Cross fingers...no appeals.

Ok.

All that remains is the NFL agreeing to the number and not appealing.

Given the NFLPA made it clear it would not appeal. It would be a spit in the eye if the NFL overrules her and the process.

The decision is in. The Browns will be without Watson for 6 games this season. Thoughts? The NFL wanted him suspended for the whole season. We will see if they appeal.

Can Watson still participate in training camp, or does he have to leave now?

Six too many. The owners get off without any punishment.....I don't get it. At least it wasn't longer. Go Browns!!!

Accept the 6 game suspension Goodell and let's move on. This has been dragged out way too long

I get the feeling this drama is not over yet. Goodell doesn't seem to be the type to not get his way.

Six games is a reasonable suspension. Season is still salvageable with a six game suspension. Brissett needs to have the team at 4-2 when Watson returns.

Need to get off to a fast start for the season not to be lost.

From what I understand he can practice and play in the preseason but can't when the regular season starts.

If the NFL appeals then the NFLPA can then appeal and take the NFL to a federal court.

This would extend the whole process for an indefinite amount of time something that the NFL would probably not want.

Six games when you read the Personal Conduct Policy is the starting point of a violation against the policy.

With a cupcake schedule to start the season the record will be entirely determined by Stefanski. You know my feelings on him. I'm not holding my breath but would love to be proven wrong. He simply has to out coach the likes of Saleh, Rhule, Smith, etc. with a supremely more talented team. If we exit the 6 games less than 4-2 you'll start hearing some "rumors".

Watson can participate in TC and play in preseason games. If the suspension stays at 6 games, he will have to stay away from the team for the first 3 games and then be allowed to return the team in week 4 and be eligible to play in week 7.

It’ll be interesting to see how Stefanski divides up the reps between Brissett and Watson moving forward in training camp.

It’s unfortunate that Bell and now, Schwartz, are not getting the reps to develop chemistry with either QB.

Depending on how Stefanski divides the reps up moving forward, the lost time developing a chemistry between the receivers/TEs and Watson could carry into the season.

So Watson Got Off easy .... Again.

I've been of the opinion that he's done what he's accused of.... One woman, ahh,, not so much... 30 or more,, there is smoke.

Having said that, he's settled a bunch of these suits.. To me that could either indicate he knows he's guilty... Or, it could be a means to an end to just get this crap overwith. I honestly don't know which.

So, here we are, barring an appeal by anyone, All we need is for Jacoby to lead us to 3 to 4 wins, and then we are off to the races.... Not sure how much faith I have in Brissett.. We shall see.

UST like I typed, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY- note, Watson has settled with ALL but one, and she was offered $100,000 but wanted more. I still think he got hosed......Owners held to a higher standard....baloney....Watson isn't pure, but he should have gotten what the owners got....NO Punishment.....Go Browns!!! PS, eventually, the PLAYERS will know they have the power. One of these cases will cause a work stoppage....ie NO GAMES, wonder how long it would take settle then....GO Browns!!!

NFL Network going full self righteous mode.

Some reporter named Judy Battista seemed like she was about to cry while citing numerous non factual parts of the case and editorializing her report.

Oh boy.

No more massages outside the team!

IMO it is important to look at the process that was agreed upon by the NFL and NFLPA.

Then look at Robinson who was approved by both parties.

She then listened to DW for 3 days. Then the NFL and the NFLPA presented everything relevant to her in a written format.

She is a former federal judge who has heard thousands of cases.

She made her ruling.

92.3 is reporting he can practice TC & pre-season. Not practicing during season until after week 3. Not sure I have it exactly right, but very close.


Sorry I should have read further down as others answered.

You have it right. I posted this earlier in response to the original question.


Obviously, that will change if the NFL appeals and the suspension is lengthened. For example, if they suspend him for 10 games, Watson would not be able to return to practice after week 5 and then play in week 11.

Personally, given the evidence and looking at precedence, I think 6 games is too much. The season is probably lost. However, I think having Judge Robinson determine the punishment has to be more fair than it would have been before the new agreement. Of course, the NFL can still appeal and lengthen the suspension.

It's being reported Watson's side is not happy with the 6 games...implying they expected less.

Lets go Browns!!!

I’ve thought it would be between 4-8 games for quite some time, so 6 is in the middle.

I also think it is VERY interesting to see what the NFL does. There are benefits to appealing and benefits to not appealing.

IF they appeal and Goodell ups the punishment to 12 games or whatever, get ready for a lawsuit from the NFLPA … and that will drag out as long.

I think the NFL won't appeal. And Watson will settle the last case ASAP out of court. There is a reason that 2 grand juries found no evidence to send the cases to a trail. And now a much shorter suspension than league proposed. The evidence just does not support what the court of public opinion thinks about the case. Heck we have posters on this board that don't know jack about the case except what they hear from the media and they call him rapey and predator. That is just wrong. The court of public opinion should not exist. Let the facts speak for themselves and in this case they seem to be speaking over and over. Bottom line is he should not have been ordering and receiving these kind of massages and his behavior was inappropriate. But not violent and not thratening so he is not who some of our posters are referring to him as.

True, 0-4 games would have been preferable, but I don't think that we will conceded the season over six games.

I’m betting the NFL takes it up to some much higher number which allows them to look like the good, responsible guy with their ear to ground, Watson and NFLPA then do in fact appeal and we end up at 8 games. I don’t think this is over by a long shot

The schedule certainly was set up favorably for us to tread water for the first 6 weeks (so part of me thinks this was going to be the outcome for a while).

We play Carolina, NY Jets, Pittsburgh (at home on a short week), Atlanta, and then two tough games but both at home.

The NFL is providing us the easiest possible stretch of games … and then Watson gets a TOUGH start to his Cleveland career, but it’s a fighting chance for us.

Looking at the quality of the first 4 opponents, and the quality of our defense and run game, hopefully we can weather the storm at around 4-2 through those 6 games.

It’s imperative because if you look at the games after DeShaun returns … YIKES (at Baltimore, Cincinnati, at Miami, at Buffalo, Tampa Bay)

j/c:

I figured it would be between 6 & 8 games. 6 seems fair to me. I'm real happy it wasn't for all season, like a few of us thought a few weeks ago. Go Browns!

What will Roger do ?

I do think it is over.

This was part of the negotiated process between the NFL and NFLPA. The reason was to remove Goodell from being a sole decision maker with no legal background.

The NFLPA stuck the stake in the ground with their announcement just prior to today's ruling that they would not appeal Robinson's ruling.
Sue Robinson is "her" name.

For Goodell to overrule "her" would be like ripping up the CBA. In addition it would prolong the process that has been on going for an already excessive amount of time.

I think 6 games is all right. It should just end at that. It's gone on way to long and shouldn't be prolonged. Case closed.

