A part of the previous debate was that all of these incidents combined would be considered as a first infraction if some of these cases are found to be valid by the NFL. What I think those people may not be considering is that the NFL may decide to consider punishment on a case by case basis. There is nothing that says they must lump them all together. As each case unfolds the NFL may determine if that case is valid or not and impose punishment as they deem proper. That would mean that each case they find worthy of suspension would be the first infraction, second infraction, third infraction and so on.
I'm not predicting that is what will happen. Neither i nor anyone else knows how this will pan out. But being so positive that the NFL will lump them all together verses deciding each as a separate infraction based on the merit of each case is certainly not a foregone conclusion.
Deshaun Watson Admits Massage Therapist Cried After Session, per Report
During a pre-trial deposition last week, Deshaun Watson admitted that one massage therapist did cry after their session, but he said he did not know why, according to USA Today.
He left and later sent her an apology text after the session, which read, “Sorry about you feeling uncomfortable. Never were the intentions. Lmk if you want to work in the future. My apologies.”
The Browns quarterback is facing 22 civil lawsuits filed by massage therapists, each detailing graphic accounts of sexual harassment and sexual assault that occurred during massage therapy sessions. The accounts range from Watson allegedly refusing to cover his genitals to the quarterback “touching [a plaintiff] with his penis and trying to force her to perform oral sex on him.”
Per a partial transcript obtained by USA Today, the woman’s attorney, Tony Buzbee, asked Watson, “But you know why you sent that text apology afterwards?”
“Yes, because she was teary-eyed,” the quarterback replied. “And I was trying to figure out what was going on. So, I assumed that she was uncomfortable in whatever reason. And we talked about working in the future. And so, I said, ‘We can work in the future. Just let me know.’ And then I sent my apologies as whatever reason she was teary-eyed for.”
According to USA Today, last week’s deposition was concerning Ashley Solis’s case, who was the first woman to file a lawsuit against Watson last year. She did not reply to Watson’s message, per her filing.
A trial reportedly will not occur until after February, but the quarterback does have other pretrial depositions scheduled for next month, per USA Today.
Although the civil lawsuits are still ongoing, Cleveland traded for Watson in March and signed him to a five-year contract worth a guaranteed $230 million. The Cleveland Rape Crisis Center saw more than 2,300 donations come in wake of his signing, totaling more than $125,000. They received more than 1,000 donations within the first 24 hours of the trade.
The quarterback previously faced multiple criminal complaints; however, he is not facing charges following two separate grand jury hearings.
On March 11, a Harris County grand jury returned nine “no” bills on nine criminal complaints against Watson. A Harris County prosecutor said that the decision concluded criminal proceedings against him in that county, and Watson was traded shortly afterward. A grand jury in Brazoria County declined to charge Watson on a 10th count on March 24.
Watson denied assaulting, harassing or disrespecting any woman during his introductory press conference with the Browns.
He could still face discipline for violating the NFL’s personal conduct policy. According to multiple reports, league officials will meet with the quarterback this week.
As the civil deposition proceedings continue, here’s a recap of what has happened on and off the field since Watson’s last snap.
Since the other thread was locked, I'll ask again.....
For the sake of argument let's say that Deshawn and his attorney Hardin are telling the truth about watson and Solis discussing other sessions. The question becomes did that conversation happen before or after the incident? It wouldn't be hard to imagine it happening prior to the incident. What we do know from the testimony is that she refused to respond to him after the session concluded. So we know that she was not wishing to have any further contact with him after the incident. Now why would she be willing to discuss future sessions before the incident yet not after it? That certainly doesn't sound like nothing happened. If what watson's claim there was a converstaion about future sessions, obviously something took place that changed all of that.
And one other point that happened in his testimony in March. He made the claim that nothing happened with any of the accusers because he had a girlfriend. Later it was admitted he did have sexual relations with some of these women. He did claim it was consensual but that remains to be seen. So much for the "I have a girlfriend" lie. So we had him say nothing happened then admit something actually did happen on more than on occasion. It goes to show he isn't beyond lying in these cases. Do you apologize for things you didn't do or having no idea what you're apologizing for?
There are some videos that were in the article that you won't be able to view, but it's still a good read if folks are interested in learning more about Watson, the football player.
Quote
Galina: Why Deshaun Watson was the NFL's best quarterback in 2020
By Seth Galina Feb 15, 2021
As much as we all try to separate the performances of different positions from their teammates in order to isolate production, players with stronger surroundings will always fare better than those without.
We’ve spent the past month praising Aaron Rodgers for his MVP 2020 season and bowing down to Tom Brady for his playoff run to a seventh Lombardi Trophy. And why shouldn’t we? Those two were the highest-graded quarterbacks of the entire 2020 season. They deserve praise. One could even argue that Rodgers’ season was one of the great quarterback campaigns of the PFF era (since 2006).
Of course, both signal-callers played on teams that allowed them to showcase their talents. Brady’s Buccaneers happened to boast a top-five defense to continually keep him ahead of the game in terms of field position and game state. Plus, he had the best receiving corps in the league.
Rodgers was given opportunities to find open receivers via Matt LaFleur’s wide-zone and play-action scheme, and he had arguably the best receiver in the league in Davante Adams. It’s hard to go back and look through the list of the great quarterback seasons of the past 15 years and find examples where quarterbacks did not have other elite factors going in their favor.
That’s why I’m ready to make the argument that Deshaun Watson was not only the best quarterback of 2020, but also that he had the best season of the past 15 years — and maybe ever.
Absolutely nothing went the Texans' way last year, and Watson still routinely played at an elite level. Former Houston head coach and general manager Bill O’Brien traded his team's best receiver, yet Watson played better than ever before. O’Brien was fired midseason, but it didn’t phase the quarterback. He played with a terrible defense, a terrible running game and no star receivers and put up the 19th-best regular-season passing grade of the PFF era (91.2). He’s one of 29 quarterbacks to finish a regular season with a 90.0-plus passing grade.
Those 29 quarterback seasons are generally regarded as the greatest individual campaigns of the past 15 years. Tom Brady’s 2007, Peyton Manning’s 2013 and Patrick Mahomes’ 2018 are all included in this group alongside Watson’s 2020.
Better surrounding factors allow a quarterback to stay away from negative plays. Being down in games forces the quarterback to attempt more difficult passes. Not having a running game puts the quarterback in more ominous down and distances. Not having receivers who can separate forces the quarterback to hold on to the ball.
And yet, Watson torched the league despite having nothing going in his favor.
We can start with the overall records for each of those 29 quarterbacks. If a signal-caller is having an elite year, chances are his team is doing well. Twenty-six of the 29 quarterbacks’ teams won at least 10 games that season. The quarterback is the most important factor, but you can assume that other factors were involved to get to that plateau of wins.
Twenty-eight of the 29 quarterbacks’ teams finished the season at .500 or above. The only team to finish below that threshold is the 2020 Houston Texans and their four wins. Better quarterback play has resulted in wins more often than not. Watson, even while being a part of this elite club, did not have any team support.
For starters, he didn’t have much of a defense. The Texans finished 31st in defensive expected points added per play in 2020. Only the 2006 Indianapolis Colts defense was worse from a league ranking perspective, as they finished 32nd the year that Manning carried them to a Super Bowl win.
Worst defense EPA ranks among 29 QBs with 90+ season grade in PFF era
QB Defense EPA Rank 25. Tom Brady, 2011 28th 26. Patrick Mahomes, 2018 28th 27. Andrew Luck, 2016 29th 28. Deshaun Watson, 2020 31st 29. Peyton Manning, 2006 32nd
Watson is also part of a group of 10 players who notched 90.0-plus passing grades despite their defenses finishing below 20th in the league in EPA. Philip Rivers’ 2010 season in San Diego topped the list, as the Chargers' defense finished second in the league that season.
The Texans also couldn’t run the ball. They finished 31st in 2020 in EPA per rushing play. The next worst unit was the 2019 Seattle Seahawks, who finished 28th in the league while Russell Wilson still produced a 90.0-plus grade. In fact, in 17 of the 29 seasons, the rushing EPA per play of the elite quarterback's team was in the top half of the league. At the top is Manning's 2007 Colts rushing attack, which finished first that year.
When it comes to surrounding talent in the passing game, Watson doesn’t fare as poorly but does find himself in the bottom-third in a couple of categories. The Texans' team pass-blocking grade ranked 19th among the 29 seasons. Aaron Rodgers’ 2014 season was at the top with a 92.1 team pass-blocking grade. And unsurprisingly, Rivers’ 2018 season was at the bottom with a 59.7 cumulative grade.
The 2020 Texans team receiving grade was 20th in this group. Andrew Luck’s 2016 season saw the Colts finish with a 75.5 receiving grade, the lowest in the sample, while the 2016 Falcons and Matt Ryan’s great season finished at the top.
From a macro scheme perspective, we can look at play-action rate and screen rate to see how protected these quarterbacks were. Play-action passes, whether they be RPOs or otherwise, tend to define the reads for a quarterback and create distractions for defenders that a regular dropback does not.
PFF has play-action data going back to the 2012 season, and Watson again comes in pretty low. For this, I used league rank in terms of percentage of throws that were off play action because of how play-action rates have risen throughout the NFL over time. The 2020 Texans sat at 28th in the league this season in play-action rate. Only Brady’s 2020 season and Ben Roethlisberger’s 2015 season were lower relative to the league at the time. The 2016 Falcons finished first in the NFL in play-action rate that year.
PFF's screen data goes back to 2011, and it provides similar results. Watson’s Texans placed 21st in the league in screen rate — 17th-lowest of the 23 players in this selection. Rodgers' 2020 season had him throw the second-highest rate of screens in the league, while Rivers’ 2018 was last at a league rank of 29th that year.
Watson’s 2020 season is at or near the bottom in almost all team categories. River’s 2018 campaign is rough from a scheme and offensive line perspective, but he played with a top-10 running game and defense. Luck’s 2016 season and Wilson’s 2019 campaign are almost as rough as Watson’s 2020.
A big part of PFF grades is the opportunity to have negative plays. If you are 2007 Tom Brady throwing to Randy Moss, your opportunity for negative plays is small. If you are 2016 Matt Ryan, who is not being asked to perform straight dropbacks often, your opportunity for negative plays is smaller. Rodgers playing behind David Bakhtiari, Josh Sitton, T.J. Lang, Bryan Bulaga and Corey Linsley in 2014 limited the pressure he faced, and therefore, there was less of a chance to have a negative play.
It’s not to say those seasons aren't great — they are, undoubtedly — but Watson’s season, without any semblance of team help and still grading at that incredible level, might be the most impressive.
I’m less concerned with the supposed scheme issues than the talent surrounding Watson. The complaints about lack of play-action chances are definitely founded in reality. With Bill O’Brien coming from coaching Tom Brady, that’s the scheme he brought with him to Houston. No one complains when Brady’s coaches don’t call play action enough for him, because he can drop back and complete passes without it at an elite level.
That’s what happened with Watson this year. He didn’t need play action. Watson was the third-highest graded passer without play action, screens and RPOs this season, behind only Rodgers and barely behind Mahomes. Could the Texans have gone away from the “all-stick route” offense? Maybe, but Watson was playing at such an elite level that he was getting completions on any concept drawn up for him. These macro scheme complaints don’t really hold up when talking about the elite players in the game. Does Jared Goff need play action? Yes. Did Watson require it? No.
Did this stop me from making the same complaint? Also no.
Watson has always had this level of play in him, but like so many other quarterbacks, performing at such a level for an entire season proved difficult over his first three years in the league. Specifically, Watson's floor games of past seasons completely vanished in 2020. Over the first three years of his career, Watson had 12 games where his passing grade dipped under 60.0. He had no such games in 2020. And getting his turnover-worthy play percentage down to 2% from 3.6% in 2019 was part of that.
In the Texans' Week 3 matchup against the Steelers, Watson engineered a superb two-minute drill that showed everything he’s about right now. The Steelers would end the season ranked second in defensive EPA per play, and Watson tore them up. Getting the ball back with 1:14 left in the first half at their own 25, the Texans took five plays to get into the endzone, with Watson going a perfect 5-for-5.
We start with a quick hitch route to Brandin Cooks. Watson really could throw to either tight end Darren Fells or Cooks. On this concept, with the cornerback off, you are reading the first low defender. He immediately buzzes outside, which opens the throw to Fells, but Watson never believes he can get out fast enough to get under Cooks' route, either. He throws as soon as he finishes the end of his drop and puts the ball on Cooks' outside shoulder, where it should go.
On throws that we chart and bucket as “stick” throws, Watson’s adjusted completion percentage jumped from 76% over the previous two seasons to 92% this past year. His grade on those attempts was good enough for second-best in the league. He took what was given to him and kept the chains moving.
The Texans try to start picking up chunk yardage, so they call their sail concept hoping to find Randall Cobb in some space. The Steelers end up in Cover 3, but with the flat defender getting wide immediately off the snap, Cobb settles into the void instead of staying on the run to the sideline. The read for Watson is to quickly check if the outside receiver can win on his deep route and then to read that same flat defender for a high/low with Cobb and the running back.
Again, with the flat guy so wide, it creates space for Cobb to sit into. Watson reads it the same way and delivers into the void. He hammered Cover 3 this season to the tune of a 93.0 grade, which ranked second-best in the league during the regular season.
The Steelers are starting to get nervous and show like they are going to pressure Watson and play man coverage behind it. They end up rushing only four while playing man with a low-hole defender. Watson is looking to his right early in the drop and sees the player covering Fells run and open a window for Cooks on the in-breaking route.
The problem is that the Texans' offensive line has trouble picking up a stunt along the line of scrimmage, forcing Watson to come off his spot. When he’s ready to throw again, it looks like that low-hole defender spooks from throwing to Cooks, so he takes off into an opening and gets outside the pocket before finding Fells on the sideline for another first down.
Plays like this are where Watson really took his game to another level. We’ve always known he can move around outside the pocket, but he was throwing dimes when on the run in 2020. His grade improved from 67.6 on “scramble drill” plays in 2018 and 2019 to 94.5 this season, which led the league.
Again, the Steelers decide to blitz and play man coverage. Watson opens his dropback by looking to his right, but the man coverage on his wide receiver and the outside leverage on Fells by Cameron Sutton eliminates those two routes.
Watson moves his eyes to the left and finds Cobb again, this time on an in-breaking route, for another first down. Watson has always been good at these throws we chart as “horizontal leads.” He produced the third-highest grade in the league on these types of throws beyond 10 yards. He also led the league in the regular season on throws that we chart as “next read” — where his eyes had to work back across the field.
The touchdown throw is a beautiful drop in the bucket to Will Fuller V. The Steelers are showing man to man with one-high safety before the snap, and as long as that safety doesn’t fly over to the sideline, Watson is going to take his shot to Fuller. In rhythm. Beautiful throw. Six points.
This was Watson the whole season, even if the wins and traditional box score stats didn’t come with it. He took his game to the next level, and it’s why whenever you see potential trade packages for him, the return is astronomical.
If this is who Deshaun Watson is going forward — not a one-hit wonder — there are maybe four teams in the NFL that don’t need to take a look at him. Watson was the best quarterback in the league in 2020, and he arguably had the best season from a signal-caller in the past 15 years.
I am really, really excited to see what our offense is going to look like w/Watson at qb. I think that Stefanski is a very bright offensive mind. I love the offenses that come from the Shanahan/Kubiak tree. The zone blocking techniques are amazing. It is my hope that we stay w/12 personnel as the package we run most often. Of course, we can now add in some 11 personnel if we want and will probably run some 13 personnel.
The thing that has me so excited is that we have a great OL. They are one of the best in the entire league and PFF had them ranked #1 in 2020. Add in two great backs w/Chubb and Hunt and teams have to really put men in the box to stop the run. Now, w/Watson at qb, teams will get burned if they commit too many guys to the run. Watson is a good pocket passer who can read coverages. Not as elite as Drew Brees, but he's certainly good at it. Then, think about this, we run some boots w/Watson. The Browns ran the 4th most boots in the entire league last year. But, teams are going to be in a world of hurt if they are geared to stopping our running game and in odd coverages, such as Cover1, Cover 3, or Cover 5 because they will be trailing the receivers and Watson will kill them by running for 20 yards or so.
I'm telling you guys that defensive coordinators are going to be staying up late trying to find ways to combat our strengths. Watson, this OL, and RBs combined w/Stefanski's scheme is going to give teams nightmares.
Agreed and a quick point about Baker. I like Baker and think he can still be a good QB. Baker may not like what our FO did to him and that's fine. He has a right to feel how he feels. However, if Baker is honest with himself he has to understand that our FO is doing what it has to do to make our Browns better. It did by signing DW. Furthermore, If Baker is more honest with himself he should realize DW is a better QB than he is. DW has a better arm, can run much better goes through his progressions better and is probably more mature. I would have tried to upgrade too if I was the FO. We can't worry about one players feelings being hurt when we now have a chance to go toe to toe with any other team and make a deep playoff run. It's a business whose success is predicated on winning. That's what they are trying to do.
Vers, some of us don't care how good he is if he's truly guilty of this crap. I've read a lot about him and before this scandal, he sounded squeaky clean and a stand up citizen, as well as a top QB. But does that matter if he did these things? It certainly doesn't to me.
As a matter of fact, reading who he was before all of this made me decide to wait and give him a chance to prove his innocence. I mean we all know he crossed the creepy line with so many women involved, but creepy can be a lot of things and not necessarily disgraceful. But if he forced himself on these women, or sexually harassed them, he shouldn't play IMO. And I damn sure won't root for him.
And just for the record, I've been a Baker guy, but he's gone, or as good as gone, and I'm over that bit. So going forward, this is all about DW and how this pans out for me.
You would think that when a woman walks out of the room crying prior to her finishing the massage and you acknowledge that you saw her crying that you might think you crossed the line. It looks more and more like celebrity power over average person. I will wait for more reports on the depositions being taken but this first one doesn't look good. However, I'm sure we'll read more Watson support posts than WTF posts because winning football games trumps all here but at least in this first deposition, Watson clearly has appeared to cross the line even if he says, "he couldn't understand why she was crying and abruptly ended the session."
I have no problem if some people won't root for Watson or even the Browns. It's an individual decision. On the other hand, no one is going to tell me who to root for, no matter how many threads they make on the subject. One other thing, I think it's okay if I talk about Watson and the Browns from a football perspective in the Pure Football Forum.
One other thing to consider is that the vast majority of these leaks are being done strategically by Buzbee. I mention that NOT diminish the pieces of evidence themselves, but I think it's significant that we are getting a very slanted view into these depositions.
You would think that when a woman walks out of the room crying prior to her finishing the massage and you acknowledge that you saw her crying that you might think you crossed the line. It looks more and more like celebrity power over average person. I will wait for more reports on the depositions being taken but this first one doesn't look good. However, I'm sure we'll read more Watson support posts than WTF posts because winning football games trumps all here but at least in this first deposition, Watson clearly has appeared to cross the line even if he says, "he couldn't understand why she was crying and abruptly ended the session."
Sorry if I'm stating the obvious but it certainly sounds to me that it is a lack of conscience on his part.
Several Deshaun Watson accusers sit for interview with HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel
As the NFL moves inevitably toward deciding whether to suspend Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson for some or all of the 2022 season, or whether to wait until the 22 civil lawsuits pending against him have resolved, some of his accusers will be speaking out.
“Several” of the women who have accused Watson of sexual misconduct during massage sessions have been interviewed by HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. Soledad O’Brien serves as the reporter on the story.
Per a press release from HBO, the women “detail the alleged abuse they suffering and share their reactions to” Watson’s $230 million contract with the Browns.
The show debuts Tuesday, May 24, at 10:00 p.m. ET.
True, but does that offset accusers going on air while their respective cases are still winding their way through the courts? Or is this just a strategic response to Watson being able to pause the proceedings so he can play a season of football?
I'm much more inclined to fall on the "this is shady" side, but I guess fair-is-fair.
I think I would agree with you IF there were a gag order in place. That would mean that it's wrong and in fact illegal to put this sort of thing out there. But there isn't a gag order in place. Both Watson and his attorney have the very same right to do the same thing if they so choose. I consider the fact that if you look around, Watson is the celebrity here. As we can see people are quick to defend him and have no problem painting the scenario that their lawyer is some kind of scum bag and these women are nothing but a bunch of low life's out for a cash grab.
I don't see how these women sharing their experiences as something nefarious but more to help balance the scales. Both Watson and his attorney have had no problem continuing to claim his innocence in the national media. Very little by contrast is known about these women.
Edited to add. There's no doubt we should take these interviews with a grain of salt since we will only be hearing one side of things IMO
Gumbel sort of gets on my nerves but he is a well respected journalist.... this should be more than salacious gossip.
He is? he was good as a sports reporter if that is what you meant. Once he got on The Today Show, not so much.
Then again, cred usually is handed out if the reporter pretty much agrees with your take, or you with theirs. There is very little unbiased reporting any more. Be it sports or politics, all of it is pretty slanted.
I have no clue on where things stand with Watson. I am just going to sit back and take it all in and see where the chips fall.
The actual interview of these women will be done by Soledad O’Brien who is a female reporter for the show. I'm sure Gumbel will add his opinion and narrative at the end of the segment but he will not be conducting the interviews.
Often times the quote you mentioned is done by law enforcement or those being sued or charged in a criminal case. In watson's case I think it would be foolish for him to do such an interview. He has already claimed nothing happened with any of these women because "I have a girlfriend". Then later his own attorney admitted he did have sexual relations with some of the women. In his latest deposition he admitted in the one case the woman was crying when she left. His attorney has also claimed, as did Watson they discussed future sessions. Yet the evidence shows that after the incident she refused to have any further communication with Watson. So the obvious conclusion is that they spoke of the sessions before the incident and she refused to respond to him in any way after the incident. That and he calimed he apologized but had no idea what he was apologizing for.
So at this juncture Watson granting an interview would be a crap show for him. He's already opened himself up for a litany of questions that would put him in a no win situation if he agreed to such an interview.
I'm not sure about gag orders being issued for civil cases. What I can say is unless a gag order is in place there's nothing illegal or unethical about giving interviews concerning a case.
It might be interesting to see how the answers in an interview and the depositions/trial differ. In an interview someone can say pretty much anything, there is nothing bounding them to the truth. Yes, people lie under oath but that carries the chance of jeopardy.
All of this is interesting. All of it directly impacts the Browns. Watching all issues and sides of this should be something everyone that is concerned about the treatment of women, how it may impact the team and what the truth really is. It's hard to imagine that all of these women must be lying and the only one telling the truth here is watson. But anything is possible I guess.
"Trying" this on HBO............eh, I'm not sure it will prove anything other than "I said".
It means everything for guys like Pit. It's extremely important that others agree w/him that Watson is guilty and we should all turn on the team. That's why he keeps saying the same crap over and over and over.
We have read many times about how the GJ not trying Watson is not an indicator of whether he is innocent or not. Some of those arguments read like they believe that Watson is guilty and so do the courts, but they don't have enough information to prosecute him. Perhaps that is true? Perhaps it is not? We don't know, do we?
I will make a prediction that the very same people who have said that Watson not being charged in criminal court will be the ones saying that Watson is certainly guilty if the verdict in Civil Court puts even one ounce of blame on him.
I have no problem if some people won't root for Watson or even the Browns. It's an individual decision. On the other hand, no one is going to tell me who to root for, no matter how many threads they make on the subject. One other thing, I think it's okay if I talk about Watson and the Browns from a football perspective in the Pure Football Forum.
You are correct. I agree 100%. Just as others can and should be able to post without constant shots being taken at their perspective if doesn't align with more popular views on teams. players, etc. For example: I think OBJ was a cancer, many of my friends disagree. But as fans, we can only speculate actual events that are not publicly known to be true. So I have a right to think and express that, it might not be popular, but no fan on DT can prove me wrong, there is no proof of it any more than there is proof Baker somehow sabotaged OBJ during his time here. At least 50% of what is posted here is nothing but opinions. You can't validate or fact check those without ALL OF THE FACTS. And if somebody does say something that is factually wrong, simply pointing out the facts is way better than attacking them. Just saying.
Several Deshaun Watson accusers sit for interview with HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel
As the NFL moves inevitably toward deciding whether to suspend Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson for some or all of the 2022 season, or whether to wait until the 22 civil lawsuits pending against him have resolved, some of his accusers will be speaking out.
“Several” of the women who have accused Watson of sexual misconduct during massage sessions have been interviewed by HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. Soledad O’Brien serves as the reporter on the story.
Per a press release from HBO, the women “detail the alleged abuse they suffering and share their reactions to” Watson’s $230 million contract with the Browns.
The show debuts Tuesday, May 24, at 10:00 p.m. ET.
Something to look forward to BROWNS FANS! Thanks for this fine experience Mr. and Mrs. Haslam... Can't believe that HBOs NFL based show will be a media detractor this season too, smfh. Good thing we didn't win the HARD KNOCKS lottery this year.
Translation: Vers thinks you don't have a clue as a fan because you do not align with is thinking. I find this coded roundabout way of being sarcastically negative toward other posters. You are better than this. And I expect you to call me out for the same when you see it, if you truly want to make this place better.
The NFL reportedly wants to interview Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson again as it investigates the allegations of sexual assault and misconduct he is facing from 22 women.
Ed Gallek and Peggy Gallek of Fox 8 Cleveland reported Friday that league investigators already met with Watson this week but are seeking another interview.
"Remaining schedule is unclear but they clearly want to complete it sometime this summer," Watson's attorney, Rusty Hardin, said.
Multiple grand juries ruled in March the Clemson product would not be indicted on criminal charges, but he could still be suspended by the league if it determines he violated its personal conduct policy.
Watson, who Cleveland acquired from the Houston Texans via trade after the first grand jury declined to indict him on criminal charges, is also still facing 22 civil lawsuits accusing him of sexual assault or misconduct during massage therapy sessions.
The Fox 8 report noted the quarterback has given multiple depositions on the cases and was asked if he believes all 22 plaintiffs are lying during one of them.
"I've never had any sexual misconduct with any of these women," Watson said. "I done told you before multiple times from day one I received the lawsuit. I never assaulted; I never harassed; I never disrespected: I never touched: no woman ever touched me, or nothing like that what these women are alleging that actually happened."
Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports reported Tuesday that all 22 civil lawsuits will likely be pushed back to next year given the steps remaining and the agreed-upon moratorium on cases between Aug. 1, 2022, and March 1, 2023.
"The manner of presentation in the cases could make the trials significantly longer than expected," Robinson reported, noting Watson's side could respond to each allegation individually if evidence from multiple allegations are introduced for individual proceedings.
Hardin told Fox 8 "there is no timetable" for when the NFL will complete its investigation, however, it seems likely the league will want to make a decision before the start of the 2022 season.
The NFL reportedly wants to interview Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson again as it investigates the allegations of sexual assault and misconduct he is facing from 22 women.
Ed Gallek and Peggy Gallek of Fox 8 Cleveland reported Friday that league investigators already met with Watson this week but are seeking another interview.
"Remaining schedule is unclear but they clearly want to complete it sometime this summer," Watson's attorney, Rusty Hardin, said.
I wonder about the wording of this part of the article.
