than 50/50 that Watson settles with the NFL.

If the NFL really wants to put the screws to Watson and their hand picked appeals officer is rumored to "drop the hammer" on Watson, why on earth would the NFL settle? Makes no sense unless the NFL really, really doesn't want a lawsuit.

Yup.

Garafolo mentioned the NFL being able to avoid the lawsuit if they settle. He also said Watson's camp would accept more than 6 and the NFL less than a full year. He mentioned a fine. I can't remember if he mentioned counseling or not.

I think I'll still have hope for the season if it's 8 games and a hefty fine. Just need Stefanski and Brissett to keep us afloat to the tune of no worse than 5-3.

On a side note, this appears to be the first time the NFL has been afraid of a lawsuit. Might be some real skeletons in that closet that Watson's side is threatening to bring out.

A part of me would like to see the NFL's dirty little secrets exposed, but I'd rather just get Watson back and put an end to the speculation.

I did read an article either yesterday or the day before, that Kessler, the attorney for the NFLPA was going to go hard at the NFL in court if it comes to that. The new agreement supposedly gives the NFLPA a bit more leverage in the courts than what others like Zeke had, but it would still be a steep, steep climb due to the language. I don't know if you read any of the articles I posted about Snyder and all that went down, but Rish, there has to be a mountain of dirt on him and how the NFL covered it up.

If I was Watson's legal representation, I would let the NFL know that if they suspend him a full season, then they could expect a court case where I call Robert Kraft to the stand and make him tell us under oath exactly how many times he went to a massage parlor, exactly what transpired in explicit details and how much he paid for services rendered. Then I would call Snyder and ask him probing questions into the apparent team sanctioned activities against women. And then after that I would call every owner to the stand to give testimony about whether or not they ever had a massage.

But that's just me.

This is where I'm at, and I think this is where the NFL is hoping Watson's side is at.

I don't think the NFL is concerned about a lawsuit that's highly likely to be rejected by a federal court (see Deflategate ruling).

If the NFL was that concerned about a lawsuit they would have closed the book on this when Judge Robinson made her ruling.

If both parties really wanted to settle on an agreement for the suspension, Team Watson and the NFL could sit in a room and knock this out in a day.

I get what you're saying, but it's not just Watson-centric, and does not necessarily conform to good vs bad, but a matter of due process and fairness (before people jump on me, I'm again not gearing this toward Watson).

By your citation, it can be understood how this may not have been the priority it was before, albeit a stupid move in retrospect when you logically think it through, especially given the issues they've had with Goodell's punishments going all willy nilly in the past. I think you can be certain this will be more of a priority in the next CBA negotiations.

If I was leading negotiations with the NFLPA, I'd make a stronger attempt to negotiate a set parameter for "sentencing guidelines" the next time around and/or making the arbitration and appeal process less lopsided.

So are you saying the reports of a settlement is just wishful thinking?

I get the angst with the way players and Watson are treated versus owners. But if there was a challenge by Watson - it would be a contractual dispute and I don't know if that line of questioning would be considered relevant or permissible? I doubt Kraft or Snyder would be compelled to answer questions not relevant to Watson's case. Maybe I am incorrect (dawglover or others with legal backgrounds can maybe offer an opinion?) - but pointing to someone else who may or may not have "got off light" on different allegations and circumstances, doesn't seem like it would fly in a court of law. And going on a fishing expedition with a witness on a stand to make them look bad or to uncover dirt doesn't seem plausible either.

I'd say it's not impossible a settlement is reached. I think it more media speculation than anything though. We reached this point in the saga when it appeared Judge Robinson was dragging her feet on a decision. Same story was floated about the NFL being worried about a lawsuit and might settle with Watson. Turns out she was just being thorough in her ruling.

Supposedly the CBA states that owners were to be held to a higher standard. That would make the actions of Kraft and other owners relevant. Even if a judge would ultimately disallow the owners being questioned, the NFL wouldn't know that until the case went to court. I am sure they are terrified of the possibility that Kraft would have to publicly answer questions about his actions at a massage parlor.

The other thing is that the NFL doesn't want this case going to court during the season.

I'm pretty certain if the nflpa takes it to court, ain't nothing happening this season.

The Biggest Clue the NFLPA Is Likely Not Suing NFL, If It Lengthens Watson Suspension
League of Justice - Amy Dash

The NFL has appealed and Roger Goodell or his designee could very well increase Watson’s suspension by just a few games or up to a year as originally requested. Many reporters say the NFL wants a full year suspension.

So, if Goodell does give Watson a year, will we see a full court battle? The NFLPA could try to go to federal court and challenge the arbitration BUT there is one glaring clue that it will not or at least if it does, it will definitely not succeed.

The night before Judge Sue Robinson, the arbitrator, issued her decision, the NFLPA released a statement. In the statement, it indicated it would accept Robinson’s decision to show that the new disciplinary process is legitimate. It asked the NFL not to appeal. Of course, this was likely because the Union knew the discipline would be around six games, on the low side.