Anyone have a link to her 15 page conclusion? That is what I am interested in seeing.

I saw a couple quotes...just a snippet of a snippet...."In explaining her decision to the parties involved, Robinson determined that Watson’s “pattern of behavior was egregious” but that he engaged in “nonviolent sexual conduct.”". 6 games is the minimum, I believe. And I believe she felt that his conduct that was presented met the 50/50 requirement that it probably occurred and she felt it violated the conduct policy. And again, we don't know what that conduct was...we don't know what was presented to her.

But without much information...It appears, she felt he violated the policy but not so much as to give more than the minimum suspension...

I agree Pete

Teams will stack the box and force Brissett to throw. With our questions at WR, the TEs will really have to step up.

The short pass, executing time consuming drives, not being down in the 4th quarter, and the defense staying healthy will make the difference.

Brissett doesn't have to win games for us, just don't lose them. It'll be interesting to see how Stefanski calls them.

3-3 wouldn't be disastrous. Just don't want to see Rosen or Dobbs.

Let's consider a few things if the NFL appeals:

---How does it look if the NFL overrules a former Federal Judge on the very first case she is presiding over? How are they legally more capable than she is?

---How does the NFL lose their appeal? Thus, is it really an appeal or are they just overruling her ruling? Does that make sense? I'm saying if the NFL appeals her ruling, what chance is there of the NFL ruling against their own appeal?

---Will the NFLPA's promise of a lawsuit that will drag the NFL's name through the mud make the NFL hesitant to go forward w/an appeal?

---Contrarily, will the threat of public outrage coerce the NFL to appeal?

if brissett can manage a 3-3 record, thats still so much time to win the division, never mind getting into the playoffs!

#BadTakesExposed
https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1957335/4

Did teh NFL choose Judge Robinson or was made in conjunction with NFLPA? To me, the NFL will look pretty stupid if the very first case she hears, and the NFL comes out with a "we are not happy with what she decided so her decision is out the window" it will make them look like buffoons. Also, there will be people pointing out that overruling a female experienced judge will not have a great "look".

That kind of nets it out.

Goodell would be making a joke of the process.

NFL, NFLPA must publish Judge Robinson’s decision in the Deshaun Watson case

Posted by Mike Florio on August 1, 2022, 10:25 AM EDT
link


So why did Judge Sue L. Robinson suspend Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson for six games? Great question. And it’s impossible to answer that question without reading her ruling.

We’re told that it’s a 16-page document. But we haven’t seen it yet.

For now, the NFL and the NFL Players Association have not published the decision. The union responded to our question as to whether the decision will be released by saying that it doesn’t know. The league has not yet responded to an email and a text message raising the question.

The decision needs to be released. Freely and publicly and openly. Not as a commodity slipped to an reporter who is either on the NFL’s payroll (literally) or who has put someone at 345 Park Avenue on the Christmas chocolate list. It need to be posted by the NFL and the NFLPA at their websites, now.

That’s how it had always been, before the Washington investigation was brushed under the rug. Full transparency. How else can anyone understand why Judge Robinson did what she did? To the extent that the league needs the general public to buy in to the decision, people need to be able to read it. To understand it. To see what the evidence was. What it wasn’t. And how she came to the conclusion that Watson violated the policy and should miss six games for it.

Obviously, the names of the four accusers whose claims triggered the suspension would have to be redacted from the ruling. (And maybe they already are.) It would be unfortunate, but not surprising, if the league doesn’t want to do that.

Concealing the names of the accusers would expose the stupidity of that NFL’s position that it wasn’t good enough to simply change the names of the cooperating employees in the Washington case, and that the only way to protect the witnesses was to hide all of the evidence. If the league releases Judge Robinson’s ruling with the names of the accusers omitted, the league will face a renewed call to do the same thing with Beth Wilkinson’s report in the Washington case.

you know florio is ticked off. he wanted watson to burn at the stake.

Most of the media does. Kyle Brandt, Jamie Erdahl, and Judy Battista on GMFB were outraged. Jamie almost couldn't keep doing the show. I just shake my head.

Mac I know you are just publishing this, so this is not pointed at you...


What a freaking crock....
We do not "NEED" this to be public. We want it to be public. This, essentially, is an internal business matter. What other company in the US has to publicize the results and happenings of their internal disciplinary process??? If Joe factory worker in the UAW was brought up on charges and had a disciplinary process...is the UAW or the Auto Company posting everything for the whole world to see? No...

Yes, I want to know too...but "need"??? Seriously??? I am most interested in her document and conclusions...And her document will give me a better picture as to how to handle this situation....that doesn't mean I am entitled to them.

Take a step back Florio...you are not that important.

If Goodell goes against this ruling on the first opportunity to use a non partial arbiter, especially one a experienced as Robinson, this will not bode well for future negotiations with NFLPA. NFL/NFLPA are already on shaky ground on several issues, and player vs owner punishment has always been an issue. I think Goodell and NFL just let this stand and everyone moves on. Nothing gained really by either party by dragging this out, On the flip side though if Goodell tries to increase it and the NFLPA take to federal court, I think they would win. There just isn't enough evidence to support what NFL is wanting. Public opinion isn't evidence. They words of accusers arent exactly damnable evidence without some corroborating evidence. The NFLPA/Watson have more on their side with the criminal investigations producing no fruit than the NFL have. Lets just hope this is over and everyone moves on... It won't be long until someone else in the NFL screws up and creates a story for the 24 hour news cycle

swish...so your position is Robinson's decision should remain secret?...disagreeing with Florio!

Of course a media member wants it published. I understand why many citizens want it published. However, we don't need anything. It could lead to unintended results.

I think it is up to the NFL and NFLPA as to whether it should be public knowledge...For what reason does it "need" to be public. Wanting it to be public is not the same as "should" be public. In what way is this the public's business? If the document NEVER comes out...How are you in the public affected? You aren't. We are not entitled to the information. Not too mention I don't expect the document to be available until after the 3 day appeal period passes, if it ever does become public.

i dont know, but i dont really care either way. as a fan, im more concerned about whether goodell will attempt to appeal. this is like zeke, nothing in court but chalk it up to the player conduct policy for reasons of suspension.

6 games in a 17 game season is the best scenario possible, short of no suspension. other than to keep the drama up, the reasons behind the decision is secondary. now i just wanna have watson go through TC and play the most in preseason, as well as getting brissett ready to keep this team in the playoff race for the first 6 games.

Consider the financial impact of her decision. If his suspension is without pay, his "loss" should be larger overall on a per game calculation than say a league minimum player. The precedent, which some may consider hypocritical compared to owners outcomes, is in place tentatively for now. Glad we are most of the way over this mountain.

If Watson's side is unhappy because they think it's too much and Goodell isn't happy because he thinks it's too little, then it's probably right about where it should be.