Are we to believe that the NFL talked to Watson last week and some alarms sounded and they want further conversations?
Or, were a series of topics already on the docket and they didn't get through all of them?
I ask because there is a difference there and I would not put it past the media and some of the Watson haters out there to want to spin the truth.
"Trying" this on HBO............eh, I'm not sure it will prove anything other than "I said".
It means everything for guys like Pit. It's extremely important that others agree w/him that Watson is guilty and we should all turn on the team. That's why he keeps saying the same crap over and over and over.
I don't know how your screen didn't completely implode in narcissism after you hit the enter key. Must be that alternate universe that only YOU live in.
"Trying" this on HBO............eh, I'm not sure it will prove anything other than "I said".
It means everything for guys like Pit. It's extremely important that others agree w/him that Watson is guilty and we should all turn on the team. That's why he keeps saying the same crap over and over and over.
It doesn't matter who agrees with me. I didn't bring this problem to Cleveland. I didn't create a situation that brought all of this negative attention to the Browns. I know your character prevents you from placing the blame where it belongs for those actions and you would rather blame me for talking about it. The latest statements coming from his depositions came out just last week. So nobody has been talking about that over and over again as you profess. This HBO interview story is new. So that hasn't been talked about over and over again. The fact you insist on lying about those things speaks volumes.
There will be more details that will continue to come out. More headlines will be made. And they will be talked about here. Rather than throw your regular tantrum about it you're just going to have to learn to deal with it. Or not. Just remember who brought this situation to town. It wasn't me. But it seems you have no intention of calling out the responsible party. No surprise there.
Once again you make snide comments to other posters about me but refuse to man up and address me directly. As I said before, there's a name for people who do that.
There are things we know happened since last week. In his Friday deposition DW apologized while claiming he didn't know what he was apologizing for. He admitted the woman left crying but has no idea why she was crying. He and his attorney had claimed DW and the woman had talked about more sessions when the evidence has proven she refused to speak to him at all after the incident. So you know, as more things come to light there are more questions to answer. As it should be.
"Trying" this on HBO............eh, I'm not sure it will prove anything other than "I said".
It means everything for guys like Pit. It's extremely important that others agree w/him that Watson is guilty and we should all turn on the team. That's why he keeps saying the same crap over and over and over.
I don't know how your screen didn't completely implode in narcissism after you hit the enter key. Must be that alternate universe that only YOU live in.
It's a good thing narcissism imploding hearts isn't a real thing because this board (and the world) would depopulate quickly.
Deshaun Watson’s lawyer “not optimistic” about HBO’s treatment of the case
Posted by Mike Florio on May 21, 2022, 1:45 PM EDT link
On Tuesday night, HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel will debut a story that includes interviews with “several” of the women accusing Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson of sexual misconduct during massage therapy sessions. Watson’s lawyer, Rusty Hardin, does not have high expectations for the finished product.
“I don’t know what it’s going to be like, but I’m not optimistic,” Hardin told Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. “I believe they’ll air the accusations of the women without attempting to look behind it to see what kind of merit do they have.”
Hardin has tried in the past to get the media to focus on the merits, or lack thereof, of the specific allegations. His efforts didn’t take. He eventually stopped trying.
“My approach all along was that we were not going to win the battle of public opinion,’’ Hardin told Cabot, not mentioning the fact that did indeed tried to sway media and fans Watson’s way in 2021, with multiple press conferences and the release of evidence that potentially undermines the allegations, such as text messages. “And my goal has always been to have these cases examined by law enforcement and I strongly believed that trained investigators would ultimately conclude that there was nothing to them from a criminal standpoint and that’s where my focus has always been.”
The problem was, frankly, that attorney Tony Buzbee seized the early momentum in the court of public opinion. By the time Watson’s camp tried to join the battle, the battle had in many respects already been lost. So now the story has become that the strategy has always been to forget about public opinion and focus on the strict legal principles that determine whether misconduct did or didn’t happen.
“I thought that’s what the NFL teams cared most about and with the exception of Miami, that’s true,” Hardin told Cabot. By singling out Miami, Hardin is alluding to the fact that the Dolphins refused to trade for Watson in 2021 unless all 22 civil cases were settled.
Regardless of the reasons for Hardin’s abandonment of any effort to win in the court of public opinion, the fact remains that public opinion ultimately fuels every decision made by the NFL under the Personal Conduct Policy. The vast majority of American businesses don’t take action against employees for off-duty misconduct, especially if there is no arrest or conviction. Even then, most employers as to most offenses allow the employee to remain employed, as long as the employee is physically able to show up for work.
The NFL’s effort to police the private lives of players comes entirely from P.R. considerations. Fans and media expect real consequences for certain type of behavior, regardless of whether it’s irrelevant to the player’s work responsibilities. Thus, at the end of the day, public opinion and fan/media expectations will influence the decisions made by the league.
For example, Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott was never arrested or even sued. He was still suspended six games in 2017, based on allegations of domestic violence. Why? Because it happened three years after the Commissioner nearly lost his job due to the perception that he was not aggressive enough in punishing former NFL running back Ray Rice.
The Commissioner, as explained in detail in Playmakers, won’t make that same mistake again. Thus, regardless of what happens in a court of law, the verdict in the court of public opinion will greatly influence the Commissioner. Anyone who doesn’t realize that doesn’t understand how the NFL metes out its specific brand of gridiron justice.
Please don't ask me any questions. I was starting to trust you and then you went off the rails last night. Yet again. You can go ahead and keep slamming me, but I am not going to respond to you for the foreseeable future.
Please don't ask me any questions. I was starting to trust you and then you went off the rails last night. Yet again. You can go ahead and keep slamming me, but I am not going to respond to you for the foreseeable future.
I responded to you in the manner you presented yourself to me and the rest of the board. You just made a statement / claim that the DW situation with 22 women making separate claims is beginning to look like a witch hunt. If you can't back that up with an explanation - so be it. But you've certainly belittled many posters who have made similar claims in the other direction. I guess that's just the way it is.
Regardless of the reasons for Hardin’s abandonment of any effort to win in the court of public opinion, the fact remains that public opinion ultimately fuels every decision made by the NFL under the Personal Conduct Policy. The vast majority of American businesses don’t take action against employees for off-duty misconduct, especially if there is no arrest or conviction. Even then, most employers as to most offenses allow the employee to remain employed, as long as the employee is physically able to show up for work.
The NFL’s effort to police the private lives of players comes entirely from P.R. considerations. Fans and media expect real consequences for certain type of behavior, regardless of whether it’s irrelevant to the player’s work responsibilities. Thus, at the end of the day, public opinion and fan/media expectations will influence the decisions made by the league.
Regardless of the reasons for Hardin’s abandonment of any effort to win in the court of public opinion, the fact remains that public opinion ultimately fuels every decision made by the NFL under the Personal Conduct Policy. The vast majority of American businesses don’t take action against employees for off-duty misconduct, especially if there is no arrest or conviction. Even then, most employers as to most offenses allow the employee to remain employed, as long as the employee is physically able to show up for work.
The NFL’s effort to police the private lives of players comes entirely from P.R. considerations. Fans and media expect real consequences for certain type of behavior, regardless of whether it’s irrelevant to the player’s work responsibilities. Thus, at the end of the day, public opinion and fan/media expectations will influence the decisions made by the league.
You realize this is one person's opinion piece. You realize this article is slanted "Anti-NFL" or at least "The NFL is not fair and balanced and interested in justice - only optics" which is pretty much what I have said regards believing a 10 game ban is coming come what may ... and the article is most definitely not "DW is the victim of a witch him and is probably innocent"
I get that you don't agree w/my takes, but why are 2-3 posters permitted to continually fabricate quotes from me that I never once uttered. There is no way I said that"DW is the victim of a witch him and is probably innocent." Why is that in quotation marks? I said it sounded like a witch hunt. I said the same thing when the NFL went after Ezekiel Elliot and Friel locked out the lead investigator. I never ONCE uttered that either Elliot or Watson were probably innocent. Is it possible for you guys to put a stop to these lies?
I get that you don't agree w/my takes, but why are 2-3 posters permitted to continually fabricate quotes from me that I never once uttered. There is no way I said that "DW is the victim of a witch him and is probably innocent." Why is that in quotation marks? I said it sounded like a witch hunt. I said the same thing when the NFL went after Ezekiel Elliot and Friel locked out the lead investigator. I never ONCE uttered that either Elliot or Watson were probably innocent. Is it possible for you guys to put a stop to these lies?
Originally Posted by mgh888
You realize this is one person's opinion piece. You realize this article is slanted "Anti-NFL" or at least "The NFL is not fair and balanced and interested in justice - only optics" which is pretty much what I have said regards believing a 10 game ban is coming come what may ... and the article is most definitely not "DW is the victim of a witch him and is probably innocent"
No one claimed you said that. No one is lying. You are however full of drama as usual and want to play the victim card endlessly.
It seems to me that one addresses another poster and puts words in quotation marks, he is most assuredly trying to misrepresent what the other is saying. There are 3 posters who do this over and over and over. Additionally, when one, such as myself tries to defend himself by saying that he never said such a thing, it only leads to denial and then another attempt at a new insult such as the "victim" thing. Then again, if one ignores the comments made by the same 2-3 attackers, he is said to not being able to defend his position.
Again, I understand that the powers that be are Baker fans and are upset about Watson, but as leaders of this board..........do you think it might be time to be a bit more fair in what is permitted and what is not? I think it is wrong to put things in quotes that are not true. Don't you. And I also think that there are two posters who do it intentionally to illicit a response from me so they can engage in a more hostile argument. I do not think that is fair.
I have no problem if someone like Baker and detests Watson. However, I do have a problem when people resort to lies and bullying attacks to silence an alternative opinion.
First of all, it's MOST COMPANIES DO HAVE A PERSONAL CONDUCT POLICY that they enforce. I worked for 5 different companies during my career and every one of them had a Personal Conduct Policy that I witnessed being enforced for off-duty misconduct. Every company monitors this for P.R. considerations not only the NFL. Unless you have been living in a cocoon, surely you have seen or have heard of such action before outside the NFL.
For every instance that Buzbee supposedly is trying to manipulate the press and public opinion, Hardin has worked just as hard to work it the other way. If you don't see and believe that then I feel sorry for you because they buffaloed your azz.
Finally, there's not a person on this forum that doesn't want the Browns to field a winner and eventually get to the Super Bowl. If Watson is an upgrade to the position and enhances the Browns opportunity, then good for Cleveland. If Watson is a scum bucket that mistreats women though - NO THANK YOU! The absolute worst thing that could happen to Cleveland Browns football is for the Browns to win a Super Bowl let's say in 2022 and then find out that Watson actually sexually mistreated numerous women after the fact. A Cleveland Brown Super Bowl title tainted by a QB that the team, city, fans, and general public that had legitimate questions about his off the field scum bag actions before he played a down and then loses numerous civil suits for his inappropriate actions.
No matter what happens in 2022, if the Browns play Watson, any played game will be tainted if he indeed loses some or all the civil suits against him in 2023. Reason being is the Cleveland Browns and many fans on this forum know that there are serious questions about his behavior with the women. This is NOT saying that Watson is guilty or innocent - it's stating the fact that there are serious questions about his off-field activities. Looking the other way or pretending he's innocent until proven guilty as an out only to find out that the accusations are true will black mark the Browns for decades.
The safe and moral way to handle this is the Browns should demand that Watson clears up the civil suits before he plays a single game in a Browns uniform. Think about it for a moment, we are not talking about a single instance - we are talking about a possible serial sexual abuser taking snaps for the Cleveland Browns. If Watson plays and then loses his civil suits - that's what you have - a serial sexual abuser as our QB and the team knew there were questions about him. The shame.........................
Regardless of the reasons for Hardin’s abandonment of any effort to win in the court of public opinion, the fact remains that public opinion ultimately fuels every decision made by the NFL under the Personal Conduct Policy. The vast majority of American businesses don’t take action against employees for off-duty misconduct, especially if there is no arrest or conviction. Even then, most employers as to most offenses allow the employee to remain employed, as long as the employee is physically able to show up for work.
The NFL’s effort to police the private lives of players comes entirely from P.R. considerations. Fans and media expect real consequences for certain type of behavior, regardless of whether it’s irrelevant to the player’s work responsibilities. Thus, at the end of the day, public opinion and fan/media expectations will influence the decisions made by the league.
You realize this is one person's opinion piece. You realize this article is slanted "Anti-NFL" or at least "The NFL is not fair and balanced and interested in justice - only optics" which is pretty much what I have said regards believing a 10 game ban is coming come what may ... and the article is most definitely not "DW is the victim of a witch him and is probably innocent"
Everything is slanted one way or the other. All opinions are slanted based on those stories. It just depends on which you believe.
We will see. But, do you really think the Browns are going to shut Watson down if the NFL doesn't suspend him. LMAO.
And btw........I know you love you some Baker, but he can't get back into the locker room after the comments he made about guys not caring about winning, can he? Do you really believe these grown-ass men are going to forgive that?
So, the question is why the hell did you insert Baker into the conversation? I don't recall a single instance of Mayfield being mentioned in the post or him playing or even a part of the Browns. So why the reference to Mayfield in a post directed entirely about Watson's issues?
I didn't say the Browns would shut down Watson. What I did say was the safe and moral way to protect the image of the team would be to tell him to clean up his issues before he plays a down. Obviously, by your LMAO comment, you don't give a crap about the image of the team as long as they play Watson. Thanks for painting that clear picture for us fans.
So, the question is why the hell did you insert Baker into the conversation? I don't recall a single instance of Mayfield being mentioned in the post or him playing or even a part of the Browns. So why the reference to Mayfield in a post directed entirely about Watson's issues?
I didn't say the Browns would shut down Watson. What I did say was the safe and moral way to protect the image of the team would be to tell him to clean up his issues before he plays a down. Obviously, by your LMAO comment, you don't give a crap about the image of the team as long as they play Watson. Thanks for painting that clear picture for us fans.
I inserted Baker into the conversation given your history of making one excuse after another for Baker and blaming everyone else for his problems. Thus, as an intelligent person, I have deducted that your obvious bias towards Watson is driven by your hope that Baker remains our qb. I get that and I respect your desire to have that happen. I'm just being the voice of reason in telling you that no way in hell does it happen after Baker publicly trashed his teammates by saying some guys do not care about winning and only care about their retirement fund. He will never be accepted in that locker room again and if truth be told, it is going to be hard for any team to ever bring him in into any locker room after he has trashed his teammates like that, his FO, Hue, and Duke. He has also bad-mouthed guys like the Texas qb and Daniel Jones. Folks can pontificate all they want about reasons why Baker wasn't traded for, but he reality is that he is not good enough to overcome his piss-poor attitude and immaturity.
In regards to the Watson situation..........I have maintained that I will let the legal procedures play out. Watson was not indicted in criminal court. Once that happened, multiple teams tried to trade for him. That is a fact. Indy was ruled out by the Texans because they are in the same division. Other teams did not have the capital to make the trade. Four teams agreed to the outrageous demands that the Texans asked for. The Browns ended up winning the war. Had NO or ATL acquired him, the outrage of the allegations would be almost silent. The driving force behind the outrage are the media and fans from Cleveland and most are Baker Mayfield fans.
Deshaun Watson’s lawyer says “no settlement talks are in the offing”
Posted by Mike Florio on May 21, 2022, 7:29 PM EDT link
Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson still faces 22 civil lawsuits accusing him of sexual misconduct during massage therapy sessions. At one point last year, 18 of the cases were ready to be settled; currently, none are.
Lawyer Rusty Hardin told Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer that “no settlement talks are in the offing.” PD link
If the cases don’t settle, they’ll eventually have to go to trial. It’s now likely that the trials won’t begin until 2023. And it will be difficult if not impossible to conduct 22 trials during the 2023 offseason, especially if Watson intends to participate fully in the offseason program.
So what will the NFL do? Wait for the cases to end? Impose discipline now and be done with it? Discipline Watson now, while keeping the door open to discipline him later, based on how the cases unfold?
Regardless of what the league does, the cases will linger. It’s a burden that Texans fans previously had to carry. Browns fans get to deal with it now, even though Watson has more than enough money to end these cases today, if he wanted to.
By Terry Pluto, cleveland.com CLEVELAND, Ohio – My guess is most Browns fans are already sick of the Deshaun Watson case.
They probably want the NFL to make a ruling about a possible suspension. No? Yes? If so, how many games?
I don’t know much about the case, and neither do most people – especially many expressing strong opinions. The latest is the NFL will consider the 2-year suspension given to Trevor Bauer for his having “rough sex” by Major League Baseball when it comes to determining a penalty for Watson.
That’s two different types of cases, two different leagues.
The NFL is expected to meet with Watson again, according to a story by cleveland.com’s Mary Kay Cabot. She talked to Rusty Hardin, the lawyer for Watson. He expects the NFL to make a decision by June or July. Watson talked to the NFL for three days earlier in the week. Apparently, the league wants to know more about his situation.
“This idea that [the NFL] hasn’t aggressively investigated this is totally, totally false as evidenced by the fact he’s already spent three days with them,’’ Hardin told Cabot. “They’ve obviously done a bunch of research and done a lot of work themselves and they say need to do some more.”
There are 24 massage therapists who have accused Watson of some type of sexual misconduct. Twenty-two have filed civil lawsuits. Two Texas grand juries heard the case, then refused to indict him on criminal charges. That is something Watson’s lawyers will stress. But the NFL has suspended several other players when criminal charges weren’t filed.
A COMPLICATED CASE
Watson has produced 18 message therapists who say they have treated the QB and everything was proper. There are names attached to those statements. Then the attorney for those suing Watson filed a motion demanding Watson answer questions about his sexual history with all or any of the 18 therapists who are supporting him. A Texas judge ruled Watson must comply with that request.
This is a complicated case, both for the civil court system and the NFL. Something else is clear – this is an unsavory case.
Among other things, Watson has used at least 40 different massage therapists. Most athletes have very few therapists and doctors of any type whom they allow to treat them. Watson has a lot of explaining to do about why he was shopping for so many different therapists.
During one of the depositions given by Watson, he admitted one of the therapists cried, according to a USA Today story.
According to USA’s Today Brent Schrotenboer, Watson said in the deposition: “She was teary-eyed and I was trying to figure out what was going on. So, I assumed that she was uncomfortable for whatever reason. And we talked about working in the future. And so, I said, `We can work in the future. Just let me know.’ And then I sent my apologies as whatever reason she was teary-eyed for.”
The therapist didn’t reply to Watson, according to the lawsuit.
THE PRICE IS STEEP
Before the deal was done, I didn’t want the Browns to come near Watson because there are so many pending off-field issues and a possible suspension. Then you add in the $230 million contract, the highest fully guaranteed in NFL history. Watson also has a no-trade clause.
The Browns also traded six draft picks to Houston, including first-round selections in 2022, 2023 and 2024 as part of the deal with Houston.
Watson has denied doing anything wrong, but the fact is his camp offered a $100,000 settlement to at least one of the therapists in 2021. Some of Watson’s accusers are going public with an HBO interview this week. That won’t be pretty.
While public relations isn’t everything, this move has upset some Browns fans. I’ve heard from them. Many of them are women who love the team.
I’ve also heard from many fans who are sick of their team not having consistently effective QB play. They are willing to believe Watson will work through his off-field problems and becomes an elite QB. Winning will take care of everything, is their opinion.
So, the question is why the hell did you insert Baker into the conversation? I don't recall a single instance of Mayfield being mentioned in the post or him playing or even a part of the Browns. So why the reference to Mayfield in a post directed entirely about Watson's issues?
I didn't say the Browns would shut down Watson. What I did say was the safe and moral way to protect the image of the team would be to tell him to clean up his issues before he plays a down. Obviously, by your LMAO comment, you don't give a crap about the image of the team as long as they play Watson. Thanks for painting that clear picture for us fans.
I inserted Baker into the conversation given your history of making one excuse after another for Baker and blaming everyone else for his problems. Thus, as an intelligent person, I have deducted that your obvious bias towards Watson is driven by your hope that Baker remains our qb. I get that and I respect your desire to have that happen. I'm just being the voice of reason in telling you that no way in hell does it happen after Baker publicly trashed his teammates by saying some guys do not care about winning and only care about their retirement fund. He will never be accepted in that locker room again and if truth be told, it is going to be hard for any team to ever bring him in into any locker room after he has trashed his teammates like that, his FO, Hue, and Duke. He has also bad-mouthed guys like the Texas qb and Daniel Jones. Folks can pontificate all they want about reasons why Baker wasn't traded for, but he reality is that he is not good enough to overcome his piss-poor attitude and immaturity.
In regards to the Watson situation..........I have maintained that I will let the legal procedures play out. Watson was not indicted in criminal court. Once that happened, multiple teams tried to trade for him. That is a fact. Indy was ruled out by the Texans because they are in the same division. Other teams did not have the capital to make the trade. Four teams agreed to the outrageous demands that the Texans asked for. The Browns ended up winning the war. Had NO or ATL acquired him, the outrage of the allegations would be almost silent. The driving force behind the outrage are the media and fans from Cleveland and most are Baker Mayfield fans.
The presumption on your part that I ever wanted Baker to remain the Browns QB clearly shows how tainted your opinion is on the subject. You have spent time on hundreds of posts belittling Mayfield for his time with the Browns while equally defending others poor play for whatever reason to satisfy your own disdain for Mayfield. Your bias claim against Watson because of Mayfield is unfounded and factless. In fact, you cannot find a single post in this forum where I have once mentioned that Mayfield should be the starter instead of or in spite of Watson. That is your own personal fantasy land that you are living in to justify your undying support for a player that has serious baggage that until settled will leave a definite black mark on the franchise. As far as the trade goes, by your standard, Jimmy G not being traded yet is also because he is not good enough to overcome his piss-poor credentials. In fact, the main reason for both of these players not being traded yet is because they are both PUP at this time and teams do not invest in players with question marks if they will even be able to play in 2022. I highly doubt that either player could pass the physical that would be required by the trade at this time. Taking on guaranteed contracts without knowing whether the player would be available or not would just be plain stupid.
As for Watson, this is not about ability. This is about his treatment of women as a serial sexual abuser. Multiple teams attempting to trade for Watson because of his football abilities has nothing to do with his off the field antics. At this point, there is only one team documented that inquired about Watson but refused to follow through unless the civil suits were cleared up prior to the trade in Miami. You do not know, nor do I, whether the other teams considering Watson also had that stipulation or not. At this point, it doesn't matter since the Browns pulled off the trade without that stipulation obviously. Playing Watson in 2022 with the knowledge that even at 50/50 chance that he is responsible for abusing these women is going to leave a black mark on the Cleveland franchise for years to come if it comes to fruition that Watson loses the civil suits. This is not just a Cleveland problem, it's an entire NFL problem as evident by their current investigation into the civil claims against Watson by the women.
You my friend have a Baker problem as evident by your constant posting for justification of your view. Yet you're willing and clearly supporting the strong possibility that the Browns may field a serial sexual abuser as their QB before these women get a chance to face their abuser in a court of law. That is not a good look for the Browns or the NFL and the fallout could be extreme. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see some type of protests at every stadium the Browns visit, if Watson is playing, before these civil suits are heard. That will not be a good look for the NFL or Cleveland.
There are several links that Terry Pluto included within his latest article, posted above...click on "NFL will consider the 2-year suspension" and it takes you to the story...
‘NFL Source’ Says Deshaun Watson Could Face Unprecedented Suspension Because of Trevor Bauer, According to NFL Insider Josina Anderson...
My post talked about what the ARTICLE said. It did not talk about what you said or didn't say. You made a comment that "Looking more into this story, it's looking more and more like a witch hunt." and you used the article to justify it. I explained the article implied no such thing.
For someone who just wrote that you bring up Baker because you are intelligent - your comprehension skills are flat out bad, or rather they are clouded by your always wanting to be a victim and a desire to call others "Liar" when they did no such thing. It's a complete manipulation on your part. It is akin to every time you use the "alternate reality" line to dismiss someone's opinion have them crying and whining "to the powers that be" and saying you are calling them a liar each time you say that. And you say it a LOT.
Just stop. Admit you are wrong and claiming things that were never said and never implied. What was written and what was meant and discussed was the content of the ARTICLE.
There are several links that Terry Pluto included within his latest article, posted above...click on "NFL will consider the 2-year suspension" and it takes you to the story...
‘NFL Source’ Says Deshaun Watson Could Face Unprecedented Suspension Because of Trevor Bauer, According to NFL Insider Josina Anderson...
I sometimes sort of like Grossi's curmudgeonly ways - I honestly believe he's a fan of the team and get's just as depressed when the plan goes upside down .... but I wouldn't quote or use him as a journalistic source of insider insight any more than I would Mary K Cabot. I would suggest no one knows what the NFL is leaning towards - probably not even the NFL at this point.
All the posts still exist, so I guess putting statements that were never made into quotation marks in a lame attempt to discredit another poster is acceptable. Marvelous.
All the posts still exist, so I guess putting statements that were never made into quotation marks in a lame attempt to discredit another poster is acceptable. Marvelous.
YES THEY DO.
Originally Posted by mgh888
My post talked about what the ARTICLE said. It did not talk about what you said or didn't say. You made a comment that "Looking more into this story, it's looking more and more like a witch hunt." and you used the article to justify it. I explained the article implied no such thing.
For someone who just wrote that you bring up Baker because you are intelligent - your comprehension skills are flat out bad, or rather they are clouded by your always wanting to be a victim and a desire to call others "Liar" when they did no such thing. It's a complete manipulation on your part. It is akin to every time you use the "alternate reality" line to dismiss someone's opinion have them crying and whining "to the powers that be" and saying you are calling them a liar each time you say that. And you say it a LOT.
Just stop. Admit you are wrong and claiming things that were never said and never implied. What was written and what was meant and discussed was the content of the ARTICLE.
Here's one quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile Dog
j/c:
Looking more into this story, it's looking more and more like a witch hunt.
The "Liar" - "Alternate Reality" and the "To the Powers that Be" - are all so prevalent I didn't need to cut and paste.
So what you just posted is a deceitful, deflective, lie. I'd try to call it something else but it is what it is. You wrote that post after my response. I have highlighted each item written in quotation marks and you have written each of them. In previous posts when referencing the article I clear state in writing for everyone to see "the article" .... Stop It vers, you just look worse and are cluttering up the board with non-football stuff because I'm not going to not respond to your lies and deception when you are implying lied.
The two looming issues for the Cleveland Browns still have no certainty of having conclusions anytime soon. Connected to each other, the acquisition of QB Deshaun Watson with the possibility of him being suspended and the divorce with former QB Baker Mayfield have been the team’s primary storylines this offseason.
While few think Mayfield will be around for the start of training camp, anything is possible at this point.
Many believe, given an agreement between the two lawyers in the civil cases, that Watson’s possible suspension could be delayed until the 2023 season. That feeling changed last week when the NFL flew to Houston to meet with the quarterback.
Now, according to Watson’s lawyer Rusty Hardin, there is an expectation that the league will make a decision before the civil cases conclude:
“We should know what their position is initially sometime in June, and then everybody will figure out if there’s going to be a hearing about it or can people work things out, or whatever,” Hardin told cleveland.com by phone on Friday evening. “The only thing that’s certain is that they want to try to get everything done this summer — and earlier than later in the summer. Past that, we don’t really have any firm dates or possibilities.”