However, in its statement the NFLPA also praised the “fair” and “full” process. Specifically, it said:

“A former Federal Judge – appointed jointly by the NFLPA and NFL – held a full and fair hearing, has read thousands of pages of investigative documents and reviewed arguments from both sides impartially. Every player, owner, business partner and stakeholder deserve to know that our process is legitimate and will not be tarnished based on the whims of the League office.”

In the past, whenever the NFLPA has challenged an arbitration decision, it has done so on the grounds that it was “unfair.” In fact, one of the main legal standards for overturning an arbitration decision (which is rarely done by a court) is fairness.

Here, the NFLPA has already admitted, and in writing, that the process was fair! The two sides jointly chose the arbitrator, she reviewed thousands of pages of documents and arguments from both sides “impartially” and held a “full and fair” hearing. A court would laugh the NFLPA out of court if it challenged the arbitration process. Plus, this new process was JUST agreed to in the new CBA by both sides! It was newly negotiated and bargained for, another reason a court would not overturn it and likely not even review it.

If the NFLPA tries to merely challenge any appeals decision by Goodell or his designee as “unfair,” it would also not have a fairness argument. Again, the NFLPA agreed to this new procedure, including a right to appeal and have Goodell or his designee have the right to have final say. Furthermore, Goodell or his designee will be basing any increase in suspension on the facts found by Judge Robinson. Her factual findings of multiple violations of the personal conduct policy are set in stone and provide plenty of legal groundwork to justify a year suspension, possibly even banishment. She found the NFL met its burden of proof that Watson more likely than not sexually assaulted four women, engaged in conduct detrimental to the integrity of the NFL and put the women in a feeling of genuine danger of their safety.

The NFLPA issued a statement supporting the fairness and thoroughness of Robinson’s findings. Any federal appeal would need to prove procedural unfairness and cannot survive by merely complaining about an unfair “number” of games. Not liking the length of a suspension or discipline, does not provide a legal basis for a federal court to overturn an arbitration decision. The PCP gives broad discretion to the NFL to ultimately discipline players indefinitely or even remove them from the league, so long as discipline is imposed by the initial arbitrator. Plus, the lawyers for the NFLPA already know this. They have a legal obligation to only bring claims that have legal merit and cannot bring frivolous claims. Furthermore, Watson is tired from this whole situation, and may not want to engage in a full-on year-long federal court legal battle that he’s likely to lose (much like Tom Brady backed down when his appeal lost, rather than petitioning the Supreme Court.)

The NFLPA’s own statement would surely come back to bite it, if the Union even tried to bring this case to federal court. The worst-case scenario here for Watson is that he sits out for a year and can petition for reinstatement. The best-case scenario, in my opinion, is that he gets somewhere in the 8-12 game range, just short of a year.

Any talk of a federal court battle is just no longer realistic, especially considering, it already failed for Brady & Elliott when the arbitration process was way more unfair than it is today.

That kind of process would likely end up with a long list of NFL players being called up to answer specifics about their suspensions as well. Probably Elliot having to rehash his suspension for domestic violence, for example. Not sure how much the NLFPA wants that kind of attention.

I agree. I think the NFL wants to appear to want the hammer brought, but secretly just wants this over without going to court

They don't want a lawsuit. Right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle it keeps the bad press in action. The NFL has as much reason for this to end as any party involved.

No doubt some parameters will be a big talking point. At least to me, the idea of indefinite suspension is absurd. Even if the end date is 3 years out, there has to be some sort of end. At that point you can discuss conditions which would reduce the length.

I don't know. If they do and have had contract with Harvey, that would be totally improper on Harvey's part.

Or, the NFL is aware of the optics of this mess and just want it to go away without offending anyone. They want to look like they actually care and not let the stink linger.

I think you raise some good points.

First of all, I am not sure I agree w/Trask's contention. The language of the Personal Conduct Policy is clear and it doesn't take dastardly deeds like sexual misconduct to run afoul of the policy. Drug use, domestic violence, DUI's, fighting in clubs, altercations w/law enforcement, playing a parlay while you not even active, etc, ect would all paint the NFL in a negative light and the NFL could suspend you. Let's face it, the NFL isn't populated fully by choir boys.

I think the latest agreement was a step in the right direction for the NFLPA. Having a Discipline Officer who was approved jointly by the league and the NFLPA is an improvement over the previous system in which Goodell--or his designee---had total control of the hearings. Like you, I think the Discipline Code will evolve when the next CBA is negotiated. I can't predict how much it will evolve, but it's a process. A process that absolutely needs to evolve to protect the rights of the players and actually place some accountability on the owners.

peen, before I reply......would you please clarify your statement? What would be "totally improper on Harvey's part?" I want to make sure I am not misinterpreting you.

Actually, I think the Elliot case would help prove the NFLPA's point of contention. The league did him dirty. In fact, it was beyond unethical. Furthermore, I think people are confusing violating the Personal Conduct Policy w/an actual court of law. The Personal Conduct Policy was written and is being enforced by the NFL. That is how they get away w/punishing players who have not been punished by the legal system. The NFL does not care about justice. They care about money and they do not want to offend The Court of Public Opinion.

There's no way they would be able to get Kraft or Snyder on the stand.

I don't think they have a contract with him in this case. That would definitely be improper. I just think they know how he would actually rule and/or have a very good indication.