Does anyone know if Watson was fined by the Judge..?

Starting with the Panthers, Jets, Steelers, Falcons... run the ball, play defense and get to the Chargers/Patriots games 4-0... just get it done.

Then Watson comes back for the Ravens and Bengals...

The Bengals and 49ers started 3 and 3 last year and both made it to the conference championship games. So, I guess there is hope. I was thinking a 4 game suspension was doable, but nothing above that. I don't know.....maybe we can make the playoffs w/him missing 6 games, but he didn't even play last year and will miss 6 more games this upcoming year. There is bound to be some rust.

I think the cause of their outrage is due to the fact they actually expected some type of justice in the suspension. Which they nor these women got. I'm not surprised there wasn't justice. Same old same old.

If the NFL apeals for a longer suspension, and then the NFLPA contests, this could take considerable time. Would Watson's suspension not start until everything is settled?

I agree with this.

Brissett has to go at least 4-2. One of the losses cannot be against divisional opponent Pittsburgh. 3-3 and I think the season is likely dead. Those AFC losses come back to haunt teams when it comes to tiebreakers for playoff purposes.

I also agree that not only is it reasonable to assume Watson will have some rust, but the lack of getting 100% of the reps in TC with the receivers/TEs. Couple that with facing a very tough schedule coming out of the suspension and it will be a challenge.

I think the majority of us felt it was going to be a 4-6 game suspension.

I would bet the NFL and NFLPA came to a handshake agreement not to appeal on this one and let it disappear into the past.

it's not a good look for the brand.

Which is why some people advocate it remain private. Hopefully someone will get their hands on it and publish it. We already know he can only get massages from team appointed massage therapists and that Robinson said his conduct was egregious. So yeah, I can see why some propose it stay private.

Just talking.

I don't think rust will be a factor. He has been there for every activity. He will practice all through camp and pre-season games.

He will be able to return to practice after three games. He will get to watch JB execute the offense.

I think he will do everything possible to be prepared to play. The pre-season will get him some live action.

Sure not ideal but DW has been playing football for most of his life. He will immerse himself in film and he will be in great physical condition.

He should even have a black and blue mark or any soreness.

Right now for the Browns as a team it should be all systems go. Win with JB and keep winning when DW returns.

Good question. I don't know the answer and I am just guessing.

If the NFL appeals and increases the number of games, the suspension would begin once they make their final ruling on the appeal. I think the NFLPA would have to win in Federal Court in order to overturn that suspension. I could be dead wrong, though.

I think the best thing to do is to look at Elliot's case... this is a short read of the timeline, and on-again off-again suspension.



The Ezekiel Elliott suspension explained in a 2-minute read
Why isn’t the Cowboys’ star running back on the field? We’ve got a quick breakdown for you.

By Jeanna Kelley@jeannathomas Updated Dec 24, 2017, 4:37pm EST

The Cowboys welcome the Eagles to AT&T Stadium on Sunday Night Football, but running back Ezekiel Elliott won’t be on the field. If you haven’t kept up with all of the twists and turns of Elliott’s six-game suspension, we’ve put together a thorough overview of the situation and a complete timeline of events.

But for those of you just want the basics, we’ve got you covered, too.

Elliott was investigated. The NFL spent over a year investigating domestic violence allegations raised by Elliott’s former girlfriend in Columbus, Ohio. She filed police reports and went to the Columbus City Attorney’s office to pursue charges in July 2016. Elliott was never charged with a crime.

Elliott was suspended. The NFL’s disciplinary process does not carry the same burden of proof as the legal system. The league’s investigation determined that Elliott was violent toward the woman on three separate occasions.

In August of this year, Roger Goodell issued a six-game suspension to Elliott. That’s the baseline number of games for a first-time domestic violence offender.

Elliott appealed to the NFL, but the suspension was upheld. Goodell appointed an arbitrator, Harold Henderson, to hear Elliott’s appeal. Henderson upheld the suspension, despite issues raised by Elliott’s side that the NFL’s lead investigator, Kia Roberts, recommended that he should not be suspended based on her interviews with Elliott’s accuser.

Meanwhile, the NFL Players Association was moving forward outside of the league’s jurisdiction.

Elliott’s suspension was put on hold for the first time. The NFLPA filed a lawsuit against the NFL, but it was not about whether Elliott was guilty or not of committing domestic violence. Rather, the union alleged the NFL’s disciplinary process was fundamentally unfair. The union asked for a preliminary injunction to keep Elliott on the field. In the U.S. District Court of Eastern Texas, Judge Amos Mazzant granted the injunction in early September. Elliott was allowed to play.

Elliott’s suspension was back on for the second time. The NFL appealed to the 5th Circuit Court, where a panel of three judges overturned the district court’s ruling in a split decision due to lack of jurisdiction. They also ordered the U.S. District Court of Eastern Texas to dismiss the case. Elliott’s suspension was in effect again after the Cowboys’ bye in Week 6.

Elliott’s suspension was put on hold for the second time. The NFLPA re-filed in the New York Southern District Court. Katherine Polk Failla, the judge who was supposed to hear the case, was on vacation. The court gave Elliott a temporary administrative stay, which allowed him to play until the judge returned and could issue a ruling.

Elliott’s suspension was back on for the third time. When she returned, Judge Failla ruled against Elliott. The court also applied a 24-hour emergency stay to Failla’s decision to give the NFLPA time to file an emergency appeal. That appeal was denied, too. Elliott’s suspension was on again starting in Week 9.

Elliott’s suspension was put on hold for the third time. The NFLPA appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court. A panel of judges issued an emergency stay while they considered the appeal. That kept Elliott on the field in Week 9.

Elliott’s suspension was back on for the final time. The NFLPA’s motion for an injunction to delay Elliott’s suspension further was denied. His six-game suspension officially began in Week 10.

However, oral arguments for his next appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court was set for Dec. 1, four games into his suspension.

It finally ended. Elliott dropped his appeal entirely, while the NFLPA withdrew its lawsuit. Elliott will serve his entire-six game suspension, and he’ll be eligible to return to the field in Week 16 against the Seahawks.


https://www.sbnation.com/2017/11/19/16666714/ezekiel-elliott-nfl-suspension-cowboys-ex

Just Clickin
And just like I thought... 6-8 games... I wish I could pick 7 digits that well. ... WHY... because out of all those cases, the NFL only had 4 strong ones. And of those, there was no physical contact, coersion..etc... Thats when i knew this was going to be 6-8. The NFL case was weak. Now of course Goodell could come in and say screw that, 10 games plus fine. BUT... Goodell cannot over reach because if I was the NFLPA and Watson's legal team, I would be telling the NFL we can go to court and you can explain your prior decisions, especially on the owners!!.. Remember, Goodell has to protect the owners.