Perhaps the most interesting statements are those at the end where Hardin notes a desire to conclude the process this summer.
In the same interview, Watson’s lawyer notes that they are expecting the league to meet with the quarterback again.
“We should know what their position is initially sometime in June, and then everybody will figure out if there’s going to be a hearing about it or can people work things out, or whatever,” Hardin told cleveland.com by phone on Friday evening. “The only thing that’s certain is that they want to try to get everything done this summer — and earlier than later in the summer. Past that, we don’t really have any firm dates or possibilities.”
Perhaps the most interesting statements are those at the end where Hardin notes a desire to conclude the process this summer.
Hopefully that's good news? If the NFL is willing to pronounce a punishment or verdict before it goes to civil trial (or settlement) then maybe they feel confident there is not bad/worse news coming down the line ? Someone on the board mentioned - possibly the worse thing the NFL could do would be to hand out a X number game ban, then find out next off season DW is found liable in one or more of the Civil Cases. Really hard to see the NFL metering out a ban if they felt that the outcome of the trial was in jeopardy.
It's still a Civil issue. The outcome of the civil suits should be of no real concern to the NFL unless they somehow turn criminal. The NFL's only real concern is Watson tarnishing the NFL and in turn dragging the Shield in to his mess. As far as the NFL should be concerned, 1 is the number. It doesn't really matter if it is 1, 22, or 200 allegations. The PR is pretty much the same.
My guess is the NFL will render a decision soon, and at the same time urge him to just settle and be done with it...I am sure the other lawyer and women hope for the same. If it isn't for the money, then it is for just getting it over with.
A early decision helps the NFL as well. It gives them some leverage to help convince Watson to just settle to make it go away. Give him 6 games and him not appeal. Make it go away and the NFL won't have any reason to revisit at some point down the road.
As for the settlement, I don't know what number would be good, but if I was Watsons attorney, it would have to be all plaintiffs sign on or no deal.
Again, I understand that the powers that be are Baker fans and are upset about Watson, but as leaders of this board..........do you think it might be time to be a bit more fair in what is permitted and what is not?
Quote
I have no problem if someone like Baker and detests Watson. However, I do have a problem when people resort to lies and bullying attacks to silence an alternative opinion.
You mean like the lie that those who wish for DW to be held accountable only do it because they love Baker? That kind of lie?
Looking more into this story, it's looking more and more like a witch hunt.
And even though you just throw out this kind of crap and refuse to back it up with anything to support it, once again I'll ask, what do you base that on?
I came across this while looking for some information about Jacoby Brissett.
Quote
WATSON EMBRACED BY TEAMMATES IN BROWNS' OFFSEASON PROGRAM
BEREA, Ohio (AP) — Deshaun Watson made a strong impression on his new teammates long ago, scrambling for first downs and rifling touchdown passes while becoming an elite quarterback playing in Houston.
Now in Cleveland, the one he makes off the field may matter more.
Acquired from the Texans in a trade last month, Watson is getting to know the Browns better — and vice versa — during the team's voluntary offseason program, which will allow the three-time Pro Bowler to focus on football while legally fighting to clear his name.
The 26-year-old has been accused by 22
There's also possible discipline from the NFL, now conducting its own inquiry to determine if Watson violated the league's personal-conduct policy.
On Wednesday, coach Kevin Stefanski acknowledged Watson's legal schedule could intersect with the team's.
“We will work through those types of things,” Stefanski said. "As you know, there are ongoing proceedings, and we will make sure that we work through those.”
The Browns did not make Watson available to the media Wednesday, leaving Stefanski and three players to address questions about what the QB's arrival means to a team that went all in to add him to its roster.
Stefanski said Watson is fitting in fine.
“He's being embraced by his teammates,’’ Stefanski said. “We’re in Day 2 of the offseason program so I think it’s like any player on your team that’s new, it takes time to develop relationships. Now is that time.”
Stefanski declined to say whether Watson addressed the Browns about his legal issues or if he was encouraged to do so.
“I am not going to get into specifics there, but I would tell you, with all of our new players when you are first around your teammates, there is a process that you go through in getting to understand people, and you can’t do that all at once and have lunch with the entire team type of thing,” Stefanski said.
“I think Deshaun, like all of our new players, understands that you have to spend time at it when you are talking about developing relationships. He has done a nice job of being around the guys.”
Cornerback Denzel Ward, who officially signed his record-setting five-year, $100 million contract extension Tuesday, didn't have any prior relationship with Watson other than playing against him.
“He seems like a great guy,” Ward said.
The Browns' decision to pursue Watson and ultimately give him a fully guaranteed $230 million contract has angered some fans. The optics are certainly questionable given the accusations against Watson, who sat out last season.
While not speaking for all his teammates, Ward said he's confident general manager Andrew Berry and the club's front office did its research before bringing in a player with character questions.
“I trust those guys. I trust what they did," Ward said. "Meeting Deshaun, he seems like a nice guy, and he’s obviously a great talent and I’m looking forward to continuing to build our relationship on and off the field.”
Quarterback Jacoby Brissett will get to know Watson better than most.
Signed as a free agent to be Cleveland's backup, Brissett could be the starter depending on whether Watson gets suspended. It's a familiar role for the veteran, who has made 30 career starts during stints with New England, Indianapolis and Miami.
Like Ward, Brissett had little personal background with Watson. They faced off twice a year in the AFC South, but Brissett said those interactions were limited to a postgame handshake and a few words.
They'll share a room in Cleveland with Josh Dobbs.
Brissett said his early interactions with Watson have been positive.
“The relationship is growing,” he said. “I wouldn’t say we’re best friends, but I can see why people gravitate to him. He seems like a really good dude. He’s very upbeat, a very joyful guy to be around.”
Along with staying ready, Brissett said he'll also be another level of support for Watson.
“I’ve been around this league to know that players, we deal with real life things, and it goes deeper than football,’’ Brissett said.
Amari Cooper never imagined his trade to Cleveland this winter would be followed by a bigger one.
Just days after the Browns acquired the four-time Pro Bowler from Dallas, Cooper was vacationing in Dubai when word reached him that Watson would be his teammate.
“I was asleep,” Cooper said. “I woke up and saw a whole bunch of text messages and stuff like that. Guys were like, ‘Man, you are lucky.’ It was some of my former teammates, and I was like, ‘What?’ It was cool. I was happy about it.”
Cooper has no doubt he and Watson will connect.
“He’s a great player. I’m a great player,” Cooper said. “We’re going to make it work by any means necessary.”
All the posts still exist, so I guess putting statements that were never made into quotation marks in a lame attempt to discredit another poster is acceptable. Marvelous.
I know it upsets you terribly when you can't dictate to the owner and moderators how they should run this board. "Gloom, despair and agony on me."
The NFL has never based it's suspensions on whether someone is convicted in a criminal court of law. Maybe some feel they should but that's not how it has worked in the past.
For those of you who enjoy the technical aspects of the game, here is an article that was written by a former high school coach who was adding some intel on Watson. I am just going to post the link because there are numerous photos that are used as visual aids to assist the text.
Jake Burns is a guy who I really respect in regards to understanding the game. It is amazing how often he sees things on the field the same way I do. I think most know about him on here and most think highly of him. I'm going to post a link to a radio interview he did w/one of the local Cleveland stations. It's not for everyone, but guys who love the intricacies of the game will enjoy it. He addresses what Watson will do, some takes on Baker, and some on Brissett. The cool thing to note is that he is still in the process of evaluating Watson and hasn't even got to Watson's best season, which was the last year he played. I am so looking forward to seeing the video breakdowns that Jake does once he gets through his evaluation process. Anyway, here is the link for those of you who are football junkies.
I don’t think being pro or anti Deshaun is going to matter in a few weeks. My gut feeling is that the tide is turning and he’s going to be out of football for a much longer stretch than we think. The Gumble interview the general uptick in recent negative press, the lack of shock and feeling of righteousness of the Trevor Bauer suspension and the fact that Goodell and the NFL risks much more in going easy on him rather than throwing the kitchen sink at him all adds up to a historic suspension coming. I could easily see a year. You bet if could be 2 years. If for no other reason than the other owners dropping the hammer on the Browns for that horrific contract.
I’m sorry for us, the Browns fans. I don’t know if Haslam drove the trade but I really thought this group, the FO and coaching was smarter than this. Deshaun is absolutely a better QB than baker but that is just not even close to the only consideration when making a trade like this. A healthy Baker may not have been the long term answer but even if he’s 80% a deshaun without all this crap hanging over the team and the off-season I would have taken that. Might it have been enough to get us to the SB? With everything else this teams has? I don’t know. But it’s not a definite no.
And so if I’m right, what then? No 1st round picks for 2 more years and hacks chucking the ball while we wait for the most divisive player in the league to get out of football jail, with a drip drip drip of tabloid headlines and toxic news as it moves it’s way through by the courts, all the while our cap number is spiking. A player that I and quite a few other lifelong Browns fans would and could never support or wear the Jersey of is going to save us after (at the very least) 18 months to 2 years, maybe significantly longer, of not playing or practicing. What a disaster. I wouldn’t hate it so much if I didn’t think we were actually pretty close to seriously contending. Now we have to just pray that the leagues mood miraculously sweetens and everything just falls our way. Very very poor risk management. Where have we seen this before???
I find it interesting that for his supporters, Watson can repeatedly go on national TV and declare his innocence and in not so many words accuse the women of doing nothing more than spreading lies. Yet, when it's announced that the women are now going to go public with HBO so that their side of the story can be told as the victim rather than from a bias reporter, Watson supporters are crying foul. There have already been numerous contradictions between Watson's public statements when compared to his depositions. Statements like he'd never treat women that way because he has a girlfriend to admitting he had numerous supposed consensual sexual interactions with some of the women to she ended the session and was crying so I apologized but didn't know what I did to make her cry and she refused my calls.
If this guy's name was Bob Smith, a local dude that was accused of this crap, people would be calling for his head. However, because his name is Watson the football star, we won't question his story changes and demean the women at every opportunity. If the allegations are true, Watson isn't just a creepy fellow, this dude is a SERIAL SEXUAL ABUSER. There have been 24 complaints, 22 of those have civil suits against Watson with an additional 18 that have had some type of interaction with Watson of which we have very little details around those 18 interactions. That's 42 women that have admitted having an interaction with Watson. How many more are out there that we don't know about?
Watson is innocent until proven guilty. I believe that should play out. However, Cleveland playing this dude and allowing the cases to be delayed so he can play is a bad look for the Browns and the NFL. The fallout will be huge for the Browns and the NFL if Watson is allowed to play and ultimately found guilty of the accusations against him. On the surface, it sure appears that Watson was trolling Instagram looking for massages with happy endings. His celebrity allowed him to push the situation. If true, that's a Serial Sexual Abuser by anyone's standard and he should not be playing until resolved. Just my HO.
I find it interesting that for his supporters, Watson can repeatedly go on national TV and declare his innocence and in not so many words accuse the women of doing nothing more than spreading lies. Yet, when it's announced that the women are now going to go public with HBO so that their side of the story can be told as the victim rather than from a bias reporter, Watson supporters are crying foul.
Who are these supporters? Also, who are the biased reporters? Almost all of the articles out there are throwing shade at Watson.
Peen you have the legal background not I so please educate me on somethings.
To my understanding the DA decided not to pursue any legal action. This however doesn't mean its done and over as in he went to trial and the verdict is Not Guilty and you cannot be tried again for the same crime.
I bring that up only because I read somewhere that around 20 witnesses have showed up that were not involved with any action but its about DW's sexual actions from their experience. The article I read said that this is a new development and criminal action against DW is possible as there is more of a case to build around. Legally is this possible still? And when would it be officially over on the Legal side of things. not Civil side??? Thanks in advance and any other dawg out there in the legal know how please go right ahead.
Ther words are be taken seriously, but Watson's are not? Talking about unfair treatment. Just because they are going on HBO, doesn't mean they are being truthful. Maybe they are, I'm not in a position to say, but I don't see how this makes them any more credible. Seems to me, that you in no way will ever give Watson the benefit of the doubt. Whether he did it or not, condemning him before the facts are clear is typical of the people in this country now. No longer is innocence before being found guilty being applied.
These women going on TV is tainting the jury pool. I also have to wonder how much they are being paid to do it.
I find it interesting that for his supporters, Watson can repeatedly go on national TV and declare his innocence and in not so many words accuse the women of doing nothing more than spreading lies. Yet, when it's announced that the women are now going to go public with HBO so that their side of the story can be told as the victim rather than from a bias reporter, Watson supporters are crying foul. There have already been numerous contradictions between Watson's public statements when compared to his depositions. Statements like he'd never treat women that way because he has a girlfriend to admitting he had numerous supposed consensual sexual interactions with some of the women to she ended the session and was crying so I apologized but didn't know what I did to make her cry and she refused my calls. .
I can only give you my take on this paragraph - but I don't see any commentary that Watson's words are less or more truthful or sincere or serious than anyone else's. I do not see this paragraph as saying the women's words are more or less serious than Watson's. I believe the comment is a reaction to some posts on here that suggested that it was unfair that the women got to tell their story on HBO and that it would be one sided with no way to verify if it was truthful and no cross examination etc. There is a comment to the potential conflict of testimony from DW but I don't think that's the main thrust of the point made. Just my understanding on the comment is that DW and his representatives have repeatedly talk in the media about their innocence, their seeking a trial to clear his name etc - and that was all accepted without any reaction (I don't think there should be) - but when the women get air time to tell their side, there was talk of gag orders and how DW's lawyer might be able to claim a mistrial - when essentially all that's happened is that the media is reporting each sides account/version/story. Of course, the HBO deal is going to be longer, more in depth and generate more press - so it's not truly equal and opposite, but I'm not sure how/why/what you do to deal with that other than to remain somewhat skeptical of everything you hear that can't be verified or doesn't pass the smell test.
If you can't discern the difference between maintaining your innocence (usually when asked) and putting out interviews to work the court of public opinion, I don't know what to tell you.
IIRC, Buzbee said early on that his goal was a settlement ($$$). These interviews and the leaked transcripts are being done by the accusers to work the court of public opinion in their favor (IMO, towards a settlement). I'm not criticizing what they're saying (their truth is their truth, not mine to criticize)... but I can't view this as anything other than biased/slanted for a strategic purpose. I'm not going to take what they're saying as the whole truth and make a judgement call on Watson.
The decision to delay court proceedings so he can play the season was not an outright win for Watson. There's going to be a lot more of this the longer it drags on.
There are several things that are extremely disturbing about this entire situation....And it there is plenty on both sides...
The timing of all of this is extremely fishy especially with relationships of the Lawyer and Texans ownership. The character/reputation of Buzbee is one of a sleezebag ambulance chaser that only deals in high profile cases and is not concerned with justice but rather money from a profession where 97% of the time leads to settlements. He even stated his whole plan was concerning the civil cases....because he doesn't make as much money if the criminal cases were to happen (he isn't involved as it would be the DA's)...The tactics being used are completely about "trying in the court of opinion" and not within the court of law. Mob rule...I cannot respect that...Other things are the fact that after these incidents took place, that some/many...of the women continued to work with him and some even tried to develop personal relationships. The fact that sexual events happened in what was supposed to be a professional setting(consensual or not). The sheer number of masseuses'\therapists he has used. I am sorry but COVID isn't a viable excuse. That some/many of these women were not qualified for the job he was hiring for...(in those situations misunderstandings can and will take place...on both sides). Where he was finding these women. The lengths he would go to obscure the events taking place...ie the hotel he frequently used, the people he used to help set these appointments up. The consistency of his story with the inconsistency of some of the women's stories, when you might expect the opposite to be true. The fact he is willing to pay more money to clear his name than to settle and get this over with. The fact that 2 separate Grand Juries found no reason to even take this to a criminal trial when as the saying goes, "A Grand Jury will indict a Ham Sandwich". That means no rape, no assault, and most importantly, no solicitation....you would think that they could have found at least 1 count of any of the above considering the number of accusations...
So much that is messed up in this...And I have trouble believing anyone who has made a determination concerning these incidents. On either side...
Speaking of Grand juries: Ballpeen, you mentioned "unless it goes back to criminal" when pointing out these were civil cases. With 2 Grand Juries decisions, can you expand on what might bring this back into a Criminal Court? Obviously, I would think new evidence to see the light...but if such evidence existed, why would it not have been presented in the other possible indictments???
The one area I disagree is the notion that the Grand Jury not indicting is significant and that you can "indict a ham sandwich". between !% and 2% of all sexual abuse cases (from rape to harassment etc) result in a conviction. I've posted links - the numbers that actually get prosecuted are very low. 30+% of rape/attempted rape (not what DW is accused) never even gets reported to the police. I honestly don't believe that a DA not moving forward with prosecution means much other than perhaps the DA not wanting to spend time on a high profile prosecution he has a 98% chance of losing.
Other than that I think you are spot on. And to be fair - while many debate the various minutia or tone of posts, I think most on this board have reserved judgement and are not proclaiming one way or the other. I have seen other media sites (The Athletic for one) where many comments are black and white in favor of exonerating Watson or convicting Watson on the limited amount of information we have at the moment.
Watson: I wouldn't do anything like that because I have a girlfriend too I had consensual sex with those women.
Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that woman too a BJ isn't sex.
Call it what you might but with a minimum of 42 women to have now come forward (there could be more), Watson is either a serial sexual deviant or a serial sexual abuser. Eventually we will find out.
It might not be HBO - and I don't begrudge them doing this because each side would do the same as the other given the roles being reversed .... but this is certainly more than responding to a question and maintaining innocence. jmo
Watson: I wouldn't do anything like that because I have a girlfriend too I had consensual sex with those women.
Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that woman too a BJ isn't sex.
Call it what you might but with a minimum of 42 women to have now come forward (there could be more), Watson is either a serial sexual deviant or a serial sexual abuser. Eventually we will find out.
I agree w/a lot of what you say and especially the parts about trying the case in the court of public opinion and the mob rule. I think it's fairly evident that the attorney wants to use the negative attention levied at Watson, the Browns, and the NFL as leverage to get a large settlement before the cases go to trial. It may just work. Who knows?
I'd expect Hardin to respond after the episode airs tonight.
The statement by the Buzbee Law Firm, especially the part beginning w/the words...."This firm..." and all the way to the ending our a great example of trying the case in the court of public opinion and trying to create a mob mentality.
It's his job to do so and one cannot deny him that right, but it's also cheesy as can be. I don't know if it is because I had to sit through parts of episodes like The Peoples Court or Judge Judy while waiting in the doctor's office, but I have always turned a side eye on those who began their cases in Civil Court rather than Criminal Court.
I'd expect Hardin to respond after the episode airs tonight.
The HBO show might end up providing little in regards to what is real in this situation but it could mean everything to the NFL in terms of PR. Watson's team better have reaction plan.....similar to the opposing party just after a SOTU address.
Losing like they are in the court of public opinion could very well result in significant damage to Watson. They absolutely must respond (or might as well move to settle).
People like to think the “court of public opinion” is just not relevant or important or shouldn’t be in situations like but, hello, it’s THEE most important aspect that his lawyers and the team should be concerned with managing. The criminal aspects of this have fallen by the wayside leaving only the civil and in the civil proceedings of celebrities, especially when it includes salacious issues, nothing matters more than the court of public opinion. Just ask Johnny and Amber. Deshaun could very well win most or all of his civil cases and lose the public opinion one. In fact, he’s getting epically dunked on as we speak. Losing that means a long suspension and a much more darkly forever tainted reputation.
Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind on this board about whether he’s a scumbag or just a very unlucky gold-diggers target or something in between but something I think most might agree on is that it’s being managed HORRIBLY. Dude should have settled… yesterday! Mere moments after the grand jury(s) declined. Just get it the hell out of the public and NFL brass’s sight lines. It’s only going to get louder and uglier until the day the nfl is essentially forced to drop the hammer. The Browns giving him that contract upped the stakes exponentially and made the end game for the Buzzby very clear… the court of public opinion is now where Deshaun lives and dies.
IIRC, Buzbee said early on that his goal was a settlement ($$$).
Most lawyers want a settlement outside of a criminal trial. I'd almost say all. A judge/jury is an unknown, you want the outcome you can be satisfied with and not have to roll the dice of chance. I am sure Watson wants a settlement as well, just with different terms.
The one area I disagree is the notion that the Grand Jury not indicting is significant and that you can "indict a ham sandwich". between !% and 2% of all sexual abuse cases (from rape to harassment etc) result in a conviction. I've posted links - the numbers that actually get prosecuted are very low. 30+% of rape/attempted rape (not what DW is accused) never even gets reported to the police. I honestly don't believe that a DA not moving forward with prosecution means much other than perhaps the DA not wanting to spend time on a high profile prosecution he has a 98% chance of losing.
So I do get where you are coming from...but please consider that I am not arguing conviction rates but rather the indictment process itself. I also understand that many rape cases never go to trial because of plea bargains for lesser crimes(I believe well over a 3rd of reported...*I could have that wrong)...therefore does this skew any statistics (for or against) because the charge ends up different and or because it did not go to trial??? There are so many issues when it comes to this topic...and it is sad, unfortunate, and startling. For a variety of reasons we do not do a good job of convicting in these situations...But again, the crime/offense is not what I am considering here. It is the ease and rate of the indictment process.
Generally, grand juries will issue indictments in most if not all cases. The standard for indictment is probable cause. In the context of the grand jury, the Supreme Court has stated, “Probable cause, we have often told litigants, is not a high bar: It requires only the ‘kind of “fair probability” on which ‘reasonable and prudent [people,] not legal technicians, act.’”[3]
The grand jury process is now so routinized in most state jurisdictions that it has become a pro forma proceeding to deliver an indictment for a prosecutor. It is for this reason that most lawyers say, repeating the famous expression of the former chief judge of the highest New York state court, Sol Wachtler, that prosecutors can get grand juries to “indict a ham sandwich.”[4] According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.”[5] These statistics may not be representative of all state grand jury practices – some of which are more pro forma in ordinary cases and others may require hearing a range of evidence that federal prosecutors are not required to present.
This is why I think it significant. Because these numbers suggest, that regardless of the crime purportedly committed...it is almost guaranteed to be indicted. Especially since the Defendant doesn't even get to provide his side of the story. It is completely in the Prosecution's hands...with 22 allegations (granted not all pressed charges, but many did) there wasn't a single count that they couldn't/wouldn't indict him for???? Twice????? In a legal sense...it is significant.
Losing like they are in the court of public opinion could very well result in significant damage to Watson. They absolutely must respond (or might as well move to settle).
None of which was hard to forecast or predict. Whether people might want to say Buzbee is sleazy or whatever - he is doing exactly what the American system allows him to do - he's doing it to maximum affect. If the boot was on the other foot I think people would need to be ignorant to think Rusty Hardin wouldn't be doing the exact same thing. I don't like it - I think it stinks and it is anything but just or fair ... but it is what it is and we have to sit and watch it all and keep our fingers crossed.
People like to think the “court of public opinion” is just not relevant or important or shouldn’t be ...
I don't believe that people think that. I do believe that a man's innocence or guilt should be decided in the courts and not by public opinion. Those are two different things. Some of us believe in justice and others believe in mob mentality.
Just want to respond to say I agree with you re: it is what it is. I acknowledge Buzbee's right to leverage everything he can to get his clients the max. He's doing his job the best he knows how to do. I wish this type of thing could be a little more honorable (if that's the right word), but that's not Buzbee's fault and I acknowledge that.
Everything you said makes sense and is reasonable. I was trying to find out what % of cases reported (sexual assault/misconduct) are indicted. I can't seem to come up with a clean number. The numbers of prosecutions is low - the number of convictions is ridiculously low. What you said is clear - but I think in cases without witnesses and "he said/she said" - I just don't see strong evidence that grend jury's lean towards indictment. If I can find anything that indicates a high proportion - heck a middling amount - of reported cases lead to indictment by a GJ I could be persuaded to think otherwise.
IIRC, Buzbee said early on that his goal was a settlement ($$$).
During the podcast that Hardin just did (that I posted) it was interesting to hear Hardin say they were close settling when the a trade of Watson to Miami was in the works last year. Hardin said the trade broke down in part because Buzbee wanted NDAs of the settlement signed so as to not make the dollar amount public. Two of the women also did not want to settle at that time. Hardin would not agree to this and stated that Buzbee did not want it to become public how much of the settlement money he was getting and how little was actually being paid out to the women.
The podcast was an interesting listen. Hardin also said it was he who was pushing for criminal complaints to be filed, strongly believing Watson was not guilty of what he was being accused of doing. Hardin stated the court of public would never believe Watson's attorney proclaiming his clients guilt, hence him wanting a full criminal investigation.
People like to think the “court of public opinion” is just not relevant or important or shouldn’t be ...
I don't believe that people think that. I do believe that a man's innocence or guilt should be decided in the courts and not by public opinion. Those are two different things. Some of us believe in justice and others believe in mob mentality.
As oober says just above me, this falls squarely in the “it is what it is” bucket. The American legal and media environment is just what it is. Hey, it shouldn’t rain on birthday either.
I deeply fault his lawyers and the team for playing checkers when anyone with a passing understanding of the world celebrity sex scandals knows this full contact chess. The team should have stipulated with the contract that Deshaun and his lawyer would do everything in their power to get this flushed as quickly as possible. Nope. He’s going to fight for his dignity and Innocence long after that ship sailed, rightly or wrongly, I’m the public mind, never to be revisited. Someone really and truly should have diagramed all the possible outcomes for him. It makes it very clear that if you’re a celebrity in a sex scandal with anything short of a complete slam dunk outcome in your favor, you make it go away, quickly. Every other outcome is: you lose. And even more so in this case: Browns lose.
The team should have stipulated with the contract that Deshaun and his lawyer would do everything in their power to get this flushed as quickly as possible. Nope. He’s going to fight for his dignity and Innocence long after that ship sailed, rightly or wrongly, I’m the public mind, never to be revisited. Someone really and truly should have diagramed all the possible outcomes for him. It makes it very clear that if you’re a celebrity in a sex scandal with anything short of a complete slam dunk outcome in your favor, you make it go away, quickly. Every other outcome is: you lose. And even more so in this case: Browns lose.
Interestingly, Hardin discussed that when the trade last year with Watson to Miami was being discussed, Miami's owner, Stephen Ross, was requiring that all civil matters be resolved/settled prior to agreeing to the trade. I mentioned a few posts up how close this trade was and why it fell through.
Hardin said after the Miami trade fell through and once the criminal matters were resolved, several teams were willing to allow Watson and his attorney to handle the civil cases in the manner they best see fit for Watson. Watson was appreciative of this gesture by the Browns. Hardin said the Browns have been great about allowing Watson and Hardin handle the civil cases without interfering in the process.
