j/c instead of responding to individual posts.
What Robinson is doing is simple if you read the full report. She doesn't come out and say it verbatim but it's littered throughout her commentary.
As it is the NFL’s prerogative to impose the Policy on its players, I am bound to
accept the NFL’s definition of sexual assault.
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.
Once again, there is no definition provided in the Policy or CBA for the prohibited
conduct of posing a “genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person.” Neither
has the NFL provided a definition in connection with this matter.
According to the NFL, “[t]he matters
that can affect such integrity and public confidence [in the game of professional football] evolve
and change over time depending on developments within and external to the League, and the
parties to the CBAs have agreed not to operate with a static or frozen definition of conduct
detrimental.”
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. 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. As I’ve
noted above, the NFL is a private organization and can operate as it deems fit, but the post-hoc
determination of what constitutes the prohibited conduct here cannot genuinely satisfy the
“fairness” prong of the standard of review or justify the imposition of the unprecedented sanction
requested by the NFL.
What she's really saying:
"Your whole process for discipline is mad whack, and hiring me to be the "arbiter of justice" is not going to mean I willingly fall victim to this chicanery. On one hand, you don't allow me to define any of your charges; sexual misconduct, conduct detrimental, etc; as if I can't think and judge for myself... On the other, you're asking me to hand down unprecedented punishment for something that is not defined and has no structure for punishment in your CBA. Your process and language for enforcement is convoluted; if you want me to rule on it, I'll stay within the confines of precedence... and of your "contract"... that's what it's there for."