Goodell will talk tuff for 3 few days and then go along with the ruling!!

The wording was not physical contact. It was that there was "no violence". And nothing was mentioned about coercion either way. Try again.

That 6 game stretch could decide the season plus the Ravens
And Bengals games 7 and 8.
6 of the 1st 8 games are vs AFC teams.
5 are at home.
Those AFC games are not automatic Ws for the Browns.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...mp;cvid=a5c312cdaa6a43069b6696fb2cdf325e

Your quoting the source from the judge.. mine was from the NFL's case which did not show any " violence, threat, force or coercion". So at the end of the day, the NFL out of all those so called women had a case with 4 women and had NONE of the things above... they had weak cards going in....

Now the like I said, the NFLPA/Watson's team can drag the NFL back into court.. Goodell dont want that.

Florio is full of it !

Absolutely, the NFL/owners can't throw Robinson under the bus- if they do, maybe the players strike- wonder who'd give in. I'd be very surprised if the 6 games gets changed. Legal action AT LEAST by players association. Go Browns!!!

j/c...

No it's not. This was something someone said to Florio. Other than the violence component nothing in the judges decision claims any of that and all you're going on and posted came from what someone said to Florio. If all of the things you said were actually accurate, watson probably wouldn't have been suspended at all.

If none of those things above happened, what do you think it is Robinson is calling egregious and why would she not allow watson to see any other massage therapists other than the teams appointed ones? You can't be serious here.

Do you love being WRONG ALL THE TIME!!!...
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...at-the-nfls-case-against-deshaun-watson/

This was WIDELY reported by everyone!!... the NFL did not have a good case.. right now, we dont have the written ruling from the judge yet. But when we do, we will get the full explanation and It will show the NFLs prior handling of suspensions plus the FACTS of the case. Not some B.S that Pit dawg is trying to say are the facts.

and yea, the NFL will go with that ruling

There is also a reason 2 grand juries did not have enough evidence to convict. Sue Robinson's decision came out much lower than media expected. The fact is there is not enough real factual evidence to support what the court of public opinion believes in this case. Was what Watson did inappropriate? Yes. Was it criminal? No! Many including you believe this man is a sexual predator and that simply is not the case.

NFL is reviewing Judge Robinson’s decision in the Deshaun Watson case, will decide on “next steps”

Posted by Mike Florio on August 1, 2022, 12:36 PM EDT
link


Now that Judge Sue L. Robinson has imposed a six-game suspension on Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, the ball is in the league’s court.

Will the NFL exercise its right to appeal the decision to the Commissioner of the NFL?

For now, the league has not answered the question. Here’s the statement from the league, issued moments ago: “We thank Judge Sue L. Robinson, the independent disciplinary officer, for her review of the voluminous record and attention during a three-day hearing that resulted in her finding multiple violations of the NFL Personal Conduct Policy by Deshaun Watson. We appreciate Judge Robinson’s diligence and professionalism throughout this process. Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the NFL or the NFLPA on behalf of Watson may appeal the decision within three days. In light of her findings, the league is reviewing Judge Robinson’s imposition of a six-game suspension and will make a determination on next steps.”

The NFLPA already has said it will accept Judge Robinson’s decision, and the union has called on the league to do so as well. While it eventually may, the league has yet to reach a decision.

I'll say. Look at the following.

The headline reads: "Initial public reaction to Deshaun Watson suspension is not positive." That's rather ambiguous, but it suggests that people wanted a harsher penalty.

Now, look at the actual question: "Do you agree with Deshaun Watson being suspended six games?" The choices were Yes and No. More ambiguity.

Now, look at the first comment:


Hey Florio........why not word the question like this and give the following options?

How do you feel about the length of Deshaun Watson's suspension?

___ a. Too lenient
___ b. Too harsh
___ c. Just right

The process involving the NFL's ability to review and increase Judge Robinson's penalty to Watson is the process the NFLPA agreed to with the new CBA, so its hard to see how a federal court is going to intercede on their behalf if they sue the NFL after its first implementation. In other words, this is what you signed on for.

I believe the league will come out and say they don't fully agree with the decision but they will accept the decision because they won't want to taggle with the union over Deshaun Watson. In the end they will let the media outage die down like all liberal fake outrage does eventually. Then move forward. The NFL has bigger fish to fry with the union than Deshaun Watson in the long run.

Looks like she did make reference to how the owners have been treated in the past after all.

Florio had a source making that claim and that's all he had. Everyone knows that.

That's simply your opinion.

That last sentence in the first paragraph of the Conclusion is pretty damn strong.

Interesting. So she did hint at the inconsistency of the precedent and somewhat scold the NFL for being reactive.

The same agreement said that owners/coaches/club execs would be held to a higher standard than players. How has that worked out? Literally zero punishment for any of them besides Snyder, and even his was much more lenient.

While I agree that I believe it is over and the NFL will not appeal this case. I don't think the reason was to remove Goodell from being the sole decision make with no legal background. I personally believe it was for two reasons, one to have an impartial arbitrator for the purpose of determining whether the Conduct Policy is violated on a case by case basis and set a "recommendation" from that impartial person, in case the NFLPA needs to take the NFL to court. They have lost every case they have ever filed, because of the way the previous CBA was written. They negotiated it, so they have to live with it. Now, Goodell can't change anything that the arbitrator deems didn't violate the policy. But, it also gives them ground if Goodell takes an extreme approach to punishment one way or the other. In other words, I think it removes the possibility that Goodell gives an owner nothing in the future and it also gives Goodell a much tighter leash to dole out punishment.

I do think if Goodell(by proxy the NFL) feels strongly enough that he should have been punished for a full season, he would appeal and add something like 6 games to the punishment. Why 6 games is relevant is that the player loses a year of accrual on his contract if he is not eligible to play in at least 6 games of the season. With the 17 game season, that now becomes 11 games allowed to be missed. 12 games and his current contract year tolls to the next. The league could probably argue in court that it is not in excess of their rights according to the CBA. However, going from 6 games (starting minimum for the conduct policy as written) to indefinite or even a year, would be a really tough sell in court. The NFL might lose their first case.

Regardless in this case, I will be surprised if they choose to challenge the process the first time out of the gate.

The most shocking thing in this is the clause that he can only have massages from team personnel. If it is found out he goes outside of his team organization, he can immediate be suspended again.. Not sure how this falls into a personal conduct policy. That is taking personal rights away from the facility. Kind of strange that it was part of this.

Just curious how Snyder was more lenient?

Snyder $10M, (Snyder also voluntarily removed himself from football operations for a year)
Watson, 6 games and $365,294.11

I don't see the leniency in Snyder. All others, I agree 100%, but there has been a lot of "Snyder gets off easy as an owner" talk.. I don't understand. His fine was historical, by about $8.5M from memory... none had ever come close to $2M and he didn't step foot inside the building for a year.