Which is ridiculous. I don’t understand this team’s risk management system. You pencil out like 5 potential outcomes when trading the farm for Watson and the ones the come at the end of “leave him be and let him take the civil suits as far as possible, potentially all way to dozens of trials” has such an incredibly low chance for anything that could be defined as success. Like I said, anyone with a passing understanding of this knows this is wrestling a pig, even if you win you’re covered head to toe in crap and a lot poorer regardless. And the team gets covered in the same crap while losing money and picks hand over fist. Just so so so stupid.
It's possible that was a stipulation from Watson's side that was necessary to close the deal.
In then end, winning, especially winning a SB, can mask the smell of mountains and mountains pig poop. See Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger. Also, neither franchise had their reputation tarnished.
All 22 cases will never go trial. At a certain point, Buzbee's time spent on every individual case in court will not be worth the ROI. He needs a big settlement for all 22 cases at one time. Hardin knows this and it's likely one of the reasons they are pushing for every case to go to trial. It's currently at a see who blinks first stalemate.
The scales of justice are supposed to be balanced not leaning to one side or the other. Much has been posted here about Watson being innocent until proven guilty and more so his playing this year for the Browns. What about the victims? Aren't they entitled to a speedy trial and the right to face the accused in court? Who does the seven-month break benefit? These women have nothing to gain by waiting another 7-months before these cases go to court. Watson on the other hand gets to be the face of the Cleveland Browns with celebrity status making millions of dollars while the women wait for justice to be served.
I believe in the justice system and innocence until proven guilty. Watson and his team of lawyers lost me as soon as he got a waiver from everything dealing with the cases during the football season. This is celebrity special treatment and a total disregard for the victims. This is not a single instance, this is a relationship with over 42 women and counting who at a minimum makes Watson a serial sexual diviant, and is accused of being a serial sexual abuser by 24 women.
Watson has been hired by the Cleveland Browns to be their QB. I'm fine with that as Watson is a talent that cannot be argued. What I can argue is that supporting a team that is hell bent on playing that person when they absolutely know that there is a 50% chance or more at this point that he will lose the civil suits in 2023 and be classified as a serial sexual abuser. My issue is if he's deemed an abuser in 2023, the Browns have insight to the fact he is an abuser today. Playing Watson with that knowledge will undoubtedly tarnish the image of the Cleveland Browns and the NFL for years and is a risk not worth taking.
There's also that chance that Watson is 50% or more innocent. If Watson goes to court to face his accusers and is deemed not guilty then I will support him as the Browns QB of the future. If the Browns insist on trying to play Watson before these women have their day in court then I'm not going to support him or the team. These women deserve their day in court and not on Watson's football guideline. By the way, that's not mob mentality - it's what is just and right for the victims and Watson.
If there is any silver lining, if he is suspended, he doesn't get paid, and he doesn't accrue seasons... and he doesn't impact our cap except for prorations of bonuses already paid. If he is suspended two full years, then in two years from now he will be playing the first of five years on the contract we just gave him.
If there is any silver lining, if he is suspended, he doesn't get paid, and he doesn't accrue seasons... and he doesn't impact our cap except for prorations of bonuses already paid. If he is suspended two full years, then in two years from now he will be playing the first of five years on the contract we just gave him.
Did not know this. I thought fully guaranteed meant just that. Well, that’s indeed a silver lining to a very dark cloud.
If there is any silver lining, if he is suspended, he doesn't get paid, and he doesn't accrue seasons... and he doesn't impact our cap except for prorations of bonuses already paid. If he is suspended two full years, then in two years from now he will be playing the first of five years on the contract we just gave him.
Did not know this. I thought fully guaranteed meant just that. Well, that’s indeed a silver lining to a very dark cloud.
unless I misunderstand the CBA's stance on suspension years, this is it.
He's still guaranteed that money, just not in the calendar years currently laid out.
It's possible that was a stipulation from Watson's side that was necessary to close the deal.
In then end, winning, especially winning a SB, can mask the smell of mountains and mountains pig poop. See Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger. Also, neither franchise had their reputation tarnished.
All 22 cases will never go trial. At a certain point, Buzbee's time spent on every individual case in court will not be worth the ROI. He needs a big settlement for all 22 cases at one time. Hardin knows this and it's likely one of the reasons they are pushing for every case to go to trial. It's currently at a see who blinks first stalemate.
And that would have been the point at which I would have walked away from that deal. I pretty much would have handled it the way Miami intended to. I mean, we’re giving him the biggest contract in history, there was no give the other way?
And the Browns are sadly in a very different position than the Steelers and Lakers were. They had players that fell from grace long after they were on the roster and part of the city. The Browns actively went out and gave the biggest contract in history to a guy with almost 2 dozen(!) cases still pending, a guy that rejected them. I mean, how that doesn’t reflect very personally on the franchise and a city…. ?
IIRC, Buzbee said early on that his goal was a settlement ($$$).
During the podcast that Hardin just did (that I posted) it was interesting to hear Hardin say they were close settling when the a trade of Watson to Miami was in the works last year. Hardin said the trade broke down in part because Buzbee wanted NDAs of the settlement signed so as to not make the dollar amount public. Two of the women also did not want to settle at that time. Hardin would not agree to this and stated that Buzbee did not want it to become public how much of the settlement money he was getting and how little was actually being paid out to the women.
The podcast was an interesting listen. Hardin also said it was he who was pushing for criminal complaints to be filed, strongly believing Watson was not guilty of what he was being accused of doing. Hardin stated the court of public would never believe Watson's attorney proclaiming his clients guilt, hence him wanting a full criminal investigation.
Worth the listen.
It sounds like I really need to listen to this podcast. Work and home have me pretty busy right now so I was hoping to piece together the cliff's notes from on here... but it sounds like there's too much to that interview.
The cool thing about rooting for a team is that one can just walk away if they disgust you so much. No one is forced to be a fan of a certain team. It's not like a child being raised by an abusive parent and is trapped in that horrific environment. The Browns play a game that is intended for our entertainment purposes. Now, if one played or worked for that team, it's a different story. And to be frank, it sure looks like Watson's teammates are embracing him being on the team.
Who can blame some fans if they choose to quit rooting for the Browns. It's a personal choice and doesn't tarnish your character. And in the end, no one really cares if you choose to stop supporting the team. The only exception I have is when people are desperately trying to recruit others to trash the player and team. It's a personal decision and should be respected no matter which decision you make.
Another factor - those instances were nearly 2 decades ago. Today it's a different landscape than it was even 5 years ago with these types of allegations, public awareness and perceived levels of acceptance. It doesn't matter if your name is Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Steve Wynn or Deshaun Watson .... the landscape is entirely different.
I don't think that is a fair way to look at it for guys who like me have been fans my entire life, or from 7-8 years old anyway. And being a DIE HARD fan for 50+ years, walking away is almostnot an option. But it may be the only option for some.
I was referring to this : "The cool thing about rooting for a team is that one can just walk away if they disgust you so much." Not getting into whatever debate you are having. Sorry, should have quoted it.
Re their contention that the league will be inclined to wait it out for some kind of resolution so as not to get it wrong… I don’t see why a very viable option for the league isn’t just to throw the book at him right off the bat and maybe walk it back a little bit appeals after the fact if it seems appropriate. I mean, too much discipline? Who’s going to complain? Cleveland? Pfft, who cares about Browns fans? They look strong on the subject and it’s just Cleveland that takes it in the chin.
I didn't take it like the league will be inclined to wait. I took it as a possibility. I understand that no one cares much about fairness, but waiting until all the facts are out would be the fair thing to do.
With that said, I posted the video more for the commentary how we are a legit Super Bowl contender if Watson plays most of the season. I like talking about football and that's why I used to enjoy how pure football talk was separated from legal matters, politics, social issues, etc.
From a pure football standpoint he’s totally exciting on the Browns roster. I mean, we’re devastating on paper with his arm, feet and vision. A whole head and shoulders above what we were last year or even 2020. How do you defend us? I guess having a weak WR room is where you start but we don’t have many weaknesses on O with him in the lineup. But it really is one of those “apart from that, the play was fantastic, wouldn’t you agree Mrs Lincoln?” kinda things.
I admit, I never paid much attention to Watson before he came here. But I just hope he can be half as good as the hype felt for him, pure football wise.
Easy double cooper Best db on Dpj Put a safety on njoku Then chubb faces a 8 man box all game Offensively they run right at us this defense finished 20th Against the rush and we are significantly weaker now then last Year.
in a pure football sense, the Watson situation is about football. Dog would want you to believe that Watson's ability to throw the ball or run to gain time is the pure football. That if his skills can uplift another player or throw a timely pass. However, pure football is more than just the skills exhibited on the field. Once you put on that uniform you are a representative of not only now but the past as well. The impact on the franchise through influence and your character are as important as the skill set you bring to the game. Still, it is perhaps the most significant indicator of predicting success or failure in a demanding environment such as the NFL. Character matters and it's too often overlooked. It isn't only the skill set that is going to lead the team to a championship, it's the character you display on and off the field. You're also representing those who came before you who displayed those skill sets and character such as:
Hanford Dixon: the creator of the modern day "Dawg Pound" Clay Matthews Jr: still leads the team in career tackles Lou Gorza: "The Toe" Leroy Kelly: 2nd in franchise history in rushing yds Dante Lavelli: "Gluefingers", 2nd all time in franchise receiving yards Paul Warfield: arguably the greatest wide receiver to ever wear a Browns uniform Joe Thomas: greatest Browns lineman in franchise history Ozzie Newsome: who did much more than just play the game Otto Graham: "The GOAT" in footballs early years A host of others............
Including Watson into this group with his off the field unresolved issues is a disgrace to these men of character, memories they left, and to the Cleveland Browns image.
Just ruminating: We would have been in a much better place had we selected Josh Allen instead of Mayfield. We would have had our franchise QB, retained all those draft picks, and a lot less 'problems'. Ah, the benefit of hindsight....
IMO you are going way to deep. You mention some greats from Browns history. But you don't know all the players that have worn the uniform.
Kellen Winslow as an example was scum.
Football is a professional work place. As such people who are employed can come in any type both good and bad. Some people(players) can also change as they go through life. People are given second chances in society. Criminals can be reformed.
Kareem Hunt seems to be popular with all his teammates. I have not seen DW being shunned by his teammates.
You are painting this idyllic team environment that is not reality when you have a roster of 53 people. Not all football players or for that matter any group of people are going to be saints.
The NFL is no different than any slice of people. Good, Bad, and Ugly.
Just ruminating: We would have been in a much better place had we selected Josh Allen instead of Mayfield. We would have had our franchise QB, retained all those draft picks, and a lot less 'problems'. Ah, the benefit of hindsight....
Only if we had grabbed their coach when we had the chance as well. I don't remember if we passed him over instead of Hue or Freddie, but Allen would've been about 3-4 QBs back on "The Jersey" by now if we drafted him.
Just ruminating: We would have been in a much better place had we selected Josh Allen instead of Mayfield. We would have had our franchise QB, retained all those draft picks, and a lot less 'problems'. Ah, the benefit of hindsight....
I agree w/you and I think the narrative from Baker fans that we would have ruined Allen is pure hogwash. On the other hand, it is extremely hard to evaluate college qbs due to the differences between the two games. Allen was the 3rd qb taken that year. Many had him 4th on their list. History shows that evaluating how college qbs will transition to the NFL is difficult. Trubisky was drafted quite a bit ahead of Mahomes and Watson. Tua was drafted ahead of Herbert. We can go on and on. So while I agree it proved to be a mistake, it's understandable.
If we wouldn't have ruined him, we would've dumped him after 1.5 poor seasons. IIRC, we were less than a year removed from the Kizer, Hogan, etc QB carousel.
The major issue with QB's coming into the NFL is whether the drafting team will build their team to the players skill set or if they will try to change the player to some conceived scheme. A vast majority of failed QB's in the league are due to the drafting team trying to change the player. That's not to be confused with fixing mechanics or footwork. Allen would have never survived in Cleveland because they wouldn't have stood for the risks and accuracy issues he had early on. In the last 2 decades, the Browns have never let a QB grow. In any case, BAL changed their entire offense to capitalize on Jackson's skill set. KCC built their offense for Mahomes skill set. CIN has done that with Burrow's. Rodgers in GB, Wilson in SEA, Prescott in DAL, and Brees in NO. There's more and of course supporting staff helps greatly but drafting a player at QB in the first round and then trying to mold him into something he isn't fails more times than not.
That is why I'm not sold on Watson being successful in Cleveland. His skill set is way outside the scheme that Stefanski will run. People will say that Stefanski will change the offense but IMHO, I'm very skeptical of that statement.
To be fair - I only remember posts about top flight WR not wanting to sign here. I do not recall a discussion about QB's not wanting to play here. Cap Space and Baker - most certainly have been on the agenda.
" Allen would have never survived in Cleveland because they wouldn't have stood for the risks and accuracy issues he had early on."
Not really certain you can say that without being specific on what regime would have been in place.
In regards to KS. The offense he ran with Baker worked well when Baker was playing well. In 2021 KS limited the offense because the quarterback was limited.
Your comments about DW and KS is pure speculation. There is absolutely nothing to base that upon. You can not go back to the Vikings or what took place here in Cleveland the last two years.
You have said the same thing numerous times about the Stefanski offense. I have not yet seen anything that proves your stance.
You maybe sold on your belief. But I can not say I am.
No team in the NFL was throwing away Josh Allen after two seasons... or three, or four.
Way too many plus plays would have occurred, in any city. Too many "wow, I've never seen that before" moments, those too were inevitable.
In this particular case (Cleveland) you're basically saying Baker survived where Josh Allen wouldn't have. I have no idea how anyone can come to that conclusion.
No top tier QB considered coming to Cleveland as a free agent. The Browns had to trade for one and dang near mortgaged the team to get it done with a contract the likes that has never been signed before in the NFL.
Cap is an issue, in fact, the Browns are already over the projected cap number for 2023 with 8 free agents needing signed. That's not saying the Browns won't make adjustments, but players will be cut, certain players won't be signed, and FA's will be minimal. Cap will be an issue going forward whether you want to believe that or not.
Mayfield is PUP and been PUP since January - tell me a team that has ever signed a new QB to their roster that was on the PUP list or traded for one.
The fault with that logic would be that DW had a no trade clause and effectively he decided where he was going. You can say his decision was based on the $$$ but you just wrote "not top QB considered coming to Cleveland" - because of the no trade clause DW was virtually a free agent. If you made these comments before I missed them - I have seen posts talking about WR not wanting to be under KS, not the QB angle.
The court of public opinion is about to get many times louder than it’s already been. The pressure on the league is going to get stupid. My very inexpert prediction is that the nfl drops the hammer and big before this season. Would not be 1 tiny bit surprised if he’s gone the whole year and appeals net nothing. The Browns should prepare for that possibility. Will they? I don’t see too much evidence of smartly anticipated moves so far. But Brisket is not a starter. A Baker trade maybe nets someone else’s backup. Any intriguing backups out there?
To be fair - I only remember posts about top flight WR not wanting to sign here. I do not recall a discussion about QB's not wanting to play here. Cap Space and Baker - most certainly have been on the agenda.
Watson chose the Browns. One of the reasons given was that he loved Stefanski and his offense. You said he would never choose the Browns because of Stefanski’s offense. Let’s not have revisionist history.
You also said we didn’t have the cap to get anyone significant this off-season.
You think a surgically repaired non-throwing shoulder is what is holding back the Baker trade? Let’s pretend Aaron Rodgers left shoulder was injured, do we think a team would trade for him? Derek Carr? Kirk Cousins?
If we wouldn't have ruined him, we would've dumped him after 1.5 poor seasons. IIRC, we were less than a year removed from the Kizer, Hogan, etc QB carousel.
Come on, man. Are Kizer, Hogan, and Kessler even in the league? They were terrible. Comparing them to Josh Allen is nuts. Hell, Baker is a far superior qb to those guys and we didn't dump him after a year and half and he isn't even in the same stratosphere as Allen.
That is why I'm not sold on Watson being successful in Cleveland. His skill set is way outside the scheme that Stefanski will run. People will say that Stefanski will change the offense but IMHO, I'm very skeptical of that statement.
I have provided videos and articles as to how Watson will fit Stefanski's offense. It's on you if you chose to ignore them. And I have not seen where people are saying that Stefanski has to change his scheme. Most of us hope he keeps his scheme and that he now has the ability to add some new things like 11 personnel at times because he finally has a qb who isn't so limited as Baker was.
That is why I'm not sold on Watson being successful in Cleveland. His skill set is way outside the scheme that Stefanski will run. People will say that Stefanski will change the offense but IMHO, I'm very skeptical of that statement.
I have provided videos and articles as to how Watson will fit Stefanski's offense. It's on you if you chose to ignore them. And I have not seen where people are saying that Stefanski has to change his scheme. Most of us hope he keeps his scheme and that he now has the ability to add some new things like 11 personnel at times because he finally has a qb who isn't so limited as Baker was.
The scheme is fine. If we are running the ball and using as much play action as we did with Baker then there is a problem.
I think running the ball and using play action is fine. We don't have to rely on that almost exclusively anymore. This offensive scheme is fairly popular across the NFL now. As you know, its roots began w/Shanahan/Kubiak and the tree has grown many branches. Personally speaking, I prefer that we stick more w/the Kyle Shanahan branch than the McVay branch because it suits our personnel better and is less risky.
If we wouldn't have ruined him, we would've dumped him after 1.5 poor seasons. IIRC, we were less than a year removed from the Kizer, Hogan, etc QB carousel.
Come on, man. Are Kizer, Hogan, and Kessler even in the league? They were terrible. Comparing them to Josh Allen is nuts. Hell, Baker is a far superior qb to those guys and we didn't dump him after a year and half and he isn't even in the same stratosphere as Allen.
My emphasis was more on the carousel part of my statement. That was the coaching staff that was literally rotating through QBs all through the season. IIRC, each QB that year both lost and regained the starting job at one point or another. Call it wrong or even just a difference of opinion, but you'll never convince me anyone other than a finished product QB would be able to come out of that in one piece.
Here is Watson's attorney, Rusty Hardin's, interview on 92.3 A worthwhile listen. Tomorrow at 6pm, Buzbee will be on to discuss the cases of the alleged victims.
Hardin had an interesting comment in which he noted that only (3) of the 22 cases would apply to the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy as he interprets the policy.
My .02. Deshaun Watson will not play for the Browns this year. The sanctimonious Goodell will use this punishment to cement his legacy that the NFL is 'pro-goodness' in keeping with their 'let's lift all boats' for minorities, women, others too numerous to name so the NFL machine is viewed the leader of the world of sports.
We still have Baker and can put him to work on the final year of his contract if Watson is suspended for the year.
That ship done sailed. Not a chance a person with Bakers ego structure allows himself to play for the Browns after what’s gone down. I wish we could work it out, he’s better than any other option out there but Baker playing for the Browns in ‘22 is toast.
I'm of the opinion that Godell should have done this last year. I am also of the opinion that Watson needs to be suspended and get it over with.
We still have Baker and can put him to work on the final year of his contract if Watson is suspended for the year.
Godell is not in charge of the investigation. Friel is.
I know you like Baker, bro. However, he's done in Cleveland. He can't come back after the comments he made about his teammates and the organization.
thanks for clarifying on who is in the lead.
It's funny... I hated when we drafted him. I liked his moxie when he was playing for us 2 years ago and thought he could turn things around. Now, I think he makes OBJ look like a role model citizen.
I think If we had to... I'm sure we could (realistically won't)
You and I have disagreed on Baker a lot. I never got on your case about Baker because you never got on my case about Baker. LOL......know what I mean? In other words and in case you don't........I disagreed w/your evaluations of Baker, but I let it go because you never ripped me for my takes on Baker, very much unlike a handful of other posters. We have agreed on many other takes over the decades.
I don't know how much you followed things, but when Baker talked about professional NFL players not wanting to win and caring more about their retirement funds during his podcast, he officially made himself an outcast in the locker room if he wasn't already at that point. You can't do that stuff. And I believe it is a huge reason why no team has traded for him. Who wants that in their locker room? Combine that w/him refusing to throw OBJ the ball because he wanted to be the focus of attention. The blaming of coaches. Calling out other players and coaches. The ongoing social media drama. His wife trashing our WRs and fans and questioning the toughness of other players. Dude has been toxic.
So, on other threads, when I say the best course of action for Baker would be to say he is grateful for the opportunity the Browns gave him and to thank the fans and his teammates. He could say that while things did not work out here but he did learn from them and he is going to work as hard as he possibly can to be the best version of himself as he can possibly be and guarantee that he will be a great teammate moving forward and he can even mention that he is supremely confident in his abilities but understands that he is the one accountable for his success or lack thereof...........and I will believe he will get another shot. Yet, when I say those things, his fan base is offended and continues to make excuses for him and puts the blame on others, including his "detractors."
It's almost as if his fan base are the ones advising him and believe me..........they are steering him wrong. On the other hand, perhaps his closest advisors have instructed him to take an approach more similar to my line of thinking and Baker and his wife are ignoring all of that and playing victims.
I'm assuming this is in response to one of the women's quotes from HBO?
I would like this situation resolved, but if Watson is innocent, I can't blame him for trying to clear his name. Even if he does, there will be those that consider him a "predator," "rapey," a "sexual deviant," "creepy," etc. But, screw them. This is his life.
You and I have disagreed on Baker a lot. I never got on your case about Baker because you never got on my case about Baker. LOL......know what I mean? In other words and in case you don't........I disagreed w/your evaluations of Baker, but I let it go because you never ripped me for my takes on Baker, very much unlike a handful of other posters. We have agreed on many other takes over the decades.
Honestly, the only conversation where I thought you and I completely disagreed was Jabal Sheard vs Paul Fricking Kruger (I still hate Kruger) LOL.
Obviously, I have a huge amount of respect for you and your knowledge of the game.
I feel like Baker was given a ton of bad advice and it probably cost him his career as a starter in the NFL.
Do you know what sucks? Over the last several years the Browns have yet to survive an offseason without a dramatic drama scene or scenes.
We may have the best roster Cleveland has seen since the 60s. Yet, here we are reading about our first picked QB a few years ago expressing his displeasure with the organization demanding a trade. The front office making a blockbuster trade for an arguably top 5 QB. Who, by the way, is getting sued for inappropriate behavior. I mean you can't write any better soap opera.
Just one time, I like to go through a boring offseason. Sadly, other teams have similar issues, yet, in Cleveland, this team seems to make the front page. I am simply dumbfounded how this organization consistently makes the headlines in the National Enquire! I mean think about it. If this happens in Tennessee, Indianapolis, or Carolina, it's a blip on the radar for a week or two and it goes away.
In the 70s, 80s, and 90s, Cleveland had some very talented teams who go unnoticed for a whole season and only get national attention in the playoffs.
For those of you that watched the HBO show... Did your mind change? Did you learn anything new?
A rehash of what I have already read. No new information was presented. I'd guess it will have more of an impact on someone that has had this on their periphery.
For those of you that watched the HBO show... Did your mind change? Did you learn anything new?
A rehash of what I have already read. No new information was presented. I'd guess it will have more of an impact on someone that has had this on their periphery.
I'm curious if and how much they were paid for their story...
For those of you that watched the HBO show... Did your mind change? Did you learn anything new?
A rehash of what I have already read. No new information was presented. I'd guess it will have more of an impact on someone that has had this on their periphery.
I'm curious if and how much they were paid for their story...
I would put piles of money on $0. This would be a disastrous if it came to light they were paid and would destroy any credibility both the alleged victims and HBO had in the production of the show. It would also ruin their civil lawsuits. Hardin would have a field day if they were paid.
Has there ever been a confirmed - or even reasonable - explanation as to why Watson did not play - or attempt to play - last year? He's planning to play THIS year and is STILL stating his innocence. So, why sit out last year but wish to play this year? What's changed besides the uniform? Also, where the hell has the NFL been in this matter? Where were they LAST year on this?
People talk about 22 women who are making claims. What about the 24 people who sat on two Grand Jury's to hear the facts and didn't feel anything should move forward?
People talk about 22 women who are making claims. What about the 24 people who sat on two Grand Jury's to hear the facts and didn't feel anything should move forward?
Agreed. Think about how the NFL reacted. All was quiet on the Watson trade front. Once the GJ declined to move forward on the Watson's criminal case, multiple teams expressed interest in acquiring him.
People talk about 22 women who are making claims. What about the 24 people who sat on two Grand Jury's to hear the facts and didn't feel anything should move forward?
The decision by the Grand Jury has been talked about extensively. I don't know if you missed it? There are literally dozens and dozens of posts/comments and discussion about it.
I've only seen the one snippet of the HBO interview - as someone said, nothing new for anyone who has been following. And I'd say Rusty's airplay and response in has been pretty out there too, although from what I have seen it looks like Rusty's public rebuttals and comments have been on Ohio based media outlets and addressing Browns fans?
Has there ever been a confirmed - or even reasonable - explanation as to why Watson did not play - or attempt to play - last year? He's planning to play THIS year and is STILL stating his innocence. So, why sit out last year but wish to play this year? What's changed besides the uniform? Also, where the hell has the NFL been in this matter? Where were they LAST year on this?
Didn't DW sit out and demand a trade as a result of not being included in discussions about the decision of Houston's new Head Coach? And then as a result of these allegations surfacing, he was not able to be traded because NFL teams weren't willing to take the risk. . . . which is another flaw in the whack conspiracy theory that the owner hurt his team deliberately by initiating the sexual allegations by calling his neighbor.
Has there ever been a confirmed - or even reasonable - explanation as to why Watson did not play - or attempt to play - last year? He's planning to play THIS year and is STILL stating his innocence. So, why sit out last year but wish to play this year? What's changed besides the uniform? Also, where the hell has the NFL been in this matter? Where were they LAST year on this?
Didn't DW sit out and demand a trade as a result of not being included in discussions about the decision of Houston's new Head Coach? And then as a result of these allegations surfacing, he was not able to be traded because NFL teams weren't willing to take the risk. . . . which is another flaw in the whack conspiracy theory that the owner hurt his team deliberately by initiating the sexual allegations by calling his neighbor.
I remember reading that he was miffed about the HC decision-making and that he was in the facility last year and on the 53. If he refused to report, he wouldn't get paid. So Houston willingly paid him to sit all year? And burned a roster spot all year? Did DW "want" to play last year? Then the NFL looked the other way because he wasn't playing...even though he was getting paid? Why wasn't the NFL "looking into" the allegations LAST year? It's not like they (allegations) weren't out there last year?
Why Deshaun Watson is unhappy with Texans, and what comes next
Jan 12, 2021 Sarah Barshop ESPN Staff Writer
HOUSTON -- The Houston Texans took a step toward moving past their 4-12 season and previous regime when they hired former Patriots director of player personnel Nick Caserio as their general manager on Thursday.
But instead of getting to celebrate the hire, Texans chairman and CEO Cal McNair reportedly upset his franchise quarterback Deshaun Watson with the hiring process.
According to Adam Schefter, McNair paid search firm Korn Ferry hundreds of thousands of dollars, but ignored their recommendation of hiring Pittsburgh Steelers vice president of football and business administration Omar Khan or ESPN Monday Night Football analyst Louis Riddick -- both minority candidates -- and instead went with Caserio, a close tie to Texans executive vice president of football operations Jack Easterby.