Kraft is the one that hurts the league the most imho.

I've posted several articles on Snyder's case. The $10 million fine is not that much for him. I know that sounds strange, but that assertion was made repeatedly. Also, the NFL isn't monitoring Snyder's self-imposed ban and Goodell admitted to that during his testimony to Congress.

She clearly calls out the owners when you read footnote 51 in her Conclusion.

One thing that is for sure, Goodell will find a way to make things worse.

It appears to me that the sticking point was about "fair notice" that was not given in advance more than anything else for requesting a much harsher penalty.

From her report...

Damn that unwanted penis contact.

i think the nfl is gonna let this go. as ive stated before, the nfl is already waste deep in it with regards to the commanders. everybody agreed to her preceding over this issue, and hopefully the nfl and nflpa just lets it go.

6 games, no fines. hopefully we move on

I think he got off really easy. I would think that the fact that the judge found no fault with the NFL's facts, the NFL may decide to increase the penalty.

Because Snyder is worth billions. The fine did literally nothing to hurt him, at all. I have no idea how involved he is in the day to day, but seeing as how he stayed on hit yacht for weeks on end to avoid Congress shows it's probably not much. He also wasn't banned. He still attended games, and his wife "ran" the team in his place. The NFL also never released the independent findings in regards to the case.

Snyder was accused by over 20 women as well, I believe. I will need to confirm that. But it was quite a few I do know. I don't know what else the NFL could do besides force him to sell.

Also, the $10 million fine was for work place culture, not the sexual allegations against him personally.

Bingo. The judge is not saying he didn’t do it. In fact she is saying he did sexually assault the women the NFL presented. She is also saying the the NFL botched things so thoroughly in the past that she can’t suspend Watson more than six games because of precedent/fair notice.

I would be very surprised if the NFL does not appeal. If the NFL appeals this will be dragged out for months and months.

The owners now may begin to weigh on this more now regarding any appeal by the NFL. We know that is one of the avenues the NFLPA and Watson's counsel undoubtedly will go down if an appeal is made, not to mention any potential lawsuit filed by the NFLPA. The owners might rather have things move on and not be dragged through more of this process now that the lack of equal treatment has been called out in the public report.

Irish, I'm not sure if you know but Snyder tried to "pimp out" the Redskin cheerleaders to rich business men on trips, several times. Then Snyder and other men in the organization were sexually harrassing women the then Redskin HDQ. The NFL had the invesitgators give a oral presentation and NOT have anything in the case written down!!... Snyder got off light as hell!!! and the fan base in DC has no love for him. So what type of investigation did he get??

I agree. Even if we go 2-4 with brissett we will still have Watson for 11 games. If we win 8 of those we will have 10 wins on the season which still gives us a shot...be it a wildcard. With Brissett I think we can realistically win 3, maybe 4 games. Who knows, maybe more but that is a stretch.

I don't buy this season throw away stuff. This isn't a QB with chopped liver around him.

This.

2 things…
I will be very surprised if the NFL doesn’t appeal. I’m not a conspiracy guy but this seems too perfect a tee up. Everyone outside of Cleveland is outraged it’s only 6 games. Here comes the NFL to right that wrong. They take it to a full season or whatever. Then Watson and & NFLPA appeal which stretches into the actual season and many fewer people notice when it’s marked back down to 8ish games. PR chess.

Second thing is I won’t be one bit surprised if Brissett ends up surprising a lot people. He’s never had even close to this level of talent around him. I won’t be surprised if he comes out of his tenure with a winning record.

Going to court would probably produce an injunction by the Federal Court,staying the penalty until the issue was heard in court.

Agreed on your first comments. Judge Robinson even described Watson's behavior as 'predatory.'

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

Watson's party should be satisfied that she ruled as she did given her report and the findings. Also, thank the NFL for being a disaster.

I actually do not believe the NFL will appeal the decision. I do not think they will want to undermine the new process given this is the first case. Additionally, I do not think they (the owners) want to open themselves up to further damaging evidence that would likely become public and embarrass the owners and the League should the NFLPA actually follow through on this and sue the NFL. My guess is the NFL washes their hands of this and hopes the kickoff to the NFL season with the Hall of Fame Game changes the news cycle and shift the focus back to the upcoming football season.

We shall see!

Hmmmmm.... Predatory. Imagine that. I hope those who said they would accept her ruling will remember that.

I don't think that is true. I think some people are outraged. I think some media members are using it to get attention. I also think that there are people who feel that the suspension was too long given the facts of the case. All they had was the testimony of 4 of the alleged victims. I think a lot of people are saying that they really don't know all the facts of the case and are accepting Judge Robinson's decision. Thus, I think that saying "everyone outside of Cleveland..." is not the truth.

Btw---I'm not accusing you of trying to mislead people. I just think that we have to be careful on how we word things.

So officially the Browns QB is a sexual predator? Despite what some wish to claim?

I agree, Milk. I see it much the same way and have felt that way for quite some time.

I've seen both sides express opinions... but I believe you are correct to suggest the majority opinion outside of Cleveland media is that 6 weeks is not sufficient. Given what I have seen of the judgement Confirming the allegations of predatory behavior, I think the noise from those disagreeing with the decision will only grow.... I don't think the NFL cares if the decision is fair, I do think they will care & take action if the noise is sufficiently loud to impact their image.

So, in the court of law if someone is caught speeding, they don't ask for your taxes to determine what the fine should be.. but under the CBA policy it should be based on your net worth?

The highest fine ever imposed under ANY circumstance prior to this was $1.9M for an owner (Broncos/Pat Bowlen) and $1.2M for a player (Jamal Lewis, which includes $447.8k in game checks for his 2 game suspension and $760k fine), that is a 500% increase in one fail swoop.


Don't let the media fill your head. There has also been a lot of talk about precedence, if THIS is precedence being used to compare players and owners, then Deshaun Watson would be fined more than his 6 game checks of $345k.


All most fans care about is, how much YOU are losing from a player. This isn't a travesty in anyone's eyes because the player is being given too hard of punishment, it's a travesty because you have to be without a viable QB for so many games. No one cared about Kraft or Snyder or anyone else, until they thought it could be used to get Watson a shorter suspension.

I wasn't arguing w/you. I was just providing more information. You can believe what you want. I won't try and change your mind. I thought it was just an exchange of information.

It's time for everyone, including the NFL, to put this behind us and play the games. JMO

I find it somewhat odd to invoke "first offender" while coupling it with a decision involving dozens of offenses, lol

More power to ya, Sue, but it does sound kinda silly.


I continue to maintain my prediction that the NFL is going to just let it roll as-is. The ONLY way I see Goodell stomping on this is if they were never happy about this whole arbitration thing for punishments in the first place. Barring that, I think they want the impression of this new system to be on of validity and fairness and they won't step on any toes at all in its inaugural case.