Now, as McNair and Caserio focus on finding the right head coach, they have to worry about mending fences with their franchise quarterback because he did not have a say in the general manager search.
How did we get here? Watson’s frustration with the Texans’ organization started in March when the team traded wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins to the Arizona Cardinals for running back David Johnson without letting the quarterback know about the deal before it happened.
While many feel the Texans did not get adequate value for the All-Pro receiver -- the Texans also received a 2020 second-rounder (which became DL Ross Blacklock) and a 2021 fourth-round pick and sent a 2020 fourth-round pick to Arizona (which became DL Rashard Lawrence) -- former head coach and general manager Bill O’Brien was right about one thing: Watson didn’t need Hopkins to put up big numbers.
Will Fuller V set career highs in receptions (53), receiving yards (879) and touchdowns (eight) in 11 games before he was suspended, and the addition of Brandin Cooks (team-high 81 catches and 1,150 yards, along with six TDs) helped Watson finish with an NFL-best 4,823 passing yards, as well as a career-high 33 passing touchdowns and career-low seven interceptions.
The frustration came back -- and increased -- after the Texans hired Caserio last week.
Racism is ruining the Houston Texans ByCarron J. Phillips 1/10/21 1:31PM
Can you blame Deshaun Watson for wanting out of Houston?
Hatred is a learned behavior that is passed down from one generation to the next. For the McNair family, it’s a tradition. So it should come as no surprise that their franchise is in shambles. After all, racism and mediocrity go together like peanut butter and jelly.
According to a report from ESPN, Texans owner Cal McNair — son of the late Bob McNair, who once doubled down on his criticism of Black players taking a knee, saying that he “can’t have the inmates running the prison” — paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to a search firm to help the team fill its general manager vacancy. But instead of hiring one of the two candidates of color presented to them — Omar Khan and Louis Riddick — the younger McNair ignored the firm’s recommendations and hired Nick Caserio, a white man.
Rumors and reports are flying about how pissed off Deshaun Watson is about McNair’s decision. It’s already been reported that Watson wanted Houston to hire Eric Bieniemy. As of now, the Texans are the only team with a head coaching vacancy that has yet to contact Bieniemy for an interview.
Bieniemy is Black, if you hadn’t figured it out by now.
Everything is falling apart for a team that just finished 4-12 with two of the best players in the NFL, and the ownership’s hatred of people who aren’t white is the reason.
This is the same franchise that hired, and fired, Bill O’Brien. A coach that allegedly made insensitive comments to DeAndre Hopkins during a meeting about his “baby mamas,” which is coded language used to describe Black people. O’Brien also decided to trade Hopkins, arguably the best wide receiver in the league, to Arizona for basically nothing. Interesting.
But, to be fair to O’Brien, it appears that he wasn’t liked by many in the locker room, regardless of color. In October, ESPN confirmed that J.J. Watt and O’Brien got into a “verbal blowup at practice” because the coach had “lost the team.”
However, while all of these things have taken place in Houston over the years, Watson had never publicly involved himself with any of it. He’d decided to stay away from anything controversial.
But then, Deshaun Watson woke up. As one of the faces of the league, he slowly but surely started to use his platform. We saw him marching and protesting over the summer. He’s found his voice and is realizing his power.
Top tiered QBs simply were not available in FA this is unheard of territory. Yes the end of careers. Unitas, Namoth, Kosar but not guys in their prime and 40's are like yesteryears 30s cause of conditioning.
My heart sunk as this young lady described her experience with DW. What a piece of crap we got for a QB. with a straight face he straight out LIED TO US.
BTW-------Omar Khan who was one of the two guys recommended by the search firm for hiring the Texans next GM is reportedly set to be hired as the Steelers next GM.
People talk about 22 women who are making claims. What about the 24 people who sat on two Grand Jury's to hear the facts and didn't feel anything should move forward?
The decision by the Grand Jury has been talked about extensively. I don't know if you missed it? There are literally dozens and dozens of posts/comments and discussion about it.
I
This is true, but (and maybe I'm only speaking for myself and out of my own ignorance) the conversation many times was steered towards the difficult conviction rate for the he said/she said nature of these crimes. What was left out (IIRC and IMO) was that getting charges to move forward is VERY different from getting a conviction... meaning you only need to establish probable cause... and in many courts (not sure where the TX grand juries fall on this spectrum) getting charges to move ahead is more of a rubber-stamping exercise.
TLDR: the failure in getting the grand jury to move forward on those charges might be a bigger deal than we originally thought/discussed.
Deshaun Watson sexual harassment accuser weeps as she recalls moment naked $230m NFL star 'deliberately grabbed his penis then shoved it into her hand' while she gave him massage
By ASSOCIATED PRESS and ALASTAIR TALBOT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM PUBLISHED: 15:19 EDT, 24 May 2022 | UPDATED: 01:06 EDT, 25 May 2022 link
A masseuse sobbed as she recalled the moment she claimed saw NFL star Deshaun Watson shove his penis into her hand during a rubdown.
Appearing on HBO's 'Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel,' Ashley Solis, one of 22 women who have sued Watson over allegations he behaved inappropriately with them, provided graphic details of an encounter with the three-time Pro Bowler.
'He ends up exposing himself, and I hurried up and covered him with a towel and he said: ''oh but you don't have to worry about the towel,'' Solis says in the trailer for the new series. ' And I said: ''yes I do.'' Solis has previously spoken of the harassment she says Watson meted out to her, but this is the first time she has gone on camera to do so.
'So then what happened?,' asked Soledad O'Brien, the correspondent for HBO.
'He requested that I work on his abdomen but the moment I went above his navel he told me he didn't want me to work there. He wanted me to work lower. He just kept directing me to go lower and [said] ''don't be scared, you can go in there'' and I just started really freezing up at this point,' Solis replied.
She added that at 'a wave' just took over her body at that point of her encounter with Watson, and that 'it was getting more and more clear that this is not what I signed up for.'
The 32-year-old alleged victim then went on to reveal that Watson 'deliberately grabbed himself' and 'put his penis on my hand and I pulled my hand away instantly and I started crying and I told him that I'm done and that I don't want to do this anymore.
She also said at the end of a massage, Watson told her: 'I know you have a career to protect,' and 'I know you don't want anyone messing with it just like I don't want anyone messing with mine.' Solis said Watson later ejaculated, and that it was 'mortifying and disgusting and embarrassing' when that happened.
Solis, who was the first massage therapist to file a lawsuit, was asked why Watson's message frightened her. 'Because that sounded like a threat to me,' she said in the interview, which aired Tuesday night.
Another fellow massage therapist, Kyla Hayes, also provided details of her meeting with Watson, who has been accused of sexual assault and harassment during massages he received while playing for the Houston Texans.
Watson has denied any wrongdoing and has maintained any sex with the women was consensual. Two grand juries in Texas declined to indict Watson on criminal complaints filed by 10 of the women.
In addition to being violated, Solis and Hayes both were offended by the five-year, $230 million contract Watson received in March from the Browns. Watson's deal is both the richest in NFL history and fully guaranteed.
'It's just like a big screw you,' Solis said. 'That's what it feels like. That we don't care. He can run and throw, and that's what we care about.'
Added Hayes, 'It was sick to me. ... I felt like he's being rewarded for bad behavior.'
Watson declined to be interviewed for the program, citing the league's ongoing investigation into his behavior.
Both women have previously spoken publicly about their interactions with Watson, and the quarterback's lead attorney, Rusty Hardin, said the HBO interviews were 'more of the same.'
Hardin acknowledged the interviews could further hurt Watson in the public eye, but he maintains his client hasn't been treated fairly either.
'I believe very strongly that these women's allegations ought to be listened to, investigated thoroughly, and everybody ought to keep an open mind as to whether they happened,' Hardin said. 'Similarly, I believe Deshaun's objections and denials should have been listened to until they have evidence and that's what's really been denied here.
'Everybody has made up their mind based on the allegation made. ... The guy they described is not the guy we know. And yet, he hasn't been given the benefit of the doubt and he should have.'
The Browns, who have spent two decades in a futile search for a franchise QB, pursued Watson along with several other teams. They convinced him to waive his no-trade clause and join Cleveland after he initially rebuffed the team.
One of Watson's lawyers, Leah Graham, was asked to explain on the show why, if he was only seeking professional massages, did Watson end up having sex with some of the women.
'Well, in every massage, I will tell you he did go, intending just for a professional massage, and only those three instances where sexual conduct occurred - consensual sexual activity - it occurred after the massage session had ended,' Graham said. 'And Mr. Watson has testified and is insistent that that sexual activity was initiated by the plaintiff in every single instance.'
During his introductory news conference with the Browns in March, Watson was adamant he has 'never assaulted, disrespected or harassed any woman in my life.'
When she was shown Watson's comments, Hayes began to cry.
'For him to say he's never done anything to a woman,' she said. 'It's a bold-faced lie.'
Hayes acknowledged she stayed in contact with Watson after his session.
'I wasn't sure what he was capable of,' she said. 'He could have physically assaulted me. He could have bashed my business. So I had to protect myself and my business. That's the way I saw it. Did I ever see him again after that? No. Did I give him the runaround? Yes.'
Solis claimed to be crying at the end of her encounter with Watson – a fact that Watson reportedly corroborated during pretrial depositions earlier this month, according to USA Today.
'But you know why you sent that text apology afterwards?' plaintiffs' attorney Tony Buzbee asked Watson during depositions, according to a partial transcript obtained by USA Today.
'Yes, because she was teary-eyed,' Watson replied. 'And I was trying to figure out what was going on. So, I assumed that she was uncomfortable in whatever reason. And we talked about working in the future. And so, I said, 'We can work in the future. Just let me know.' And then I sent my apologies as whatever reason she was teary-eyed for.'
The text message, which Buzbee previously shared on social media, purportedly shows Watson apologizing to Solis.
'Sorry about you feeling uncomfortable,' read the message. 'Never were the intentions. Lmk [let me know] if you want to work in the future. My apologies.'
Watson's $230 million contract with the Browns was 'another crushing blow to survivors' of abuse, according to another accuser, Lauren Baxley.
In March, Baxley penned an open letter about Watson for The Daily Beast after two grand juries in Texas declined to press charges against the three-time Pro Bowler. She is one of six women to file the doomed criminal complaints against Watson.
'We shared the hope that he would be stopped - that somehow, he would not be enabled or emboldened to hurt even more women in the ways he hurt us,' wrote Baxley, who has been identified by name but not pictured publicly since suing Watson last year.'
Watson is also facing possible discipline from the NFL, which is independently investigating whether he violated its personal-conduct policy. League investigators interviewed Watson in Houston last week.
Commissioner Roger Goodell said at the owner's meeting in Atlanta that the Watson investigation is 'nearing the end' but did not provide a timeframe for when a decision will be announced.
The Browns are eager to find out whether they'll be without Watson for an extended period. The team resumed offseason team activities Tuesday and will have mandatory minicamp next month. Training camp is scheduled for July.
Watson is scheduled to return to Houston to give more depositions in the civil suits. The sides have agreed not to hold any trials from August 1 to March 1, so any trial would happen after the season.
Last week, Watson treated some of his new teammates to a bonding trip to the Bahamas. A team spokesman said he reported for the voluntary offseason program that resumed this week. The Browns will have a media availability Wednesday.
Suddenly, Watson admits having sex with 3 of the 22 women with civil suits against him. He claims it was consensual - obviously the women do not. It's not hard to imagine that these admissions may come back to bite Deshaun Watson as the civil lawsuits move forward. With these statements lending credence to the accusations that in the other 19 cases he tried to push massages in that direction. Add into the fact that some of the 18 therapists that support Watson may have admitted sexual activity in their dispositions, a trending expectation by Watson is becoming more and more apparent.
Having to walk back/amend your argument in a situation like this is never a good sign. That said, the sticking point is what actually did and did not happen, and whether it was consensual.
Who can blame some fans if they choose to quit rooting for the Browns. It's a personal choice and doesn't tarnish your character. And in the end, no one really cares if you choose to stop supporting the team. The only exception I have is when people are desperately trying to recruit others to trash the player and team. It's a personal decision and should be respected no matter which decision you make.
Who is "desperately trying to recruit others to trash the player and team"?
Also as has been explained multiple times but some seem not to be able to grasp the concept, is that fan is short for fanatic. Just because these 24 incidents we know about so far makes you feel like you can no longer be a "fanatic" of a team, it does not mean you have to hate them or root against them. I have far too many friends I have made over the years that are dedicated Browns fans that disagree with me for me to root against the Browns. I don't see anyone trying to "recruit" anyone much less desperately so. Many corporations have made decisions that are so far out of line to me that I choose to no longer do business with them. The Browns now fall into that category. That doesn't mean you have to hate them.
If DeShaun Watson was a 4th string WR for the Calgary Stampeders This is a non story. This seems motivated by extortion tatics. These massage therapists are they that naive? At some point every massage therapist gets propisition for sex It comes,with the profession Every female massage therapist I've known and talked to has been Approached for a adult encounter. Massage therapists are usually attractive and cute at the very least You never see obese massage therapists. They use their looks to help get clients My ex neighbor was owned a hair salon/ parlor for 8 years In my community She used advertise in the Scene magazine all the time Women at times,Make convincing actress's I don't buy the "I'm traumatized act" act one bit Male rich athletes especially QBS are often examples of influence Ego, bravado, holier than thou, I'm better than you attitudes Before you take on a high profile client , do your homework on that Client
Watson chose the Browns. One of the reasons given was that he loved Stefanski and his offense. You said he would never choose the Browns because of Stefanski’s offense. Let’s not have revisionist history.
Speaking of revisionist history. He refused the Browns until they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Once the $$$ was what he wanted, suddenly his decision changed. All of the factors you mentioned were in place when he turned down the initial offer from the Browns. The $$ is what his decision was based on.
Watson chose the Browns. One of the reasons given was that he loved Stefanski and his offense. You said he would never choose the Browns because of Stefanski’s offense. Let’s not have revisionist history.
Speaking of revisionist history. He refused the Browns until they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Once the $$$ was what he wanted, suddenly his decision changed. All of the factors you mentioned were in place when he turned down the initial offer from the Browns. The $$ is what his decision was based on.
Point me in the direction of an article saying the above is true.
For those of you that watched the HBO show... Did your mind change? Did you learn anything new?
When it came to the allegations that the women made, no. The only thing of note is that I found their stories consistent with what they've said all along.
As it pertains to DW's attorney Hardin, yes I did learn something. That is that he's very smart when it comes to how he presents things. As we saw with Buzzbee he was actually on the show. He was the face of supporting his clients. Hardin was not and that was a very smart move. As usually happens involving everything from rape to sexual assault or sexual impropriety, the first line of defense is to attack and undermine the character of the accuser(s).
Could you imagine how that would have looked if Hardin, as a man would have looked had he had said what that female attorney said on the show? It would have been seen as terrible. So he instead let a female attorney do his dirty work.
The one false narrative we keep hearing from those here on the board is that somehow Hardin is such a great guy and that Buzzbee is some kind of ambulance chaser. That's no less of an unfounded attack as would be trying to undermine the character of the women themselves. Buzzbee is no less outstanding at his job than Hardin is. And he has the track record to prove it in major cases over a long period of time.
But some people try and act that one side is painting a false narrative and the other side isn't.
The court of public opinion is going very badly for him and the team. The school shooting news has perversely drowned out some of it at the moment but I think at this point the dye is all but cast. I don’t know if anything is left to be said and certainly no one’s mind changes at this point. I can’t (won’t) read another article or post or watch anything until either the league hands down the punishment or some new bombshell comes to light. I think the league is feeling great pressure to act and they won’t be faulted by anyone apart from the Browns and their fans for going nuclear and maybe lightening the load later if need be. But if they toss him out for the year (or longer) the noise, in their ears, drops precipitously, it’s out of their hair and off their plate.
I didn't see you do what you're asking of me. Then maybe you have a rational explanation of why watson turned down their initial offer and only agreed to come here after they decided to make him an offer he couldn't refuse? Everything you listed was already in place when he turned the Browns down the first time..... except the money.
Browns rejected by Deshaun Watson
Cleveland is reportedly out of the running for Houston quarterback, so now what?
I have also made similar points before. The NFL is a corporation that is concerned with image. The deal for me is that sadly the law is often times little more than a chess match. Each move leads to the conclusion. Both attorney's are involved in that chess match. Both facts and innuendo will keep coming out from both sides. You will see both attorney's claim things they say is evidence turn out not to be real evidence at all by the court.
The thing is this is probably the one single issue that will decide the fate of the Browns for at least this season and may include seasons moving forward. I can understand how you may be tiring of hearing about it. But for me as I said, it's the single biggest issue that will decide the success or failure for possibly seasons to come. I see it as the biggest single issue facing the Browns. I invested over 55 years of my life being a Browns fan. So I find this issue extremely important for me to follow closely. To each their own I always say.
People talk about 22 women who are making claims. What about the 24 people who sat on two Grand Jury's to hear the facts and didn't feel anything should move forward?
The decision by the Grand Jury has been talked about extensively. I don't know if you missed it? There are literally dozens and dozens of posts/comments and discussion about it.
I
This is true, but (and maybe I'm only speaking for myself and out of my own ignorance) the conversation many times was steered towards the difficult conviction rate for the he said/she said nature of these crimes. What was left out (IIRC and IMO) was that getting charges to move forward is VERY different from getting a conviction... meaning you only need to establish probable cause... and in many courts (not sure where the TX grand juries fall on this spectrum) getting charges to move ahead is more of a rubber-stamping exercise.
TLDR: the failure in getting the grand jury to move forward on those charges might be a bigger deal than we originally thought/discussed.
Agreed, talk about the Grand Jury's decisions was quickly drowned out by the same people who keep talking about the 22 victims and how that the GJ's decision didn't prove Watson was guilty. Of course, the HBO interviews did and the accusations of the alleged victims is proof that Watson is guilty.
Similarly, there was recent talk of why Watson wanted out of Houston and that conversation was nixed once I posted two articles about the alleged racism that was prevalent w/in Houston's organization and how the search team recommended two minority hires for GM [not the HC as some want us to believe that] because those stories don't quite fit the narrative that are being forced down on throats on these threads.
I thought he already admitted to some sort of consensual sexual contact with some of the women though. I didn't think it was anything new.
It's not.
Yet that was well after he claimed he hadn't had sex with any of the women because "I have a girlfriend". So moving forward that will certainly play into the credibility issue. Sort of like claiming he apologized but has no idea what he was apologizing for. Yeah, that happens all the time.
Deshaun Watson’s admission of sexual activity with three of the 22 plaintiffs could become a major problem
Posted by Mike Florio on May 25, 2022, 11:03 AM EDT link
In 22 of the massage sessions that resulted in civil lawsuits being filed against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, Watson admits — through his lawyers — that three of the massages resulted in consensual sex.
“What little sexual activity did occur was consensual,” attorney Rusty Hardin recently told Gabe Feldman during a podcast appearance. “And there are only three occasions in our cases that any type of sexual activity occurred.”
On Tuesday, Hardin’s office separately distributed a video from Hardin that, among other things, reiterated the admission that consensual sex occurred with three of the 22 massage therapists
“As we’ve said, as Deshaun has insisted under oath, each of those three occasions were consensual and instituted by the women,” Hardin said. “But in the other . . . 19 cases there was no sexual activity. And Deshaun has already given nine depositions — 11 now — and sworn under oath that there was no sexual activity except those three incidents, and they were consensual.”
Another member of Watson’s legal team, Leah Graham, made a similar admission during a conversation with HBO’s Soledad O’Brien.
“Well, in every massage, I will tell you he did go, intending just for a professional massage, and only those three instances where sexual conduct occurred — consensual sexual activity — it occurred after the massage session had ended,” Graham said. “And Mr. Watson has testified and is insistent that that sexual activity was initiated by the plaintiff in every single instance.”
The lawyers presumably have made these admissions regarding sexual activity because they have no choice but to make that admission. However, it’s hardly a strength of the case. In reality, it’s a potentially significant weakness.
Broaden the lens. Watson was getting massages from a broad array of female therapists. Between the 22 who have sued him and the 18 who later vouched for him, that’s FORTY. For a guy who has access to any and all massage services that he would need or require.
The fact that he admits, through his lawyers, that three of the 22 massages that resulted in lawsuits ended with consensual sex underscores the potentially persuasive argument that he was looking not only for massages, but for something more.
Yes, he insists the three instances of sex were consensual. Yes, he claims the massage therapists initiated it. But if Watson is finding massage therapists on social media and after 13.6 percent of those massages actually engaging in post-massage sexual activity, is it unreasonable to conclude that he entered the massage with the thought in mind that maybe, just maybe, it will turn sexual? That maybe, just maybe, there’s something he can do to nudge things that way?
The bulk of the cases against Watson arise from allegations that he tried to nudge things that way. The fact that, in three cases, sexual activity occurred necessarily adds credibility to the allegation that, in the other 19 cases, he at least attempted to move the massage in that direction.
Several weeks ago, the presiding judge allowed the 22 plaintiffs to seek evidence regarding whether Watson engaged in sexual activity with the 19 massage therapists who provided statements of support for Watson. This ruling — and our fair and even-handed treatment of it — actually triggered an angry response from Watson’s camp.
Why would it make Watson’s lawyers mad? Because they know that if Watson can be painted as someone who had a habit of lining up massages on social media with strangers and hoping that he’d get something more than a massage, it meshes with the claims made by those who claim to have been traumatized by his affirmative effort to get something more than a massage.
The wording might have been a poor choice but the fact remains that Watson has changed his original story from no sexual contact with any of the claimants to now there were three. "Several weeks ago, the presiding judge allowed the 22 plaintiffs to seek evidence regarding whether Watson engaged in sexual activity with the 19 massage therapists who provided statements of support for Watson. This ruling — and our fair and even-handed treatment of it — actually triggered an angry response from Watson’s camp." It would appear that the expected sexual activity is starting to look like Watson's intentions was to get more than a massage from all of the women. IMHO, you don't get that type of negative response unless you know that it's going to put a negative light on your client. At a bare minimum, Watson is sure looking like a serial sexual deviant without question. We'll have to wait and see if he is deemed to be a serial sexual abuser.
“What little sexual activity did occur was consensual,” attorney Rusty Hardin recently told Gabe Feldman during a podcast appearance. “And there are only three occasions in our cases that any type of sexual activity occurred.”
That's from mac's article above. I don't know the definition of recent. I don't know if his story has changed.
As these stories get repeated and aired I guess its going to make some harden their position. Personally I think we just need to wait for the NFL to make a decision and for the civil cases to come to trial.
I thought he already admitted to some sort of consensual sexual contact with some of the women though. I didn't think it was anything new.
It's not.
Yet that was well after he claimed he hadn't had sex with any of the women because "I have a girlfriend". So moving forward that will certainly play into the credibility issue. Sort of like claiming he apologized but has no idea what he was apologizing for. Yeah, that happens all the time.
Did he say (or infer) that he didn't actually have sex with any of the women early on in a deposition?
When asked if he found them attractive he said he didn't look at them as being attractive because he had a girlfriend.
Quote
Then there’s this objectively implausible exchange, regarding one of the specific massage therapists.
Q: Did you find her attractive?
A: That wasn’t my intention, sir.
Q: I didn’t ask you what your intentions were.
A: I can’t answer that. I have a girlfriend, so that wasn’t my intention, sir.
Q: So you can’t answer that because you have a girlfriend?
A: Because that’s not what I was looking for.
Q: What did you want from her?
A: Just a massage.
Apart from the fact that having a girlfriend doesn’t prevent Watson from concluding that a given massage therapist was attractive to him, the “I have a girlfriend” logic collapses when considering that attorney Rusty Hardin admitted last April that some of the massage sessions arranged by Watson became consensual sexual encounters. Unless each of those occurred at a time when Watson didn’t have a girlfriend, the entire line of questioning harms his credibility.
Now anyone can take what they wish from that but saying you didn't look at them from a standpoint of being attractive or not means you certainly weren't looking at them in a sexual manner. You know, because he had a girlfriend.
--Does having sex behind your girlfriend's or wife's back warrant a suspension from the NFL? How many guys would be left if that were the case?
--This one is for the younger crowd. When I was younger, a high percentage of both sexes had a lot of sex w/multiple partners. It was a thing to go to clubs and find someone to go home with. Have things changed so much that having sex w/others make you a sexual deviant and does it warrant you being suspended from working at your job? Are young people shunning casual sex these days?
--Are the decisions made by Civil court cases now more important than the decisions of Criminal Courts?
--Should a person lose their ability to work due to accusations that have not been proven to be true?
--Have we moved on [or regressed depending upon your point of view] from "innocent until proven guilty" to you are guilty because I want you to be and/or accusations that have not been proven to be true?
--Does having sex behind your girlfriend's or wife's back warrant a suspension from the NFL? How many guys would be left if that were the case?
--This one is for the younger crowd. When I was younger, a high percentage of both sexes had a lot of sex w/multiple partners. It was a thing to go to clubs and find someone to go home with. Have things changed so much that having sex w/others make you a sexual deviant and does it warrant you being suspended from working at your job? Are young people shunning casual sex these days?
--Are the decisions made by Civil court cases now more important than the decisions of Criminal Courts?
--Should a person lose their ability to work due to accusations that have not been proven to be true?
--Have we moved on [or regressed depending upon your point of view] from "innocent until proven guilty" to you are guilty because I want you to be and/or accusations that have not been proven to be true?
In case you haven't been payinh attention literally hundreds of men have lost their jobs and resigned from positions while protesting their innocence if unproven allegations.
Regards DW there is no civil court case vs criminal court case. If he were found guilty in civil court are you implying it should not matter?
Having sex with someone other than your partner is between you and your partner. Claiming you had no sexual interactions with women claiming otherwise and and then changing that story is concerning. To some more than others apparently.
As I have stated before, I believe Watson should get an indefinite suspension until all the civil cases are heard. My thought process on that is because I think he may be a serial sexual abuser. It is unfortunately well known that there is a type of abuser who goes from one victim to the next. This describes serial abusers and serial sexual harassers. Three or more victims makes you a serial offender.
While the motivation for the abuse also stems from a combination sex and power, there is a pattern in which victims are groomed or entrapped with premeditation and focus, abused, and then discarded as new victims are obtained. The abusers are predators, which is particularly apt as the accruing new victims is always a large part of their focus. In recognizing serial abuse there are unique obstacles: Serial abuse is driven both by sexual interest (deviant or not) and power and control. Predators often develop a double-life. The lives they live in public are exemplary and conspicuous in rectitude, while privately they cultivate abusive technique and proceed callously if not cruelly. Contrary to general belief, public behavior does not predict private behavior. Predators are often driven, and so they develop a false aura of being special through accomplishment or status. Examples are media personalities, politicians, and even Pro Athletes. When rumors emerge, they are not pursued because there is somehow a belief that special rules should apply to 'special people.' However, contrary to what our culture believes, being driven, while it can be pivotal in 'getting ahead,' is not a sign of specialness.
Especially with adult or teen women victims, predators often use shock and surprise (such as suddenly disrobing or exposing genitals) to stun, freeze and silence victims, whose partial lack of fending off behavior is sometimes malignantly construed as implied consent. Reference the tactics of Harvey Weistein and Louis CK among many others.
I thought he already admitted to some sort of consensual sexual contact with some of the women though. I didn't think it was anything new.
It's not.
Yet that was well after he claimed he hadn't had sex with any of the women because "I have a girlfriend". So moving forward that will certainly play into the credibility issue. Sort of like claiming he apologized but has no idea what he was apologizing for. Yeah, that happens all the time.
So I was right. I don't recall him claiming he hadn't had sex with any of the women.
Dog, so defensive dude. First, thank you for addressing me by my proper title being I am a doctor - well a retired one.
Second, if you have more than three victims then it's serial. The definition of deviant behavior is: actions or behaviors that go against social norms or expectations. Social norms are unwritten rules that a society or culture deems as acceptable. Any behavior that violates social norms or formal laws is considered deviant. I would think that knowledge of having more than 42 different encounters with therapists with the expectation of a sexual encounter would be considered deviant behavior.
Thirdly, you do not have to agree with me - I expect you to be negative. It's also ok that you have that undying support for Watson. The big difference is I believe in the justice system and a speedy trial. You are ok with the victims waiting 7-months so your guy can play football - I'm not. Actually, I think we both want the same thing - a resolution to this issue. I just don't believe it's fair to the victims to give Watson another 7-months of a free pass. Why? because he's a football player - BS!
You did not answer how many times you psychoanalyzed him. I asked because you came to a clear-cut psychological evaluation.
I was not being defensive at all. I also don't think I am being negative by saying that I am not the judge, jury, and executioner. I think that is more fair than one who has already determined another's guilt. I would venture to say that assigning guilt is far more negative than saying I will let the courts decide. I also give some credence to the fact that two Grand Jurys refused to pursue the criminal cases while others acted like that wasn't even worthy of discussion and instead we kept hearing about how Watson was not innocent just because the GJ refused to indict him. I will also reiterate that I bet that the same people who said that about the GJ will determine that Watson is guilty if the Civil Courts any monies to Busby and his clients.
I also take issue w/your constant word usage of "victims." You have applied that label w/out any legal proof. As of right now, they are "alleged victims."While you may not think it is fair to give Watson a free pass for another 7 months, I say that he is certainly being punished in the Court of Public Opinion w/out any single court having proven that he is guilty of the crimes he has been accused of.
I just don't believe it's fair to the victims to give Watson another 7-months of a free pass. Why? because he's a football player - BS!
I want to address this sentence separately. My contention is that these Civil Cases would not even exist if Watson was not a football player and was just some dude working construction or a similar job.
Wow, man. You are all in on DW. We'll be so, SO much better with him at qb. GJ didn't ...... The women are liars, etc. Bashing Baker any chance you get and celebrating DW...
For the record............I have never once said the "women are liars. Once again, I really wish that the people in charge would not allow these false claims because if one does not address the false claim, and maybe even he does, there will be posters who believe the false claims.
I'd like to address the points about the Grand Jury and what the relevance of the rate of successful prosecution mean. Seems some are trying to bring that back as a means to exonerate DW - or claim that "you can indict a Ham Sandwich"
I asked before about the rate at which Grand Jurys indict in cases of Sexual Assault - to me that would be a direct link to DW and his situation. Those stats are not very easy to find - most sites deal with conviction rates (anywhere from 1.0-1.7% depending on the source) - the number of unreported sexual assaults (high - over 35%) etc. I eventually found this web site and article:
It states - and I have no reason to doubt the authenticity - that out of 1000 cases of rape being reported - only 7 will be referred to the prosecutor. 993 out of 1000 won't get indicted is how I read that - someone can correct me if that interpretation is not correct.
Assuming that ratio of reported to un-indicted cases is accurate each can determine exactly what the GJ decision means to them. For me it means virtually nothing. It's why I think the Civil case will be important.
I'm still going to wait, but it looks more and more like DW is a rapey ass creep or outright predator. At this point, I wouldn't give a damn if he never takes a snap in a real game as a Brown. And if he does and wins, with this black mark on him, I want no part of that sliminess. And Vers, I love this team, so don't you say a word to me about my feelings and going elsewhere to root for another team, there would be a major fallout and board fight between us for that. Nope, I'll stay right here and say whatever I feel is needed.
Not only are the conviction rates horrible, and apparently the rate of cases even referred for prosecution being as bad, prosecutors get re-elected on winning records. With a Grand Jury, it is the prosecutor that must convince them that the case needs to go to trial... and we've all rehashed this entire sequence over and over already. A prosecutor that doesn't believe they have a strong enough case to win, especially in a high profile case, isn't going to be particularly motivated to push for a trial. Since a lot of these cases are "He said/She said", it's a safe bet that they'll never be tried. It's a sad reality, but it IS the reality of things. Without it being a rape where physical evidence would/could be collected, it's next to impossible to prove that something was or wasn't consensual, that some touching was or wasn't unwelcomed. It's an uphill battle for a victim and damn near a shield of immunity for the plaintiff.
Do you know what sucks? Over the last several years the Browns have yet to survive an offseason without a dramatic drama scene or scenes.
We may have the best roster Cleveland has seen since the 60s. Yet, here we are reading about our first picked QB a few years ago expressing his displeasure with the organization demanding a trade. The front office making a blockbuster trade for an arguably top 5 QB. Who, by the way, is getting sued for inappropriate behavior. I mean you can't write any better soap opera.
Just one time, I like to go through a boring offseason. Sadly, other teams have similar issues, yet, in Cleveland, this team seems to make the front page. I am simply dumbfounded how this organization consistently makes the headlines in the National Enquire! I mean think about it. If this happens in Tennessee, Indianapolis, or Carolina, it's a blip on the radar for a week or two and it goes away.
In the 70s, 80s, and 90s, Cleveland had some very talented teams who go unnoticed for a whole season and only get national attention in the playoffs.
When does the season start?
The Season starts September 22nd. ( Yes it does.) Game 3. Home Steeler game, TNF II3 days,
I will say it again, if you and Watson for that matter believe that he is being mistreated in the eyes of public opinion then the easiest fix to that issue is to have your day in court.
Your interpretation of a psychological evaluation was clearly a definition of a serial abuser which I said I thought maybe could be applied to Watson because the "alleged victims" complaints would warrant that based on their statements.
Again, Watson could clear this up simply by having his day in court without the special treatment of getting a 7-month waiver to play football.
"I will also reiterate that I bet that the same people who said that about the GJ will determine that Watson is guilty if the Civil Courts any monies to Busby and his clients." Are you saying by your quote that Watson should be deemed innocent even if he loses the civil cases?
For those of you that watched the HBO show... Did your mind change? Did you learn anything new?
A rehash of what I have already read. No new information was presented. I'd guess it will have more of an impact on someone that has had this on their periphery.
I'm curious if and how much they were paid for their story...
I would put piles of money on $0. This would be a disastrous if it came to light they were paid and would destroy any credibility both the alleged victims and HBO had in the production of the show. It would also ruin their civil lawsuits. Hardin would have a field day if they were paid.
Probably right.... but that's why I said I'm curious... I think knowing what they were paid if anything would lead to some insight on what their motivation is...
I'd like to address the points about the Grand Jury and what the relevance of the rate of successful prosecution mean. Seems some are trying to bring that back as a means to exonerate DW - or claim that "you can indict a Ham Sandwich"
I asked before about the rate at which Grand Jurys indict in cases of Sexual Assault - to me that would be a direct link to DW and his situation. Those stats are not very easy to find - most sites deal with conviction rates (anywhere from 1.0-1.7% depending on the source) - the number of unreported sexual assaults (high - over 35%) etc. I eventually found this web site and article:
It states - and I have no reason to doubt the authenticity - that out of 1000 cases of rape being reported - only 7 will be referred to the prosecutor. 993 out of 1000 won't get indicted is how I read that - someone can correct me if that interpretation is not correct.
Assuming that ratio of reported to un-indicted cases is accurate each can determine exactly what the GJ decision means to them. For me it means virtually nothing. It's why I think the Civil case will be important.
It shows out of 1000 instances 310 are reported. (I wonder how they estimate that if they are unreported...) Out of 310 reported 50 lead to an arrest Out of 50 arrests 28 lead to conviction of a felony and of those 28...25 will be incarcerated...
Which looks and IS horrible...But it is better numbers than robberies where 22 out of 1000 lead to conviction and 20 of those to prison...AND it has a better prosecution rate than Assault and Battery...(56% conviction rate to 39% for A&B)
So this is pretty disheartening on many fronts....but it isn't as bad as 7 out of 1000 RAINN has some good and helpful info on their site...which is why I find it odd that they are contradicting themselves...
And also I tried to look for indictment rates as well...we commented with each other about that...the RAINN site has some good info...but nothing about GJ's and indictments but rather arrests and convictions and that isn't the same thing...I will continue to look as well...but indictments are seriously common throughout all possible charges as that is the number I can find...and it is practically automatic. There is a reason why Lawyers prefer Grand Jury to a pre-trial hearing...A person facing a Grand Jury has ZERO power...NONE...there is no defense...and as the quote I posted stated......probable cause "is not a high bar"...
Folks, I know I am late to the party but I have been trying to read up on everything that has been written about DW. But even if he had sex with 3 therapists, if it was consensual, there is nothing there. If he did not force any of those women to stay at his house, or force them to touch his privates, then just like 2 GRAND JURIES came back with NO CRIMINAL charges!! Also, lets say DW did try to get those women to touch his privates, again, if he did not force them or prevented them from leaving, then at best, he is a creep!.. Not Rapey!! And BTW.. Ben Rothlisberger went in a bathroom and tried to RAPE a woman!!.... So what can u gonna suspend him on, being a creep?? Not when you have let previous dudes attempt Rape!!.. And for the record, Brett Farve was harrasing a woman and sending D**K pics!
Again, what more do we have from the two women who spoke out?? If I'm missing something, let me know
Here is Watson's attorney, Rusty Hardin's, interview on 92.3 A worthwhile listen. Tomorrow at 6pm, Buzbee will be on to discuss the cases of the alleged victims.
Hardin had an interesting comment in which he noted that only (3) of the 22 cases would apply to the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy as he interprets the policy.
It's pretty bad when a person who says I believe in letting the courts decide to determine one's innocence or guilt is chastised and those who have already determined one's guilt and have slapped disgusting labels on the accused get no pushback on their stances.
Referred to the prosecutor is the step that happens before a possible indictment, no?
Someone posted up a well-written link that kinda laid this out (albeit in generic terms... meaning it might be different depending on state, judge, etc).
IIRC, it talked about the part we're actually debating in terms of Watson... when a charge is presented to the grand jury, how often do they return an indictment. That article I'm trying to recall seemed to indicate that when a charge is brought, indictment is usually pretty likely.
I'm not trying to argue the other parts that have been brought up (women not coming forward out of fear, prosecutors not wanting to take the allegation to the GJ, and ultimately those allegations resulting in a guilty charge/plea). I'm trying to focus on and gain clarity on that one specific step in the whole process.
For me it comes down to the question of what actually happened. There are different perspectives. How does one indicate that they want a masseuse to work on their groin without pointing in the general direction of other organs? From DeShaun's perspective, it could have been "hey I want you to work down here" (intending his groin muscles). From the masseuse's perspective, "hey I want you to work down here" was perhaps perceived as touch my junk. My conflict comes from one the thought process of shouldn't a masseuse be familiar with massaging that area? Watson may have been used to the team massage therapist knowing the routine of working the groin. For him, it was a normal part of getting a massage. For many athletes it's a normal part of their regimen.
The whole I'm scarred for life because I touched man parts seems odd coming from someone that advertises giving massages. Spend any time in the profession (doing work around the core/groin/upper legs) and it's bound to happen. There doesn't have to be some ulterior motive, but incidental contact. However, the perception of that contact can be different from each individual. Yet, willingly entering into that situation as a masseuse seems to me to be acknowledging the risk of potential contact.
As long as there are no signs of force, it's hard to know what to do. Was there coercion? Or were there women jumping to their own conclusions? Or has there been some fabrication? It's impossible to know from my limited access to relevant information.
Was there failure to communicate or a breakdown in communication? Probably, and, sadly, there usually is in this world.
Referred to the prosecutor is the step that happens before a possible indictment, no?
Someone posted up a well-written link that kinda laid this out (albeit in generic terms... meaning it might be different depending on state, judge, etc).
IIRC, it talked about the part we're actually debating in terms of Watson... when a charge is presented to the grand jury, how often do they return an indictment. That article I'm trying to recall seemed to indicate that when a charge is brought, indictment is usually pretty likely.
I'm not trying to argue the other parts that have been brought up (women not coming forward out of fear, prosecutors not wanting to take the allegation to the GJ, and ultimately those allegations resulting in a guilty charge/plea). I'm trying to focus on and gain clarity on that one specific step in the whole process.
Quote
The Rate of Indictment
Based on the influence of the prosecutor, who (other than the court reporter) is the only non-juror present and who selects the evidence to present, various studies have suggested that the rate of indictment by a grand jury ranges from approximately 95% to approximately 99%.
Who is he "actively recruiting" to join him in his opinion? I'll help you out. Nobody.
Just a reminder of what you actually said....
Quote
The only exception I have is when people are desperately trying to recruit others to trash the player and team.
Once again, who are these people? Because so far you've done nothing but fail to back that up and act like that's not what you said. And you are the expert on class?
--Does having sex behind your girlfriend's or wife's back warrant a suspension from the NFL? How many guys would be left if that were the case?
No, but when you're facing 22 lawsuits and claimed you had sex with none of them only having to admit you did later damages your credibility and provides a judge and jury with the fact you aren't being honest with them. That damages your credibility in court.
Sort of like when you said this.... "The only exception I have is when people are desperately trying to recruit others to trash the player and team."
Everyone knows that's false. It doesn't get anyone banned but it says a lot about you not being honest.
--Does having sex behind your girlfriend's or wife's back warrant a suspension from the NFL? How many guys would be left if that were the case?
No, but when you're facing 22 lawsuits and claimed you had sex with none of them only having to admit you did later damages your credibility and provides a judge and jury with the fact you aren't being honest with them. That damages your credibility in court.
Sort of like when you said this.... "The only exception I have is when people are desperately trying to recruit others to trash the player and team."
Everyone knows that's false. It doesn't get anyone banned but it says a lot about you not being honest.
Did he ever actually claim to have not had sex with any of them?
--Does having sex behind your girlfriend's or wife's back warrant a suspension from the NFL? How many guys would be left if that were the case?
No, but when you're facing 22 lawsuits and claimed you had sex with none of them only having to admit you did later damages your credibility and provides a judge and jury with the fact you aren't being honest with them. That damages your credibility in court.
Sort of like when you said this.... "The only exception I have is when people are desperately trying to recruit others to trash the player and team."
Everyone knows that's false. It doesn't get anyone banned but it says a lot about you not being honest.
Did he ever actually claim to have not had sex with any of them?
No. He’s only said he didn’t do anything inappropriate (he did).
So, here's the questions that Watson needs to be answer that could clear up the negative public opinion:
1) The Houston Texans had in house therapists that were available to every player on the team. Why are you using outside therapists who have no idea of what is needed by you the Pro Athlete? 2) You have a standard reservation or room at the Houstonian. Why? How many other Texans have rooms on-call reserved at the Houstonian? How many massages took place at the Houstonian? 3) Therapists use full sheet coverings for massages. You demanded to use your own small size towel against their wishes - please explain your demand that is outside the normal protocol for a licensed massage therapist. 4) As an athlete, you have specialized needs from the therapist. It would be extremely beneficial to have a regular therapist that was aware of those needs. You used at least 42 different therapists (that we know of) some of which were not even professionally licensed. Please explain your thought process on the number and the use of unlicensed therapists. 5) You have admitted that you had sexual relations with 3 of the therapists that you claim was consensual. How many times did you use each of those therapist's if your intention was to only get a professional massage per your deposition? Were any of the three unlicensed? 6) Why would a professional athlete that is dependent on his body for his career ever allow an unlicensed therapist to work on his body even one-time when his body is the key to his employment? 7) Why would a Pro Athlete be using Instagram to locate therapists when you had access to the team's professional group that would have gladly recommended a quality outside therapist group for your needs? 8) How many total different therapists did you use during the timeframe in question and will you willingly provide their names and dates? 9) Of all the therapist that serviced you during the timeframe in question, how many did you have sexual relations with?
Simply answering these questions truthfully would go a long way in changing public opinion.
So, here's the questions that Watson needs to be answer that could clear up the negative public opinion:
1) The Houston Texans had in house therapists that were available to every player on the team. Why are you using outside therapists who have no idea of what is needed by you the Pro Athlete? 2) You have a standard reservation or room at the Houstonian. Why? How many other Texans have rooms on-call reserved at the Houstonian? How many massages took place at the Houstonian? 3) Therapists use full sheet coverings for massages. You demanded to use your own small size towel against their wishes - please explain your demand that is outside the normal protocol for a licensed massage therapist. 4) As an athlete, you have specialized needs from the therapist. It would be extremely beneficial to have a regular therapist that was aware of those needs. You used at least 42 different therapists (that we know of) some of which were not even professionally licensed. Please explain your thought process on the number and the use of unlicensed therapists. 5) You have admitted that you had sexual relations with 3 of the therapists that you claim was consensual. How many times did you use each of those therapist's if your intention was to only get a professional massage per your deposition? Were any of the three unlicensed? 6) Why would a professional athlete that is dependent on his body for his career ever allow an unlicensed therapist to work on his body even one-time when his body is the key to his employment? 7) Why would a Pro Athlete be using Instagram to locate therapists when you had access to the team's professional group that would have gladly recommended a quality outside therapist group for your needs? 8) How many total different therapists did you use during the timeframe in question and will you willingly provide their names and dates? 9) Of all the therapist that serviced you during the timeframe in question, how many did you have sexual relations with?
Simply answering these questions truthfully would go a long way in changing public opinion.
People don't want the truth. They want something they can beat their chests about.
He could give these (potentially true) answers and some people wouldn't believe him. Perhaps behind closed doors he has.
1. He likes meeting new people and trying new methodologies to see what works best. He does use team therapists. He's seeking additional treatment in an attempt to find an optimum regimen. 2. He can afford it and doesn't like bringing strangers into his home. 3. The covering depends on the type of massage being given. If you need work on groin tightness, a standard size towel is an impediment. He's comfortable with nudity. Most professionals that work with athletes for groin work are as well. 4. He was trying to find a "regular therapist." Unfortunately most that he found would rather proposition him and then act outraged when he wasn't into it. 5. After the 3 women initiated sex, he didn't use them again because that wasn't what he wanted. While uncertain of the licensing, they all advertised professional massage services. 6. Licenses are overrated. A masseuse improves issues or doesn't. If they don't, he moves on. Non-traditional therapies have been found effective in numerous studies. 7. Because he was looking for something that worked better for him than the professionals he'd tried (seeking constant improvement is what keeps him as an elite competitor.) He's a regular user of the Instagram platform and it has easy searchability and a large selection of choices. 8. He doesn't have the names and dates because he's not an obsessive hoarder and follows the recommended practices for account security and data management as recommended by his employer. 9. 3 of the therapists aggressively initiated unasked for sex during massage sessions. He did not seek their services again.
There are ongoing legal proceedings. Airing things in public is not NFL standard operating procedure and is generally advised against by practitioners of the law.
Sadly, public opinion doesn't always reflect reality. Reality tv isn't the only media selling made up stories scripted for impact and ability to draw eyes.
Hopefully the truth will come out whatever it may be.
I agree. Mightily. You face court hearings, NFL reps, sensationalize it on HBO. Even if you answered whatever questions, these and others not listed, because there will certainly be no end to them regardless of your response, my question is simpler: To what possible end? I see no requirement to convince, sway, or win over public opinion, which is not even vaguely defined as a group, or appease public opinion in an attempt to, well, what? Change minds? Persuade? Are we entertaining a "public" that is patient, open minded, swayable? Use this thread of fans as proof of the metric and measure of that reality. I feel this has been blown up, giving it a sideshow flavor that is rarely seen in NFL discipline cases. If he is found at fault, he should pay up in appropriate fashion. The NFL should clarify where the rails are. And he should be allowed to move forward having done so. I am not trying defend any wrong, but public opinion vilifying him seems wrong. I am all for due process;; I have some real problems with undue process; prosecution bent can become persecution. FWIW
Off the topic of the trials and more on to the topic of his attempts to endear himself to his team. He is off to a good start. Even Nick Chubb...probably one of the biggest Baker supporters is getting on board...The Bahamas Trip...Yeah...a little overboard but still a good gesture...I would hope that with the contract he signed, that he would have done the same thing without the trials over his head....but any thought on that is pure conjecture. But I really want to speak about one more public incident. The Rolex. If you have been under a rock...During Anthony Walker's press conference at OTA's...after the first question Watson gifts him a Rolex Box...As no one saw him open the box...which is appropriate...we can only assume it was a Rolex...The reason for this is also assumed is that Walker gave up his #4 (that was special to him and worn last year) so that Watson could wear it. It is in fact known that Walker did not sell his number which is often the case concerning numbers in the NFL...a negotiated compensation is the norm. But Walker freely gave his number. No deal struck...a gracious offer on his part.
So concerning the Watch....2 ways to look at this....Watson is also being gracious and working towards team comradery. Second...He chose to do this in front of reporters in stead of privately in the locker room because he was working on his public image. And therefore the watch has an ulterior motive.
I think both are true. I think this is a heartfelt gesture on Deshaun's part. But the timing is a shrewd and smart move on his part to chip at his public perception (perhaps by him or his PR team). And I also lean towards the heartfelt gesture being higher on the scale. This is why.
I don't have links only because I have not the time to grab them now...BUT...what is less widely reported...if only a few spots...it has been discovered that not only did Watson give him this watch (that probably costs as much as a car), but he has also donated over $50,000 to one of Walker's charities, and has promised to buy all of Walker's Suits this year. (Not totally sure what that means...lol). I have also heard about Watson already donating money (without overt public recognition) to several organizations in the Cleveland area. This showing an already charitable side to him which he regularly did in Houston as well...charitable actions that he is not overtly seeking recognition for...Aside from POSSIBLY the public display with the watch....none of this has anything to do with the trials...and frankly that was my purpose...Just putting it out there...
I feel this has been blown up, giving it a sideshow flavor that is rarely seen in NFL discipline cases. If he is found at fault, he should pay up in appropriate fashion. The NFL should clarify where the rails are. And he should be allowed to move forward having done so. I am not trying defend any wrong, but public opinion vilifying him seems wrong.
I completely agree, but I think it feels blown up simply because we haven't had much of anything else to discuss, so this one topic gets beaten to death over and over and over, endlessly droning on with each "side" remaining entrenched and spending effort trying to get their perceptions understood by those on the other side that make a habit of mischaracterizing stances in the interest of slinging mud and taking cheap shots. So, it isn't any bigger than it was, but it definitely is over-hashed, but, again, only to the extent that the "debate" keeps devolving into myopic misrepresentations. That's just normal when it has gone on this long and there isn't anything new, because let's face it... arguing on the internet hasn't changed a single opinion in 30 years.
I agree that he definitely should be allowed to move forward, but public opinion gets to vilify him all they want. It is no different than O.J. Simpson, R. Kelly, Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, or any other high-profile case where there was an acquittal or declination to indict. He has to go through the process and the process NEVER moves as rapidly as folks might want, and public opinion debates/arguments simply swirl and rage infinitely faster. It would be great if the NFL clarified where the rails are, but the problem there is that the NFL constantly says there are rails, but the NFL's rails are much more like the emperor's new clothes. They've never actually put them in place and that's probably because the entire concept of "personal conduct" is ambiguous to begin with. In the end, there will almost certainly be a suspension simply due to his conduct drawing so much negative attention to the NFL and for putting the League in this position to begin with; and if they determine that this is cost the NFL any money at all (jerseys not being sold, ticket sales down, whatevet), then the suspension will be longer. They don't like things that mess with revenues.
It's also being blown up because it's a big deal. :-p
No pro football team is going to be a roster of choir boys, and it's like the worst kept secret that these guys mostly operate under a different code of conduct that can give them a little extra leeway in their personal affairs if their on-field performance is at a certain level. But the Watson case (if true) is pushing that limit. It's an important topic of conversation that might be more productive if we had info coming out at a faster rate (not going to happen with ongoing legal stuff).
I agree. Mightily. You face court hearings, NFL reps, sensationalize it on HBO. Even if you answered whatever questions, these and others not listed, because there will certainly be no end to them regardless of your response, my question is simpler: To what possible end? I see no requirement to convince, sway, or win over public opinion, which is not even vaguely defined as a group, or appease public opinion in an attempt to, well, what? Change minds? Persuade? Are we entertaining a "public" that is patient, open minded, swayable? Use this thread of fans as proof of the metric and measure of that reality. I feel this has been blown up, giving it a sideshow flavor that is rarely seen in NFL discipline cases. If he is found at fault, he should pay up in appropriate fashion. The NFL should clarify where the rails are. And he should be allowed to move forward having done so. I am not trying defend any wrong, but public opinion vilifying him seems wrong. I am all for due process;; I have some real problems with undue process; prosecution bent can become persecution. FWIW
I think you highly undervalue the need and influence of public opinion. Public Opinion just got the US Women's Soccer players a decent chunk of money despite the fact that many of the things they offered in court were not valid. People in the public spot light can ignore it to their possible peril.
Originally Posted by Bard Dawg I feel this has been blown up, giving it a sideshow flavor that is rarely seen in NFL discipline cases. If he is found at fault, he should pay up in appropriate fashion. The NFL should clarify where the rails are. And he should be allowed to move forward having done so. I am not trying defend any wrong, but public opinion vilifying him seems wrong.
I completely agree, but I think it feels blown up simply because we haven't had much of anything else to discuss, so this one topic gets beaten to death over and over and over, endlessly droning on with each "side" remaining entrenched and spending effort trying to get their perceptions understood by those on the other side that make a habit of mischaracterizing stances in the interest of slinging mud and taking cheap shots.
I agree w/the part about there isn't much else to talk about and that it's getting beat to death. I also agree there are those of us who are taking a side. I would like to add that in my opinion, there is a difference in the maliciousness and objectivity between the sides. We have words like predator and Rapey being used. Terms like sexual deviant and comparisons to serial killers. Those are direct attempts from one side to convince others of a man's guilt. The other side has not made any claims that Watson is innocent. They have not said that all the women are liars despite what some may want you to believe. Instead, that side believes in allowing the legal system to do its job and that a man is innocent until proven guilty. I believe that those differences tell a story on what is going on here. Just my opinion.
Those are direct attempts from one side to convince others of a man's guilt.
No they are not. They are simply the opinions of some people. As much as you try to twist it, that's untrue. If anything, using the terms you named would only entrench others into not changing their minds. When you use inflammatory language because you believe that to be true, such language only acts to make others even firmer in their opposite stance. But then you already know that.
The other side has not made any claims that Watson is innocent.
Absolutely false. This has actually been a constant claim since the beginning of a very, very large portion of people. Repeated use the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra along with constant and citing of the lack of indictments, all while ignoring the fact that a person STILL be guilty and not be Found Guilty, or even Charged, for their crimes.