Things I found interesting

-She did not say that "he did do these things"...She consistently used the term "circumstantial" concerning the evidence.
-She also did not like the extremely broad definitions within the 3 allegations of breaking the conduct policy...most of which are not written down.
-I think on the first count of sexual assault (and this is just me) I get the feeling she didn't think he "assaulted" anyone, but was abiding by a broad unwritten term used by an NFL Exec.
-But I think she did feel that the pattern established that greater than 50% probability on all three points.
-I am surprised to hear that none of the 4 were licensed therapists. We knew some of the alleged 60 were and some were not. The reason this surprised me is the incidental contact aspect of things. With non licensed people, there is a greater chance of a misunderstanding. With that said, none of us will know if it was incidental or not...we can only suspect.
-Upon the second count...again an extremely broad definition...And as far as the working environment aspect...If you believe the incidental contact was not incidental...then yes, general, "nonsafe" working environment protocols definitely apply. So it is logical for her conclusion on the second count. But I have to tell you...if the symptoms they are complaining about are valid for an unsafe working environment...I have a case against every employer I have ever had.
-The third count may have a broad definition, but in many ways it is by design as what is acceptable can change over time. But it is also the one point I felt would be easiest to prove. Having been found probable of breaking the first two points. The third is a no brainer.
-Concerning the discipline...I find it strange that she made no mention concerning the disparate discipline between the players and owners. Especially since she had been allowing such broad interpretations on the definition on the 3 counts. She stuck to player to player comparisons.
-Her points concerning prior suspensions and the notification to the players being too loose for what constitutes the behavior and how it will be disciplined I thought were very poignant.
-Lastly, I was a little let down as I didn't think there was very much to this document...given all the hoopla around it. And I also am a little disturbed(not the right term, but will have to do) On the focus of the Prosecution evidence and not so much the Defense argument. There was some...but in comparison to the NFL's info...hardly anything...

I believe 6 games is/was spelled out for first time offenders...and as such she ruled not by Kangaroo Kourt of Opinion, but against how the Collective Bargaining Agreement is written.

I really think that if you are upset in EITHER direction...Then you should blame the CBA...and not Robinson

I was really waiting to hear her opinion...I was hoping for more insight....but we didn't get that. As such I believe things are "probably" (since the term is important in this case) in the middle as they usually are...I think it probable he was using some of these instances for sexual gratification. I think it more than probable he did not physically assault, violently assault, nor coerce, anyone. I believe in some cases there was misunderstandings, in other cases there were people just looking for money, and in some cases he made an unwanted advance. The biggest issue (and I think I agree with the judge on this) is the pattern. I am struggling as to whether I would necessarily call it "predatory". Is going to a bar to try and pick up someone, predatory? It is not quite the same thing..I know...But he also can't just go out to a bar and try to pick up someone. So it could be argued that he tried to do it another way. AT this time I can't say

100% impressed with Robinson and her handling of this case. She's the right person for the job.

She worked completely within the framework of conduct definitions and expected punishment.

There was never any excuse for suspending Watson for more than six games given the language of the contract.

I absolutely love that she pointed out serious problems with the structure and how they need to be fixed going forward.


Most notable is that she is forced to work within the bounds of all of the NFL's "on the fly" definitions. I think she's pointing out to both parties that there are issues with this process that must be addressed going forward. And also that the league should have no right to amend punishment guidelines without players being warned of that in advance.




I hope this was enough warning to the league that she feels strongly that they have no leg to stand on by imposing a punishment beyond six games.

They should just forego the expected sh*tshow portion of their next move and tip their hat to her fair, impartial, governance of their contract language.

yep, because being a creep isn't illegal.

But in the eyes of Robinson, there are 4 cases, not 24. The NFL presented only 4 cases. Not sure why they did that, but that is what they chose.

So according to this, DW is a rapey predator. She was just limited to the precedent of punishment. It wouldn't surprise me either way if the league accepts this or goes for more games on the suspension. That entire report was damning to Watson. Lack of credibility, described as showing predatory behavior, no remorse, having committed numerous sexual assaults, intentionally exposing himself and touching them with an erection... He also used his status as an NFL QB to get them in private. It seems Watson is exactly who I and a few others have been saying he is. I am happy that she put the no outside the organization massages in his punishment because he seems to have a fetish or addiction to this AND JUST MAYBE there are 230 million reasons for him to not get into more rapey trouble here. He may be the next Gordon in that way, who knows?

But overall I'm happy the report answered some questions and that WE ALL now know for sure who DW is. We can root for the team we love and inevitably for DW, knowing the truth is out and he was found guilty by NFL standards, with safeguards in place to keep it from happening here. If it does happen here, he will be GONE. I can live with that knowing I think he is a true POS but is going to QB this team for the foreseeable future regardless of what I think. I can reconcile my feelings knowing that at least he has been punished to some degree as well as feeling that due to his youth, he should get a chance to redeem himself on a very short leash. But I have to admit, knowing he is a rapey sexual predator will always be in the back of my mind.

Did the NFLPA go to federal court to sue over insufficient punishment of owners?? No, they did not.

This is a separate issue, with a punishment being levied, which can now - by CBA agreement - be increased by the league.

That can be on the NFL. Watson's actions led to over 50 settled lawsuits, if the NFL chose to only pursue 4 that can be on them. We now know his punishment from the NFL and how it will impact the Browns. I feel a bit more comfortable that Watson has to have the team arrange all his sessions now, except we most likely will screw that part up too.

I think this new system w/having a Disciplinary Officer is better than the old system. But, I agree that the system has a ton of flaws in it.

I did not think that Watson deserved 6 games. However, I'm not going to go off on Judge Robinson. I think she tried to be fair given what she had to work with. The NFL's history on these types of issues is all over the place and it's hard to fix that in one swoop.

I think what we can do is use her first decision as the foundation for establishing precedence moving forward. New cases can be compared to this particular case. I also think the league and the NFLPA can tighten up some of the language of the Discipline section of the CBA the next time it is negotiated.

Put this to bed. There will be some initial outrage and Watson will never live this down. It will follow him the rest of his life, just like the allegations against Ben have followed him to this very day. Things will allay over time but never completely dissipate. What's really important is that he does everything in his power to live a good life moving forward. He can become an advocate for worthy causes, such as women's rights.

Punishment is a tool to caution those who are thinking of exhibiting poor behavior. However, it does not provide a cure for one who has already committed the undesirable behavior. Acceptable behavior has to come from within and w/the support of others who encourage and help develop a person on their quest to live a life well served. He's 26 and not a hardened criminal. There is plenty of time for him to accomplish great deeds away from the football field.

This is judge Robinson's ruling....