Absolutely false. This has actually been a constant claim since the beginning of a very, very large portion of people. Repeated use the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra along with constant and citing of the lack of indictments, all while ignoring the fact that a person STILL be guilty and not be Found Guilty, or even Charged, for their crimes.
\
For me the silliest discussion point in the whole topic is "Innocent until proven guilty", in my opinion. Probably for the biggest reason is that it really isn't true. Every single day this happens without a court being involved. As a visible example, any posters on this thread lashing out at people that have a different opinion and making claims against other posters. They are doing their actions and judging other people without them being found guilty in a court of law. Yes, a person is held to be legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, that is how the justice system works. It does not mean the person did not commit the actions until a court says so.
My statements are mine and were never about what I undervalue; they are about what I value. That process will not include publicized spectacle where "making up our minds" is its own end unto itself. My opinion on this won't move the scales or define the outcome. This won't be decided by polls. No more than this argument can or should be. I think it is quite possible and very desirable on the parts of some people to offer opinions that are overvalued, potentially treating them as factual. They are not. I said what intended in the way I intended. In my opinion, it is not deficient. Get your own if you like.
Your bias is a huge issue. I'm talking about things like Pit saying I had a vagina and people making up false statements and putting them into quotation marks. That isn't speaking your mind. It's bullying and abusive. It's your sand box and you can allow some to kick sand in the face of others because of your bias on topics. Ban me if you like, but I'm sick of your superior attitude.
Your bias is a huge issue. I'm talking about things like Pit saying I had a vagina and people making up false statements and putting them into quotation marks. That isn't speaking your mind. It's bullying and abusive. It's your sand box and you can allow some to kick sand in the face of others because of your bias on topics. Ban me if you like, but I'm sick of your superior attitude.
You made that accusation against me. I copy and pasted the quotes of yours that were in my reply to you. You talk about false statements and here you are repeating the very one that I proved to be a lie. In another post you claimed I was quoting you when the comment - that I again requoted to demonstrate - referred to what an article stated/did not state. You twist everything. You talk about abuse and bullying and name calling and yet you go on multi post rants calling others with a different opinion than you "Evil". It's literally hard to comprehend the depth of your hypocrisy.
I will add this before my potential banishment. Comparing willing to let the legal system decide on one's innocence of guilt and innocent until proven guilty is far different than labeling someone a predator, a rapist, and a sexual deviant. Making such comparisons is either dishonest or ignorant.
VERS...Just stop...you are not a victim here and IMO, everyone has been tolerant of your constant "over the top" comments and accusations of unfair treatment.
You seem to have a real problem with anyone who dares to "challenge you" and you lash out at those who do. You don't own this message board though at time you give off an impression that this is your message board and only your viewpoint matters.
Your opinions are welcomed and many have welcomed some of your views on various subjects...but if some disagree, you need to accept that opinions can differ and that your viewpoint on the various subjects is only 'one opinion'.
I will add this before my potential banishment. Comparing willing to let the legal system decide on one's innocence of guilt and innocent until proven guilty is far different than labeling someone a predator, a rapist, and a sexual deviant. Making such comparisons is either dishonest or ignorant.
Free speech ain't free. And I get what you are saying, but DW put those doubts in peoples heads, not us. 22 women put those doubts in peoples heads, not us. You have every right to your opinion, so does everyone else. That's all.
Just as Waston (and Dog for that fact) has every right to claim his innocence, the women also have the right to claim his guilt. Where individuals fall in their belief of one side or another is nothing more than public opinion. That's a right everyone has whether you like it or not.
Just as Waston (and Dog for that fact) has every right to claim his innocence, the women also have the right to claim his guilt. Where individuals fall in their belief of one side or another is nothing more than public opinion. That's a right everyone has whether you like it or not.
They have the right to claim his guilt, if he's guilty. If not, they're looking at perjury, libel, and slander. They at least have some knowledge of what actually happened.
Do other people without direct knowledge of the situation really have the right to claim that someone they don't know is guilty of something based on hearsay?
People may have the right to their opinions, but with that right comes a responsibility that is all too often forgotten. For some reason, some people seem to be afraid to admit what they don't know.
Other people have the right to hold the opinion that a rush to judgement is problematic and a symptom of our falling apart society. They have as much right to their opinions as you do.
Based on what we know already - a minimum of 42 massage therapists, many from dubious online sources as opposed to licensed professionals - sex with some - circumnavigating the Team therapists/appointment manager - making a therapist cry and apologizing but then claiming he didn't know why she cried - having a standing room available at a local hotel where he met for these sessions .... is it unreasonable or irresponsible to come to a conclusion that at minimum Watson is creepy or sleazy, he probably has some sort of perverse addiction to this scenario?
To my best knowledge all those issues are factual events. "Circumnavigating team therapist/appointment manager" might be framing what he did in a negative light? Maybe someone else might simply say Watson exercised his right to arrange his own sessions, but I think that overlooks and ignores the overwhelming norm of Pro-Athletes and how they conduct themselves and who they let touch their body and treat them. You could argue that having a room at a hotel to get away from it all is justifiable - and while that's reasonable if take alone, I think coupled with the other facts, a reasonable person would have some serious questions and reservations.
Do any of us actually know what laws DW has allegedly broken? He is not accused of rape. Accusing someone of exposing himself during a massage might not conveniently fall into a prosecutable offense. Just like the examples above - there are lots of plausible explanations to enable/excuse that behavior. Booking lots of different therapists in the hope or even expectation of sexual gratification might not even be considered solicitation for a celebrity of his standing?
I don't judge anyone for forming an opinion one way or the other. I don't judge people for simply stating they want to wait and see. I probably struggle more with the invention of lots of extremely improbable excuses and then claiming they are neutral. But even then - so many of these posts are in reaction to what other posters have written rather than simply stating what each of us thinks/believes. And communication is hard at the best of times - let alone on an emotive topic like this, with posters writing on phones or in an hurry or sometimes simply expressing their opinions poorly. Oh - and it's slow season, so this is going to be a major topic for sometime without (probably) any real new details or talking points until the NFL announces a decision.
Down deep, I don't think anyone doubts that Watson was looking for happy endings. He most likely had a few experiences that ended with consentual sexual acts, and decided that this was the route to take to satisfy his needs. Most of the women involved are not licensed therapists, and you and others are insinuating that DW seeking massages from these unlicensed masseusses is some sort of smoking gun to prove his guilt. Why are these women agreeing to massages that they aren't licensed to be performing in the first place? I'd like to at least see the Instagram ads that DW was responding to. What we have to decide is if the actual crimes he's being accused of were committed, or was he was only soliciting sexual favors. I'm going to hazard a guess that the number of highly paid professional athletes paying for sex isn't a small number. The fact that none of these woman came forward until Buzbee started rounding them up and coaching them after DW refused to play for the Texans is a red flag to me, and the GJ not finding grounds for pursuing indictment is absolutely relevant. .
Down deep, I don't think anyone doubts that Watson was looking for happy endings. He most likely had a few experiences that ended with consentual sexual acts, and decided that this was the route to take to satisfy his needs. Most of the women involved are not licensed therapists, and you and others are insinuating that DW seeking massages from these unlicensed masseusses is some sort of smoking gun to prove his guilt. Why are these women agreeing to massages that they aren't licensed to be performing in the first place? I'd like to at least see the Instagram ads that DW was responding to. What we have to decide is if the actual crimes he's being accused of were committed, or was he was only soliciting sexual favors. I'm going to hazard a guess that the number of highly paid professional athletes paying for sex isn't a small number. The fact that none of these woman came forward until Buzbee started rounding them up and coaching them after DW refused to play for the Texans is a red flag to me, and the GJ not finding grounds for pursuing indictment is absolutely relevant. .
You got that from my post? That I've decided it's a smoking gun? Interesting. I thought I wrote a middle of the road post that didn't try to claim anything either way. I even questioned what the alleged crime is. Oh well.
Based on your response, the one glaring issue is the focus entirely on the non licensed therapists and complete overlooking of the licensed therapists. The other is that, despite how some might feel, I've written in black and white if DW was paying for consensual sex I could care less. Not paying for consensual sex and intimidating these women or pressuring them into sexual activities would not be cool.
Athletes have actually been encouraged to do so in order to escape possible blackmail from gold diggers.
Desperation is really showing itself at this point.
Not sure how true this is, but Charlie Sheen has been credited several times with the quote "I don't pay a hooker for sex, I pay her to leave". Sounds like a similar context Vers was referring to.
Fort, what I said was true. I didn't make it up. I am not sure if I agree w/it, but that statement has been out there for quite some time, especially after the Kobe and Kapernick rape claims.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-assault-charges-san-francisco/10373525/ I hadn't any memory of a Kaepernik rape claim. a seach came across this line among others on the same day. In the beginning of the article the police said it was a complaint not a report. Part of the Gist of the text was. A woman and Kaepernick met some month, and had sex, later he sort of said get lost after she claimed to be pregnant as an april fools joke. On another later day she got with one of the other two players to meet up at a hotel, expecting to also see Kaepernick. The police were later called as she was acting agitated and some kind of way enough to get herself locked up by the cops under the harm to herself or others rule. Kaepernick went to a friends apartment and sent a text, of I'm leaving too I'm terrified. then the article said the 49ers rewarded kaepernick with a contract extension 6 years until 2020 to make him one of the highest paid in the league, (that didn't continue) The article was from june 20I4 for an April incident.
And afterwards, just like the Kobe thing and several others.............there was a sentiment out there about "Why not just pay someone for sex and not put yourself in that position?" I didn't make it up. It happened. Pit is just being Pit.
Fort, what I said was true. I didn't make it up. I am not sure if I agree w/it, but that statement has been out there for quite some time, especially after the Kobe and Kapernick rape claims.
I believed you, it just reminded me of the Sheen quote.
I know. Sorry. Just had to get that out there. I wasn't challenging you at all. Sorry if it came across that way. It was more of a response to Pit saying I was really stretching things. I wasn't. It most certainly happened.
And so you know..........you and I don't always agree, but I like you as a poster. You come across as very fair and reasonable.
Solicitation of Prostitution Under the New Texas Penal Code §43.021. Under Texas law, it remains a crime to solicit prostitution even if no money is exchanged (or other form of payment) and/or no sexual conduct transpires. It remains a crime in Texas merely to ask for sex in exchange for any type of payment.
"Down deep, I don't think anyone doubts that Watson was looking for happy endings." "What we have to decide is if the actual crimes he's being accused of were committed, or was he was only soliciting sexual favors."
“Solicitation of Prostitution” under Texas Penal Code §43.021 will be facing a state jail felony or a 3rd degree felony sentence, and if a minor is involved, that of a felony of the second degree.
Those convicted of a state jail felony face incarceration for a time period ranging from six months (180 days) to two years along with a monetary fine of up to $10,000. Texas Penal Code §12.35.
If Watson was looking for those "Happy Endings" or "only soliciting sexual favors" then he committed a crime in the state of Texas. Even though not required, money was exchanged - "FACT." At this point, Watson would have people to believe that he scheduled 42 or more therapists (mostly unlicensed) some of which he's admitted having sex of some type with that it was never a consideration at any time that sex was possibly on the table.
"DW put those doubts in peoples heads, not us. 22 women put those doubts in peoples heads, not us."
"Athletes have actually been encouraged to do so in order to escape possible blackmail from gold diggers." Except in Texas, it's a violation of law.
What you aren't saying is that in order for that to happen, a person has to proposition a person who is actively selling services, or you make an offer of money for sex.
Hard to make that stick unless it is a street corner deal. That is why those are usually sting operation situations that are recorded. Otherwise, any woman(or man) could say so and so offered me money for sex and I refused, I want them arrested.
Surely you don't want to live in society where that is the burden of proof that results a criminal conviction behind a persons name.
Surely you don't want to live in society where that is the burden of proof that results a criminal conviction behind a persons name.
Only if that person is going to take Baker's job. These guys aren't kidding anyone.
So...next up...it's Baker's fault that 22 woman are suing DW. See how absurd a comment can be made? BTW...Baker's job was taken away by his bosses...it happens...not by a fan(s)...and not by DW himself.
I wasn't blaming Baker. I'm saying that steve and some others are guilty of that. It's not even debatable no matter how vehemently a couple of other posters deny it.
Vers you paint with a broad stroke and several get insulted in which you did not wish to do. Many time when you go to insult "steve" it hits several others who are not your targets.
Fact is DW is probably going to get away with it. He has his money so suspension is not a problem to him IT IS TO THE BROWNS whom I am a fan of and love this team and game. But it doesn't make him innocent. Hearing that poor young lady explain her experience with DW was convincing and nobody can tell me it wasn't so. Also it was not one person. There was a definite pattern. So he might get away with it. It doesn't mean he is innocent. Again talk about bias. Some of you who clearly hate Baker probably for planting that flag in college. But most of you made a big stink about Baker running from the cop when he got stinking drunk on campus which we all know was from his 21st birthday celebration. Now do not say a word about DW all in the name of hating on Baker. I won't forget the excitement Baker brought to this team as he picked us out of Expansion Hell. How soon we forget...not me. THank you Baker unfortunately time to move on.
If Watson was looking for those "Happy Endings" or "only soliciting sexual favors" then he committed a crime in the state of Texas. Even though not required, money was exchanged - "FACT." At this point, Watson would have people to believe that he scheduled 42 or more therapists (mostly unlicensed) some of which he's admitted having sex of some type with that it was never a consideration at any time that sex was possibly on the table.
FWIW, this is what I think his original intentions were. I didn't know TX's perspective on soliciting sex (felony), so I find it interesting that the GJ didn't originally go at him from that angle vs assault (and even moreso that it hasn't come up since).
You make an interesting point about what the GJ was looking into as regards to a prosecutable offense. But as I understand it the GJ only took testimony from one of the therapists who are accusing DW ... so it may be that individual was a licensed professional and there was no funny business and no favors. In order to successfully prosecute DW for solicitation it may mean the therapists that provided the funny business would also be culpable and they are not going to testify if it means hurting themselves - even with a deal with the prosecutor their names get tarnished even more so than now ... Again - we don't really know enough and per Tab's post above, maybe it just comes down to some folks will believe one side, some will believe the other side and some will chose not to make a decision. Each option is justifiable.
Solicitation of Prostitution Under the New Texas Penal Code §43.021. Under Texas law, it remains a crime to solicit prostitution even if no money is exchanged (or other form of payment) and/or no sexual conduct transpires. It remains a crime in Texas merely to ask for sex in exchange for any type of payment.
"Down deep, I don't think anyone doubts that Watson was looking for happy endings." "What we have to decide is if the actual crimes he's being accused of were committed, or was he was only soliciting sexual favors."
“Solicitation of Prostitution” under Texas Penal Code §43.021 will be facing a state jail felony or a 3rd degree felony sentence, and if a minor is involved, that of a felony of the second degree.
Those convicted of a state jail felony face incarceration for a time period ranging from six months (180 days) to two years along with a monetary fine of up to $10,000. Texas Penal Code §12.35.
If Watson was looking for those "Happy Endings" or "only soliciting sexual favors" then he committed a crime in the state of Texas. Even though not required, money was exchanged - "FACT." At this point, Watson would have people to believe that he scheduled 42 or more therapists (mostly unlicensed) some of which he's admitted having sex of some type with that it was never a consideration at any time that sex was possibly on the table.
"DW put those doubts in peoples heads, not us. 22 women put those doubts in peoples heads, not us."
"Athletes have actually been encouraged to do so in order to escape possible blackmail from gold diggers." Except in Texas, it's a violation of law.
That's why I sad "actual crimes he's being accused of" (on trial for). Every indication is there that no one is pursuing soliciation charges.
They seem to think promoting that watson just commit a different crime is better and recommended. You couldn't make that crap up if you tried. Well I guess you can because someone did.
Unfortunately, you spin things t get your point across up to the point off out right lying. Your hate for Baker is so deep that if anyone questions anything about Watson you label that person. Example, the Browns went out and got what appears to be an upgrade over Mayfield. Watson's numbers without a doubt look better than Mayfield's. However, how many games has Watson won for Cleveland? Will he even play this year? The coaching scheme will be entirely different, won't it? Can Watson adjust to a run oriented offense? Any and all of these questions certainly denote that it appears the Browns have upgraded at QB.
Steve and other's posts are Watson negative because he's taking Baker's job and they want Baker. Again this is a lie. I have never said that Baker should continue to be the Browns QB. You though, spend countless posts slamming Mayfield to justify in your eyes why the Browns went after Watson. The more you slam Mayfield the more acceptive you can be to the garbage Watson is bringing with him to Cleveland.
Originally Posted by OldColdDawg
Originally Posted by Versatile Dog
I will add this before my potential banishment. Comparing willing to let the legal system decide on one's innocence of guilt and innocent until proven guilty is far different than labeling someone a predator, a rapist, and a sexual deviant. Making such comparisons is either dishonest or ignorant.
Free speech ain't free. And I get what you are saying, but DW put those doubts in peoples heads, not us. 22 women put those doubts in peoples heads, not us. You have every right to your opinion, so does everyone else. That's all.
Once again, you ask these questions and Watson and our system. I have answered those questions w/my own analysis as well as numerous articles and videos on the subject. The rest of your post is just weird.
Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as the Pentaverate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.
- Assume these lawsuits are being made by individuals trying to make a buck jumping on the band wagon. - Believe the idea that they are inspired by the bravery of those on HBO who went through a shared/similar experience. - Tune it out because people generally have short attention spans. - Believe it doesn't make any difference one way or the other.
The new lawsuit states that the woman did not want to do a third massage on Watson after her first two encounters with him in Houston. But she could not refuse Watson as a client because her boss at the massage spa, Dionne Louis, wanted Watson as a client and wanted to keep him happy, according to the lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas.
This spa “provided women for Watson” and Louis “facilitated massages for Watson and knew Watson was attempting to have sex with them,” the suit states.
The woman learned Watson paid Louis $5,000 for Louis’s “work," and the lawsuit includes an exhibit of the apparent Cash App receipt. Other plaintiffs also have been associated with Louis.
When the third massage was over, the woman decided to quit her job there, the suit states.
“She was completely traumatized by the experience with Watson,” the suit states. “She now realizes that Deshuan Watson, with Dionne Louis’s help, was manipulating her the entire time.”
Louis denied this when reached Tuesday by USA TODAY Sports.
“All of that is ludicrous,” Louis said by phone. Louis’ attorney declined comment.
Another lawsuit has been filed against Watson. If, AND I SAY IF, Watson doesn't play a down this year for the Browns it could end up costing Berry his job!
I was--and am--a huge fan of the job John Dorsey did in Cleveland and I was furious that Depo worked behind the scenes to get him fired. However, Andrew Berry has also done a fabulous job w/the Browns and I am glad he is running the show. He's very intelligent, articulate, calm, soft-spoken and has done a very good job of making our roster stronger through a variety of moves. He hasn't been perfect, but no one is. We are lucky to have him.
Baker thread closed as this one will soon be. SWISH, I don't remember saying that if I did it was wrong but just for the record just who am I suppose to be a fan of that isn't a BROWN unlike your fandom of Lamar.
Vers, I just cannot understand the obvious HATRED towards Baker the only thing I could think of is I know you are a bigtime Ohio SU fan and I probably would hold something against him if I was a big Ohio SU fan. Not the case, actually does not help you as I can't make the sense out of it. Insults...just responding to your insults tit for tat. Happens. and miss communication on a message board can be that way. Enjoy.
Now can you all understand the bad place the Browns have painted themselves into. I will not be surprised if DW will be suspended INDEFINITELY with a minimum of ONE YEAR. 2022 draft pick we already lost the Opportunity to have Jordan Davis on our D with Garrett, Clowney and JOK and all our DBs. DW and all his talent means nothing if he does not play. Criminal case...he is innocent until proven guilty. However in a Civil case he is guilty until proven Innocent. There is also no assurance that a criminal case would be filed at a later date if more witnesses come forward for the DA to make a case. Its just scary to me that we throw away 3 first round picks...building blocks to ANY TEAM making a dynasty.
There is also no assurance that a criminal case would be filed at a later date if more witnesses come forward for the DA to make a case. Its just scary to me that we throw away 3 first round picks...building blocks to ANY TEAM making a dynasty.
From a straight sports fan perspective this should be a concern for every Browns fan. The amount we spent to get Watson with his murky future on the hopes that he is going to play like he did before he sat out a year screams Factory of Sadness.
- Assume these lawsuits are being made by individuals trying to make a buck jumping on the band wagon. - Believe the idea that they are inspired by the bravery of those on HBO who went through a shared/similar experience. - Tune it out because people generally have short attention spans. - Believe it doesn't make any difference one way or the other.
Very good questions...I wonder that myself...It, like most things, is probably a bit of all of them.....Of course the only people that need to answer these questions are the juries assigned to the civil cases.
Concerning this 23rd lawsuit. Has it been "confirmed" who her representation is? Is it Buzbee? If not...My curiosity asks how this affects the moratorium on any case trials until next March? I do find Hardin's comments interesting...if I am interpreting this correctly....That this woman has already tried to file against Deshaun and dropped the cases. That does cloud her validity...but doesn't erase it. It certainly isn't good news for Deshaun that another case has been levied...
----
Steve...there is one gaping galaxy sized hole in your supposition about solicitation. Watson has been cleared of any crime concerning this situation and these events, as 2 Grand Juries refused to indict. Including Sexual harassment, Rape, solicitation, etc. You are free to assume solicitation is what happened...but it is an assumption with no proof. And frankly keeping that assumption speaks more towards your intentions than Deshaun's character. (which seems to be murky.....complicated in the very least)
- Assume these lawsuits are being made by individuals trying to make a buck jumping on the band wagon. - Believe the idea that they are inspired by the bravery of those on HBO who went through a shared/similar experience. - Tune it out because people generally have short attention spans. - Believe it doesn't make any difference one way or the other.
Very good questions...I wonder that myself...It, like most things, is probably a bit of all of them.....Of course the only people that need to answer these questions are the juries assigned to the civil cases.
Concerning this 23rd lawsuit. Has it been "confirmed" who her representation is? Is it Buzbee? If not...My curiosity asks how this affects the moratorium on any case trials until next March? I do find Hardin's comments interesting...if I am interpreting this correctly....That this woman has already tried to file against Deshaun and dropped the cases. That does cloud her validity...but doesn't erase it. It certainly isn't good news for Deshaun that another case has been levied...
----
Steve...there is one gaping galaxy sized hole in your supposition about solicitation. Watson has been cleared of any crime concerning this situation and these events, as 2 Grand Juries refused to indict. Including Sexual harassment, Rape, solicitation, etc. You are free to assume solicitation is what happened...but it is an assumption with no proof. And frankly keeping that assumption speaks more towards your intentions than Deshaun's character. (which seems to be murky.....complicated in the very least)
23rd lawsuit and representation: Buzbee is the attorney for the 23rd (and he saw a 24th is in process). Watson's attorney said that this 23rd accuser had previous representation, but those lawyers backed out of representing her. It didn't say if she filed, but her previous lawyers bailed on her.
Solicitation was never on the table (AFAIK) in terms of the grand jury, so that could always be on the table.
- Assume these lawsuits are being made by individuals trying to make a buck jumping on the band wagon. - Believe the idea that they are inspired by the bravery of those on HBO who went through a shared/similar experience. - Tune it out because people generally have short attention spans. - Believe it doesn't make any difference one way or the other.
Very good questions...I wonder that myself...It, like most things, is probably a bit of all of them.....Of course the only people that need to answer these questions are the juries assigned to the civil cases.
Concerning this 23rd lawsuit. Has it been "confirmed" who her representation is? Is it Buzbee? If not...My curiosity asks how this affects the moratorium on any case trials until next March? I do find Hardin's comments interesting...if I am interpreting this correctly....That this woman has already tried to file against Deshaun and dropped the cases. That does cloud her validity...but doesn't erase it. It certainly isn't good news for Deshaun that another case has been levied...
----
Steve...there is one gaping galaxy sized hole in your supposition about solicitation. Watson has been cleared of any crime concerning this situation and these events, as 2 Grand Juries refused to indict. Including Sexual harassment, Rape, solicitation, etc. You are free to assume solicitation is what happened...but it is an assumption with no proof. And frankly keeping that assumption speaks more towards your intentions than Deshaun's character. (which seems to be murky.....complicated in the very least)
23rd lawsuit and representation: Buzbee is the attorney for the 23rd (and he saw a 24th is in process). Watson's attorney said that this 23rd accuser had previous representation, but those lawyers backed out of representing her. It didn't say if she filed, but her previous lawyers bailed on her.
Solicitation was never on the table (AFAIK) in terms of the grand jury, so that could always be on the table.
There is also no assurance that a criminal case would be filed at a later date if more witnesses come forward for the DA to make a case. Its just scary to me that we throw away 3 first round picks...building blocks to ANY TEAM making a dynasty.
From a straight sports fan perspective this should be a concern for every Browns fan. The amount we spent to get Watson with his murky future on the hopes that he is going to play like he did before he sat out a year screams Factory of Sadness.
This is a very real possibility. The grand juries NOT indicting make this possible. Each and every jurisdiction that already had a grand jury on this can still come back and indict if they feel enough new information comes out to support a case and because he was not tried it isn't double jeopardy. Like this receipt that is allegedly for payment to the guy that ran that massage place? THAT could be a golden bullet.
I'm not sure if this was brought up but even if DW starts how much will all this affect his play? It has to be a distraction. All the questions, a suspension hanging over you not to mention any new accusations that could come up at any time. We rolled the dice and I hope things work out but if our past history is any indication this could easily blow up in our faces. Murpy''s law is alive and well with our beloved Browns.
The potential - no matter if it is small - for this to go badly wrong is concerning. I will say that it *appears* at this point that DW is handling this in stride and it is not impacting his integration with the team - his teammates etc. But yes - this is going to follow him around, and you'd expect that while the Cleveland media might move on - every other team in the NFL we play is probably going to have journalists that will want to ask and dig and try to find a new angle, it's not going away any time soon.
I believe folks need to understand...there is nothing written in stone that more cases might continue to be filed against Watson. Only Watson knows how many more women might come forward.
JMO, but this young man really screwed up his life with his habit of employing multiple massage therapist for his own needs.
Isn't the world great, everyone has their view, DW could have hundred new cases come up....she said/ he said...and the women can wait YEARS to file/ and their stories change- find a lawyer who will take the case and bingo, they will try to get into the pocket of man with millions guaranteed. It's the world- always after MONEY.
DW says he didn't do anything wrong and respects women- he obviously likes to be naked while getting a massage- should a masseuse be upset if they see a nude body- JMHO, NO, they are in the business of fixing the sore body. This all she said/he said....HOW he can be convicted of anything is beyond me.....AS LONG AS he didn't force anything.....having sex with some of them wasn't smart, but in our permissive society, how many 26 year old virgins are there. Only people winning this are the lawyers. Go Browns!!!
There is also no assurance that a criminal case would be filed at a later date if more witnesses come forward for the DA to make a case. Its just scary to me that we throw away 3 first round picks...building blocks to ANY TEAM making a dynasty.