In her ruling she says watson's conduct was predatory. The entire case surrounded sexual misconduct.

At the end of the day, not even that matters.

Watson could have 700 people complaining. That would not change the fact that he is a first-time offender of their conduct code. Their language dictates more extreme punishments for repeat offenders. We, of all fans, should know that... Josh Gordon was in a position where a marijuana seed could result in a lifetime ban, if the commish saw fit. That's the way the contract language works, and framework for first-time offenders is clearly spelled out.

Like it or not, that's the letter of the law here.

Interesting how she described the court settlements as "paying restitution". Some seemed to see it much differently than she did. Restitution seems like a reasonable conclusion considering she found his acts to be predatory.

But it appears being a sexual predator isn't either. Right?

Hey wait, she forgot to include the exhaustive investigation done by the Browns prior to pursuing Watson!

THREE of the four were licensed therapists.

"Of the four massage therapists who are the subject of the Report, only three were licensed and operating their own
businesses; the fourth therapist was working towards her licensure."

You guys read in to it any way you want. If 6 games isn't a strong enough punishment, then he probably wasn't much of a predator. He got what the judge felt he deserved based on the evidence.

Now Goodell can levy a stricter penalty if he wishes. That is going to cause a problem. If he does, the NFLPA will sue. They will try to show the commissioner issues penalty with prejudice as it pertains to the players and the owners. The lynchpin to that argument will be an independent, former federal judge gave her opinion that the commissioner elected to ignore.

You don't need to read anything "into it". All you have to do is read it.....


This isn't complicated nor do you need to read anything into it.

Yep, it's easy to tell who didn't bother to read the ruling or who could not understand the words in the ruling.

Don't feed the trolls.

Just take your L Vers. Calling us trolls for telling the truth is a very cheap look. And I'm ready to move on from all of this. He is exactly who we said he was.

So what is it you are trying to prove here? I am not sure where you are going with this. I am not sure that you know where you are going with this.

Is this about the wording? Maybe the suspension? The judge who wrote the words also issued the penalty so it is logical there is no disconnect between her wording and the suspension.

He has settled 23, not over 50. The Texans settled, but there was nothing released on who or why that was, thought it was obviously in relation to Watson.

Some may argue that there is a distinct difference between the adjective "predatory" and the noun/ phrase "sexual predator". Especially since one is generally associated with violent acts. Insisting that Robinson called Deshaun a "sexual predator" is a bit of a stretch imo.

Ahhhh...thanks for the correction...(towards the licensure of the therapists) That makes much more sense then...

When she said he was guilty of sexual assault as defined by the NFL, then called his behavior predatory, she was saying exactly that; DW is a sexual predator.

Don't feed the trolls. That group is wrong on almost every single issue. They are the Washington Generals of this board.

They didn't because the NFLPA has no authority over the owners or their punishments. But I guarantee if they extend the suspension to a season, or indefinite, that the NFLPA will file a lawsuit. They would use the precedent from the owner punishment to show Watson's punishment is excessive given the language of the CBA. Applying the CBA more harshly to the players than the owners, even when it is expressly written that the owners will be held to a higher standard, is what would cause the lawsuit.

LOL....true dat

lmao at you. You will say anything that serves your agenda, even in light of being proved wrong by Robinson's report. The simple thing you are missing is that he only got 6 games and none of us that I've seen so far are saying anything about him deserving more. So we are not the unreasonable trolls you want to make us out to be. We just wanted the truth and now it's out. You were duped again.

j/c

So, what's the bottom line? He got suspended for 6 games. Period. Who cares what the language said/insinuated. Geesh, people looking to argue, that's all.

He got a 6 game suspension. The end.

Let me clarify for you.

As I stated "Watson's actions led to over 50 settled lawsuits". Due to his actions the team had to settle 30 lawsuits themselves, correct? Now you say he has settle 23 himself. 30+23 is over 50 right?

But but but Watson didnt settle 30!

Correct, the team had to settle 30 because of his actions though and his third charge was Conduct that Undermines, or Puts at Risk, the Integrity of the NFL So even if he hadn't settled the ones directed at him his NFL team had to settle 30 lawsuits brought against them because of his actions.

Well let's look at what the term sexual predator actually means instead of what people think or take it to mean.....

A sexual predator is a person who seeks out sexual contact with another person in a predatory or abusive manner.

Now let's look at what Robinson said....


Robinson made it plain in her ruling that watson was searching out sexual contact with women who were not expecting that. She called his actions predatory and this is certainly of a sexual nature.

I think anyone having trouble understanding that, it is of their own doing.

Good post.

IMO the process was faulty from the start. Myles got six games for assault that could have had a much more serious outcome than it did.

Hunt got eight games.

We all know what happened with the owners - nothing.

Robinson listened to DW for 3 days. Went thru every shred of evidence presented. "She" was the agreed upon arbitrator a retired federal judge.

All but one case remains. People have been compensated. Justice? A decision by a qualified person has been made.

Time to move on.

This isn't one of them and I think even you know that. Watson was labeled a predator by the judge in her decision. People who won't own up to that are the one's making themselves look like fools here.

King Vers has spoken! Not only has he granted himself the power of saying who is and who isn't a troll, he has also granted himself the power of telling you who you can and who you can't respond to. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Well as devils advocate...by your own logic you can argue that through Buzbee's actions or Solis' actions over 50 settlements happened. The reason I say this can be argued is that 99% of lawsuits are settled...And I only bring this up because there is an inference of a negative based on the settlement. (not based upon what Watson did or didn't do) So if 99% of law suits are settled is that an inference that 99% of the people who settled are guilty? That is the road that logic is travelling..

The fact is these lawsuits were ALWAYS going to be settled...from the very day they were submitted. Not because of Guilt or innocence but because of cost. Lets face it...Lawsuits are essentially blackmail as it does not matter if you are innocent, the lawsuit, implies you are not and as we have see throughout this whole process...nobody believes the one who is sued.

This is not a statement about Watson. This is a statement about the logic where the settlements matter in any way...

I guess this is what you say when your $230 million dollar QB is outed as a predator.




Weak sauce.

Each to their own but when a guy has 26 allegations of sexual misconduct against him, and the judge/arbitrator says the behavior was predatory.... it means the guy is a sexual predator. End of discussion. It means it wasn't a witch hunt. It means DW isn't innocent no matter how the DW fan club want to spin it.

Typical of you. Childish.

What point are you trying to hammer? Language? Dude got suspended for 6 games. The end.

Robinson called those settlements "restitution". Obviously from your comments some still aren't going to accept that.

We paid a ton of money to a sexual predator hoping he can win for us.

And he got suspended for the first 6 games before ever taking the field for us.

Yay us?

Do you mean DW FANBOYS?