From a straight sports fan perspective this should be a concern for every Browns fan. The amount we spent to get Watson with his murky future on the hopes that he is going to play like he did before he sat out a year screams Factory of Sadness.
This is a very real possibility. The grand jury's NOT indicting make this possible. Each and every jurisdiction that already had a grand jury on this can still come back and indict if they feel enough new information comes out to support a case and because he was not tried it isn't double jeopardy. Like this receipt that is allegedly for payment to the guy that ran that massage place? THAT could be a golden bullet.
Agreed, not knowing for sure but I'd hazard a guess that the Grand Jury has not indicted because the current evidence is only He Said-She Said and they won't waste the effort. This doesn't mean he "has been cleared by the Grand Jury" as people keep posting. It means one piece of evidence could be enough to see him charged and in a criminal court.
23rd lawsuit and representation: Buzbee is the attorney for the 23rd (and he saw a 24th is in process). Watson's attorney said that this 23rd accuser had previous representation, but those lawyers backed out of representing her. It didn't say if she filed, but her previous lawyers bailed on her.
Solicitation was never on the table (AFAIK) in terms of the grand jury, so that could always be on the table.
Yes, that's what "Hardin says". But every report I've seen up until this comment by Hardin has stated she chose not to go forward with the lawsuit at that time. So I guess it depends on who you believe or choose to believe.
People can't take the word of these attorney's to determine who is telling the truth. Each attorney will spin everything they can to present their side of the lawsuit as being correct in the civil trail. I know it's been common practice by some to paint Buzzbeee in a negative light. But let's not fool ourselves into actually believing this isn't a game that both sides play.
The accusations aren't because "they saw a nude body".
With every new case you'll have to convince yourself that even more women are lying and the only beacon of truth is watson. But from the sounds of it, I'm sure you'll find a way to do that.
There seemed to be confusion regarding her representation. That's why I originally restated that part.
As for my opinion... each side is going to focus on the facts that help their argument. I did find it pretty interesting that this latest accuser was dropped by her previous representation and joined on only after the HBO special. Again, I think it's obvious why one side would want to bring this up and the other wouldn't.
I do think the solicitation angle is interesting. IMO (and obviously FWIW), I think that's a much more believable charge than assault. The wrinkle about the 3rd party handling some very large payments for her services could lead to some more activity from the grand jury.
- Assume these lawsuits are being made by individuals trying to make a buck jumping on the band wagon. - Believe the idea that they are inspired by the bravery of those on HBO who went through a shared/similar experience. - Tune it out because people generally have short attention spans. - Believe it doesn't make any difference one way or the other.
Very good questions...I wonder that myself...It, like most things, is probably a bit of all of them.....Of course the only people that need to answer these questions are the juries assigned to the civil cases.
Concerning this 23rd lawsuit. Has it been "confirmed" who her representation is? Is it Buzbee? If not...My curiosity asks how this affects the moratorium on any case trials until next March? I do find Hardin's comments interesting...if I am interpreting this correctly....That this woman has already tried to file against Deshaun and dropped the cases. That does cloud her validity...but doesn't erase it. It certainly isn't good news for Deshaun that another case has been levied...
----
Steve...there is one gaping galaxy sized hole in your supposition about solicitation. Watson has been cleared of any crime concerning this situation and these events, as 2 Grand Juries refused to indict. Including Sexual harassment, Rape, solicitation, etc. You are free to assume solicitation is what happened...but it is an assumption with no proof. And frankly keeping that assumption speaks more towards your intentions than Deshaun's character. (which seems to be murky.....complicated in the very least)
I get what you're saying but I ask you to be open to what can happen. A GJ weighs the evidence to determine whether an indictment should be issued. You nor I or anyone else knows what evidence was presented but in no way is a lack of indictment a signal that Watson is innocent, cleared of a crime, or even not guilty for that fact - there just wasn't enough evidence at the time. The GJ is not a trial so there's no such thing as "double jeopardy" with GJ, asking for an indictment can happen multiple times depending on the additional evidence to be presented.
The important part of this last civil lawsuit is Nia Smith goes on to allege that her former employer played a part in setting up the interactions with Watson, then ignored her complaints following the sessions.
“‘A New U Salon Spa’ provided women for Watson,” the lawsuit states. “Dionne Louis, the owner of the spa, facilitated massages for Watson and knew Watson and knew Watson was attempting [to] have sex with them. Plaintiff expressed her concerns about Watson to Ms. Louis. Louis brushed the concerns off. It was later learned that Watson paid Dionne Louis at least five thousand dollars for Louis’s 'work'."
The allegation included a pair of exhibits filed with the suit, allegedly showing texts from Louis. The first showed an alleged $5,000 cash transfer from Watson with a memo of “For machine” followed by a text from Louis stating, “He didn’t give me the 20k I asked him for but he dye [sic] give me 5k.” A second exhibit showed two photos of what appeared to be a significant amount of cash in rubber bands, preceded by a text stating “DD cash me out.”
This my friend is clearly solicitation and if proved to be valid will certainly open up the ability to bring criminal charges to the GJ with hard evidence. Naturally, Watson's legal team has denied the claim but we'll see what the investigation discovers like verifying the text from Watson's phone and cash transfers from his account.
My intentions are that the women should have their right to a speedy trial and the ability to face the accused. If Watson can clear his name then so be it. However, if he's guilty after getting a free 7-month pass to play football then it is exactly what people always complain about that there is one system for the average person and another for the elite.
I did find it pretty interesting that this latest accuser was dropped by her previous representation and joined on only after the HBO special. Again, I think it's obvious why one side would want to bring this up and the other wouldn't.
I obviously didn't make myself clear. This is what is in dispute and has not been established as "fact". Every previous report claimed she chose not to pursue the case. Hardin claimed her attorney's dropped her as a client. What is and is not a fact here is determined by who one chooses to believe. One could say they dropped her as a client and the truth could be that was after she decided not to pursue the case. Let's not pretend that either Hardin nor Buzzbee are beyond employing such a tactic in the court of public opinion.
Isn't the world great, everyone has their view, DW could have hundred new cases come up....she said/ he said...and the women can wait YEARS to file/ and their stories change- find a lawyer who will take the case and bingo, they will try to get into the pocket of man with millions guaranteed. It's the world- always after MONEY.
DW says he didn't do anything wrong and respects women- he obviously likes to be naked while getting a massage- should a masseuse be upset if they see a nude body- JMHO, NO, they are in the business of fixing the sore body. This all she said/he said....HOW he can be convicted of anything is beyond me.....AS LONG AS he didn't force anything.....having sex with some of them wasn't smart, but in our permissive society, how many 26 year old virgins are there. Only people winning this are the lawyers. Go Browns!!!
and it is THIS MESS that is an example of why the NFL has a Rookie Symposium where they try to teach the young kids coming in all of the pitfalls they're about to face the instant they become millionaires. The kids are taught to be smart and NOT do things that put yourself in this sort of position in the first place.
HOUSTON — Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson is now facing a 23rd civil lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct, following a new filing by attorney Tony Buzbee.
The suit has been brought by Nia Smith, a professionally licensed Houston cosmetologist who last summer spoke publicly about her alleged interactions with Watson during a video appearance with YouTube personality Tasha K. Her suit has similarities to the previous 22 Watson is facing, alleging that Watson reached out to her for a professional massage through social media. The litigation states that she had three sessions with Watson that saw his behavior allegedly become more aggressive with each meeting, culminating in sexual advances and unwanted sexual contact.
It goes on to claim that Watson’s defense team reached out to Smith for a meeting when women began filing civil suits against the quarterback in March of 2021, an engagement that Smith took as an attempt to influence her from pursuing litigation against Watson. In that allegation, Smith accused one of Watson’s attorneys of suggesting “us black women must stick together.”
In a statement Tuesday, Buzbee added: “Other cases may come. The Watson defense team has vilified these women and this cause. Shame on them! We look forward to trying this case in court.”
Watson’s attorney, Rusty Hardin, responded with a biting statement, again framing the development as an attempt to achieve “publicity” for Buzbee and a “payday” for his clients.
“Deshaun Watson vehemently denies the allegations, just as he has since she first discussed them with members of our firm in March of last year,” Hardin said. “She repeated the allegations on social media in August and he denied them then. The only thing new about her contentions is the embellishment making them more extreme than prior versions. Deshaun’s denial remains the same.
“The two highly respected lawyers from our firm, Letitia Quinones and Rachel Lewis, also vehemently deny there was any coercion or intimidation involved in the very cordial meeting at Vic and Anthony’s (Mr. Buzbee and the plaintiff are not even right about where the meeting was, much less what was said). They met her to see if she was one of Mr. Buzbee’s then still anonymous plaintiffs. At that time Mr. Buzbee refused to identify his clients. The suggestion that either of these two accomplished lawyers would have said ‘us black women must stick together’ is absurd. The interview was so congenial, she joined the lawyers for dinner afterwards.
“We are aware that more than a year ago she had other lawyers representing her and they ultimately terminated the representation. This plaintiff has long had a vendetta against Deshaun since she jealously and angrily published Deshaun’s personal data on social media in November 2020. In filing her lawsuit now she was obviously not influenced by recent developments. We are not surprised Mr. Buzbee was willing to say just about anything to get more publicity. He knows the NFL continues to investigate these cases, and this is a transparent attempt to further punish the man he sees as a potential payday.”
Smith’s suit states that she initially declined to seek litigation against Watson out of fear of a backlash before changing her mind after seeing last week’s episode of "Real Sports," which featured two of Watson’s accusers speaking on the record about their alleged encounters with him.
“Nia Smith changed her mind after watching the HBO Real Sports piece about the Deshaun Watson lawsuits,” the suit states. “In that piece, Plaintiff was struck by the courage of the victims willing to step forward and speak, and was extremely displeased by Watson and his legal team’s mistreatment and revictimization of the Plaintiffs. But it was Watson himself claiming that even now he has 'no regrets' and has done nothing wrong that solidified her resolve.”
Smith goes on to allege that her former employer played a part in setting up the interactions with Watson, then ignored her complaints following the sessions. “‘A New U Salon Spa’ provided women for Watson,” the lawsuit states. “Dionne Louis, the owner of the spa, facilitated massages for Watson and knew Watson and knew Watson was attempting [to] have sex with them. Plaintiff expressed her concerns about Watson to Ms. Louis. Louis brushed the concerns off. It was later learned that Watson paid Dionne Louis at least five thousand dollars for Louis’s ‘work’.”
The allegation included a pair of exhibits filed with the suit, allegedly showing texts from Louis. The first showed an alleged $5,000 cash transfer from Watson with a memo of “For machine” followed by a text from Louis stating, “He didn’t give me the 20k I asked him for but he dye [sic] give me 5k.” A second exhibit showed two photos of what appeared to be a significant amount of cash in rubber bands, preceded by a text stating “DD cash me out.”
Louis called the allegations “ludicrous” when reached by USA Today.
Watson has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing as the previous suits have unfolded. Hardin has also maintained that any sexual contact with women in the suits was consensual. Thus far, two grand juries in Texas have declined to indict Watson on criminal charges, following at least 10 complaints brought to the Houston Police Department by women engaged in litigation against the quarterback.
This latest suit comes as the NFL is drawing its investigation into Watson to a close. It was expected that the league would forward its findings to an independent disciplinary officer to determine whether Watson violated the league’s personal conduct policy. Watson’s camp and the Browns were hopeful that a determination would be made by the time the team kicks off training camp in July.
Deshaun Watson’s alleged $5,000 payment to spa owner under scrutiny in massage cases
Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Wed, June 1, 2022, 5:02 PM·5 min read link
A Houston spa owner recently testified that Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson gave her $5,000, and the reason for it was simply because “he’s a nice person,” according to a deposition transcript obtained by USA TODAY Sports.
The spa owner, Dionne Louis, facilitated massages for Watson and helped provide him with women, according to a new lawsuit filed Tuesday against Watson. And now that payment – and why he gave it to her – have come under new scrutiny as Watson faces lawsuits from 23 women who accuse him of sexual misconduct during massage sessions from early 2020 to March 2021.
At least three of the 23 plaintiffs worked for Louis or were otherwise associated with her, according to court records. Louis, who owns “A New U Salon Spa” in Houston, described one of those three plaintiffs as her cousin, a woman who accused Watson of trying to force her to perform oral sex in 2020. Watson, 26, has denied wrongdoing but could be suspended by the NFL if he is found to have violated the league’s personal conduct policy.
Louis “has been identified by several Plaintiffs as someone who was instrumental in setting up the massages between them and Deshaun Watson at her place of business – A New U Spa – knowing full well that she was sending them into danger and knowing that Deshaun Watson was looking for sexual activity rather than a professional massage,” according to court records filed in December by plaintiffs attorney Tony Buzbee.
Louis’ role in Watson’s massages also was cited in a new lawsuit filed Tuesday by the 23rd plaintiff, who worked for Louis at her spa until she said she decided to quit after her third encounter with Watson.
“A New U Salon Spa provided women for Watson,” the woman's lawsuit states. “Dionne Louis, the owner of the spa, facilitated massages for Watson and knew Watson was attempting to have sex with them. Plaintiff expressed her concerns about Watson to Ms. Louis. Louis brushed the concerns off. It was later learned that Watson paid Dionne Louis at least five thousand dollars for Louis’s 'work.’”
Reached by phone Tuesday, Louis told USA TODAY Sports, “All of that is ludicrous.”
Louis also said the newest plaintiff “has a pattern of doing this type of stuff.” She referred questions about the $5,000 to her attorney, who said he doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
Earlier this year, Watson admitted in written questions that the office of his attorney, Rusty Hardin, helped Louis find a lawyer but denied that her lawyer's fees were being paid by him or Hardin.
Louis has been described by the plaintiffs’ attorneys as an uncooperative witness, and the new lawsuit describes her as “very proud to have Watson as a client.” A footnote in the new lawsuit also stated that Louis pleaded the protections of the Fifth Amendment when asked for text messages between her and Watson.
“Louis had emphasized to Plaintiff that she needed to keep Watson happy,” the newest lawsuit states.
Louis testified in a pretrial deposition in May, when she was asked about the $5,000 payment.
“Did you do something for that?” Buzbee asked, according to the partial transcript obtained by USA TODAY Sports.
“What you mean did I do something for it?” Louis replied. “He's a nice person. Like I was in the struggle with COVID, so ...”
'HONORING AN ICON:' John Madden returns to the cover of EA Sports' Madden NFL 23
CALLED TO CONGRESS: House Oversight Committee asks Daniel Snyder, Roger Goodell to testify on Commanders probe
She said Watson gave her money only once, according to the transcript.
“And he just gave you that because he was a nice guy?” Buzbee asked.
“Yes,” she replied.
“OK. Because you asked for it?” Buzbee asked.
“Well, it was COVID and it was – he was blessing everybody,” Louis replied. “He had told me a story he blessed some cafeteria workers. He was a nice guy, really, really nice guy.”
She said she needed equipment for her spa: a “butt vacuum machine” that helps with cellulite and a “cryo machine.” But she testified she was having a hard time because of the COVID-19 pandemic and that Watson agreed to help her with $5,000. Her mention of cafeteria workers is an apparent reference to 2017, when Watson donated his first game check to cafeteria employees affected by the devastation of Hurricane Harvey.
An exhibit attached to the 23rd lawsuit filed Tuesday shows an apparent screen shot of a Cash App receipt for $5,000 from Watson to Louis, with the description “for machine.” It's dated Nov. 14 and came in 2020, Buzbee said.
Underneath the receipt, Louis apparently writes to a third party that she wanted $20,000 from Watson but got $5,000. The third party was a woman who became a plaintiff in these cases, according to the transcript. The first lawsuits were filed against Watson in March 2021.
“I told you I’ll show you how to get money from men that’s my specialty,” Louis wrote, according to the exhibit filed in court.
In her deposition in May, Louis said she didn’t remember writing that.
Hardin, Watson’s attorney, said the women are lying and out for money. When asked for comment about Louis and the $5,000, Hardin didn't answer those questions and instead ripped the new plaintiff's credibility, saying she has a vendetta against Watson and has "been acting crazy about Deshaun since November of 2020."
Two grand juries considered 10 combined complaints filed against Watson but declined to indict him on criminal charges. In a previous statement, Hardin noted that only three of the lawsuits “involve any allegation of force.” The others generally describe encounters in which they say Watson exposed himself and caused his genitals to touch them.
“As we’ve said, as Deshaun has insisted under oath, each of those three occasions were consensual and instituted by the women,” Hardin’s statement said last week.
The women say it wasn’t consensual, and one of the three plaintiffs who accuses Watson of sexual assault or coercion is described as the cousin of Louis.
The newest plaintiff said in her lawsuit “she could not refuse Watson as a client because of her boss Dionne Louis.”
Watson recently was traded from the Houston Texans to the Browns, which gave him a record guaranteed contract of $230 million over five years.
I'm sort of interested in all the manufactured plausible deniability excuses for paying a mama-san, I mean Spa Manager, $5K "just because" .... I'm interested to know if there is evidence that the mama-san - errrrr Spa Manager - asked for $20K .... Interested to know if the text exchanges between DW and the Mama-San - I mean Spa Manager - can be subpoenaed if they are germane to a court case. Interested to know if there is a paper trail / text trail of the therapist expressing concern over treating DW and any response from the Mama-san, errrr Spa Manager.
Without actual evidence this is even more "he said - she said" stuff. With actual text and money transfers that are trackable ... this potentially spells some of the worst news for DW yet. And by extension the Browns.
The grand jury might have been interested in the $5000 "payment" (some might say "bribe") by Watson to the employer of these women, who subsequently felt compelled (coerced?) to provide a service they had been previously disinclined to perform.
Houston Spa Owner Testifies That Deshaun Watson Paid Her $5,000 Because “He’s A Nice Person”
Last Updated 7:39 PM, June 1, 2022 EDT – Mike Florio link
The 23 lawsuits pending against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson represent, for the most part, a contest of conflicting versions of events that transpired during massage sessions. There’s one witness, however, whose testimony potentially will support the argument that Watson had a habit of securing massages with the goal of having them become something more than massages.
Via Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today, Houston spa owner Dionne Louis testified in one of the cases pending against Watson that he paid her $5,000 because “he’s a nice person.”
Schrotenboer notes that at least three of the plaintiffs worked for Louis or were associated with her. The plaintiff who filed the most recent lawsuit against Watson, Nia Smith, specifically alleged that Louis facilitated massages for Watson and knew Watson was attempting to have sex with his massage therapists.
Footnote 4 to the petition filed by Nia Smith points out that Louis invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when asked about text messages she exchanged with Watson. Smith’s lawsuit includes text messages from Louis in which she says Watson gave her $5,000, and “I told you I’ll show you how to get money from men that’s my specialty.”
Reached by Schrotenboer, Louis said of Smith’s contentions, “All of that is ludicrous.” Louis also said Smith “has a pattern of doing this type of stuff.”
The potential patterns of Dionne Louis become particularly relevant to the Watson cases, since her involvement potentially can help plaintiff’s establish that Watson had a habit of arranging massages with the goal of having those massages become sexual encounters.
This thread is proof positive why so many long-time posters are gone and why so many guys who love to just talk football, such as guard and tru rarely post anymore. Find four articles to post the same information as the first one in an attempt to influence others to trash a man's character. Pure football, my ass!
The reality for me is this. He was in serious trouble as a Texan but choosing between teams he actually wanted to be on, he and that new team would have been facing some serious but probably manageable music if he made as much of this disappear as quickly as possible. A few cases linger but most lose steam and down the road he signs a new contract and everyone hurumphs but it fades out of view and everyone’s back to football.
But the second a team gave him a $1/4bn, the biggest guarantee in history by far, an embarrassing reward for an extremely compromised player to go to a team he made it known he didn’t want to play for and then allowed him to continue to refuse to make it go away, it invited, nay BEGGED, all forms of “oh no you didn’t!!!” fresh hell to come raining down demanding all kinds of blood and justice and retribution.
This was entirely predictable. It won’t abate, it will spread and get worse and louder and nastier until the itch is so big it’s going to require the nuclear option to scratch it. I’ll be surprised if he plays a game this year. And if he does, the announcers will be talking about it, and the post game will be talking about it, and the weekly shows will be talking about it, and everyone is going to be more or less rooting for him and that forever stupid team to fail, looking for any reason to pile on and on and on because it won’t stop until they make it stop one way of the other. How the brass of the Browns didn’t see that giving him that contract and making that kind of news story and then NOT MANAGING IT would invite truly hellish and relentless blowback is mystifying and frankly makes me deeply question their judgement. I had so much hope for this group….
This thread is proof positive why so many long-time posters are gone and why so many guys who love to just talk football, such as guard and tru rarely post anymore. Find four articles to post the same information as the first one in an attempt to influence others to trash a man's character. Pure football, my ass!
Sorry but the team invited this. There’s more to every player than his stats and what he does on the field. Period. I really don’t get into the “right or wrong” of the Deshaun stuff. I talk almost exclusively about the strategic decisions the Browns make and whether they’re good decisions for the franchise of not. The fact that NO ONE can just talk about Deshaun the football player means that the other stuff matters more frankly. A lot more. And will effect Deshaun the football player on the field tremendously. And thus the long term arc of the Browns tremendously. To say we wish we could just talk about football and Deshaun the football player is just another way of saying I wish he were a different person and this was a different kind of team.
Sorry, but I am not changing my mind. You, and other Baker fans, are salivating over the possibility of a man's character being destroyed in the Pure Football forum. Shameful. This is not football talk. It's character assassination. The rest of the country isn't making nearly as much about this as the Baker fans are.
Vers, what the heck is wrong with you dude. All you ever do is bring up Mayfield in every one of your posts trying to sway people to your train of thought. Nobody is salivating over the possibility of a man's character being destroyed or assassinating his character. There is not a single person on this forum that had anything to do with the issues Watson is facing. The 42 and counting number of women that have been thrown into this mess because of the alleged actions by Watson are his doing - not the posters here. Baker has nothing to do with what Watson is facing either. The Browns are in this mess because they injected themselves into the mess.
You continue to claim this isn't football talk. I cannot think a football talk topic can be any more important than the strong possibility that the Browns chosen QB is going to be sitting on the sidelines because of his off the field decision making process. That after all the work the organization has done in building a competitive roster with championship capability is now being threatened because of the poor decision-making process of the QB they sought out. Whether Watson is quilty or not, the fact still remains that all of the previous stats, arm strength, yards, and TD's that Watson can bring to the Cleveland Browns means absolutley nothing, zero, zip if he isn't on the field. That my friend has a direct bearing on the football ability of the team we support on this forum thus is football talk.
Your comment about the rest of the country not making much about this as the Baker fans is just plain foolish. When Watson was a Texan last year, Browns fans could have cared less what was going on with Watson or the Texans. Now Watson is a member of the Cleveland Browns with a 230M guaranteed contract that those same Browns fans are now looking at a strong possibility that the chosen one QB won't even be playing in the foreseeable future. Contrary to your belief, that has nothing to do with Baker Mayfield or the fans that appreciate what Mayfield has done for the players, fans, and organization the last 4 years in Cleveland. You want to demean Mayfield on his way out of town and that's your prerogative but people also have the same right to support Mayfield without your attacks. That support has nothing to do with Watson's and Cleveland's self-inflicted issues with over 42 women that more likely than not is going to put the Browns QB on the sidelines for an extended period of time which effects the football team. .
Watson not being able to play and the reason he won't be playing is football and thus should be talked about by the fans of the team because it's part of the pure football forum - not having our QB available to play!
This thread is proof positive why so many long-time posters are gone and why so many guys who love to just talk football, such as guard and tru rarely post anymore. Find four articles to post the same information as the first one in an attempt to influence others to trash a man's character. Pure football, my ass!
Nobody has to try and trash a man's character in Watson, he's done that all by himself. Watson's choices that will most likely be cause for his inability to play some or all of 2022 were his and his alone. He didn't have help from anyone on this forum.
Watson will never play a down for the Cleveland Browns.
If that happens, it could cost Berry his job!
I doubt it....at least in a singular view. I think the decision on Watson was a team effort with a lot of discussion that also included Jimmy and Dee Haslam, as well as the Haslams son-in law JW Johnston who seems to be poised to take over once his wife inherits the team.
I don't know if the Haslam daughter's have any real involvement in the team, but JW is pretty deep in the operation. It looks like he is the one with the chops to take over the actual operations of the team.
A Houston spa owner recently testified that Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson gave her $5,000, and the reason for it was simply because “he’s a nice person,” according to a deposition transcript obtained by USA TODAY Sports.
After reading that, TX prosecutor probably already has an indictment from the grand jury. Dude is going to prison.
Sorry, but I am not changing my mind. You, and other Baker fans, are salivating over the possibility of a man's character being destroyed in the Pure Football forum. Shameful. This is not football talk. It's character assassination. The rest of the country isn't making nearly as much about this as the Baker fans are.
vers...like it or not, Watson's off the field history is "directly linked" to his play on the field. Watson didn't even take the field last season because of his OFF THE FIELD CONDUCT.
So now Browns fans are left with the reality that Watson's 'off the field history' could and will likely have an impact on our Browns, depending on how long of a suspension the NFL gives Watson. The claim that Watson's past conduct is not a pure football subject is pure BS.
Watson did this to himself and the fact that new issues continue to surface and are being discussed does not mean 'anyone' is trying to destroy Watson's character.
A Houston spa owner recently testified that Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson gave her $5,000, and the reason for it was simply because “he’s a nice person,” according to a deposition transcript obtained by USA TODAY Sports.
After reading that, TX prosecutor probably already has an indictment from the grand jury. Dude is going to prison.
oobs...we do not know if the Texas county prosecutors already included this latest information in their presentation to the two grand juries that declined to prosecute.
If they didn't include this information in their grand jury presentation someone should be asking 'why not' ? Does that mean Texas revisits the Watson case..? I have my doubts that Texas wants anymore to do with Watson.
I should've put my post in purple (or whatever color). I don't know how you could read the line I quoted and not be convinced he was soliciting prostitutes.
My understanding is that the Grand Jury heard arguments to indict for sex assault, not soliciting prostitutes. Perhaps with this latest accuser not coming forward, they didn't have the info to pursue that charge. Now that she has entered the arena her story is now fair game (I have no idea, I'm just guessing and I'm biased because I always thought his intentions more lined up with soliciting than assault).
mac, labeling Watson a sexual deviant, rapey, a predator, etc and using the phrase mama-san three different times while posting the same information 3-4 times by different sites is not football talk. They are shameful attempts at trying to convince others to agree w/you while trashing a man's character. Watson has NOT been convicted of any crimes at this point in time and portraying in a manner that he is indeed guilty is as far away from Pure Football as it gets. And again, it's crap like this that has driven posters who want to talk about football away.
![[Linked Image from cdn.vox-cdn.com]](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/W98FAC4qaWvBkmFqUS-UhVEvoko=/1400x1400/filters:format(jpeg)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19345059/EIfabgIU0AUcUa8.jpg)
Home Steeler game, TNF II3 days,
Get over yourself, you're really not that important. Hell, nobody missed you when you were gone. smh.
![[Linked Image from thatshelf.com]](https://thatshelf.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/axe_header2-600x480.png)