I don't think so at all. She's saying that within the confines of the NFL's personal conduct policy, using his stature as an NFL QB to initiate contact with the therapists was predatory.

She also says that she is allowed NO OPINION on whether he committed sexual assault. If the NFL says winking at a house plant is sexual assault, she is "bound by their definition".

To take those two facts and come away with the opinion that she thinks he's a "sexual predator", as generally defined by society, is your prerogative. I don't think that's what she's saying, jmo.

Did I say that? NO, thanks.

Am I happy? No, not about getting him, not about the suspension. Ok?

Bottom line is, what does labeling him benefit anyone at this point? Nothing (other than some have a childish fetish to be 'right').

6 game suspension. Period. The end. I can root for the TEAM, without celebrating any individual player. And also, dw - there is no way he can live up to the hype some on here have brought.

What you're trying to do is dismiss and discount the language. What it says and what it doesn't say. I can understand why you and many others would want to do that. I'm not the one suggesting the Robinson decision and its content be swept under the rug. That would be you. Like it or not it's going to be discussed. And not just here. I know explaining that to you is like talking to the wall. It's why I didn't bother wasting my time with it in my previous response.

"As defined by society"? Or by it's definition? Because if you look at the definition, it's quite appropriate and in line with her ruling.

Sounds like the person with the overwhelming need to be right is you. People have a different opinion than you, is that okay with you?

Do I give crap people leeway just because they play or cheer for my team? No reason to do that, I can't give the Steelers crap for years and then totally sell out because I think a guy can win games. You don't have to agree with it.

Cool.

Okay, so dw is a crap person. No way I'll argue that. Short of not being a fan of the Browns anymore, what can anyone do about it? NOTHING.

Pit, what's your point again? You're on record as not being a Browns fan anymore.

And oddly, you're saying I'm trying to dismiss language? WHO CARES????? Other than you and 2 others. Childish.

And even odder, your failed attempt at making me seem like I don't care? Vers has, several times, called me a Baker Boy, Baker fan boy, etc.

Who the hell cares about the language? Is dw a creep? Sure. He got suspended for 6 games. Gees, let it go, you non browns fan.

I am really not following your trail of thought here. Because people cannot do anything themselves they must shut up? Or maybe not shut up, but just agree with you?

It seems that people that do not agree with his actions, or with what happened to the women should be allowed to have and voice an opinion, right? Apparently the solution is to call people who talk about it childish and tell them to quit talking about it? I am okay with the idea that the league punished him 6 games, the league can own that all day. Because of this they will probably have to modify the process more, I am okay with that too. What I do not think is okay is to assume everybody has to shut up now because he plays for the Browns.

j/c:



"Muted."

Watson is a predator in your eyes- your definition- let's get real about "our society"- not your idealized society- check it out- which country produces most PORN, no body in US looks or acts out porn,....Watson has faults, BUT he's not creep- he does LOTS more good than bad. I dislike the owners getting off with their HIGHER STANDARDS, yet a player loses six games maybe AND whole year last year- don't claim that had no bearing on this year.....sure it did. The NFL forced his hand last year- his "eternally damaged" plaintiffs all wanted and GOT MONEY. Hope our society looks at itself and fixes its problems. Keep throwing stones, you're blameless. Go Browns!!!

True. The judge didn't call him a predator, just that his behavior was predatory.

Goodell is in for a rough ride either way.. if he doesn't appeal the suspension, he'll likely look like a tone deaf fool that doesn't care about women..

If he does appeal, he'll get beat on for not following the terms of the suspension laid out by the Judge.

I agree w/this.

Of course he's going to follow the new rules,, what else can he do..

Like you said, weak sauce.. Very weak

I disagree. I think it's very simple for the NFL to say we abide by the independent arbiters ruling. Much more simple than the other path.

Well, I agree w/that as well. LOL

To clarify:

He is going to be criticized no matter what he decides. That is why I agreed w/Daman.

On the other hand, I think that would be more short-term criticism. Thus, I agree w/you that if he increases the penalty, the NFLPA will sue and all kinds of unwanted information about the NFL could be revealed. Additionally, the length of the proceedings will prolong the time period of the negative attention focused on the NFL.

I think it is wiser to just allow Judge Robinson's ruling to stand in the long run.

Interesting.



https://nypost.com/2022/08/01/deshaun-watsons-girlfriend-at-browns-training-camp-after-suspension/

Judge Robinson rejected Deshaun Watson’s categorical denial of the allegations against him
Posted by Mike Florio on August 1, 2022, 2:36 PM EDT

The full, 15-page decision in the Deshaun Watson case has been released. You can read it here.

And you should. It’s largely devoid of legalese and other jargon. But if you can’t or won’t read it (or if you did and you want our take on it), we’ll be posting several items regarding what it means, and where things may go from here.

For starters, one thing that seemed very significant is that Judge Robinson concluded, in the most tactful way possible, that Watson didn’t tell the truth when testifying. As noted at page 7, Watson declined to concede that he developed erections during massages, or that he inadvertently touched therapists with his penis. Judge Robinson wrote that he “categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.”

Then there’s this extremely important sentence: “It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties.”

In other words, Judge Robinson doesn’t believe him. She doesn’t believe him because the accounts from the accusers were, as explained in footnote 25 on page seven, “substantially corroborated” by “contemporaneous text messages and discussions with third parties after their interactions with Mr. Watson.” Also, as mentioned in footnote 26 on that same page, “some massage therapists who publicly supported Mr. Watson stated that he had become erect during sessions with them.”

This becomes critical to a potential appeal because the facts, as determined by Judge Robinson, become binding on both sides if/when the Commissioner or his designee are considering the ultimate punishment. Although Judge Robinson stopped short of being as blunt and candid as she could have been, the Commissioner could declare in the final written decision that Watson lied while testifying when he denied any wrongdoing and made the broad claim that he never had an erection during a massage.

Thus, even though the outcome was better for Watson than many had expected, the factual findings made by Judge Robinson could give the Commissioner everything he needs to justify a stronger suspension. Indeed, Judge Robinson affirmatively found by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not) that Watson engaged in non-violent sexual assault, that his conduct endangered the safety and well-being of another person, and that his behavior undermined or put at risk the integrity of the NFL.

Those factual findings could ultimately fuel an outcome on appeal that Watson and the NFLPA won’t like, at all.

Jimmy and Dee Haslam say Deshaun Watson has been “remorseful,” Judge Robinson found he hasn’t
Posted by Mike Florio on August 1, 2022, 4:37 PM EDT

On Monday morning, Judge Sue Robinson issued her decision regarding Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson. On Monday afternoon, Browns ownership issued a statement that expressly respects her decision while implicitly disregarding a key piece of it.

Said owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam, “Throughout this process, Deshaun and his representation have abided by the newly created and agreed upon process for the NFLPA and the NFL to defer to the objective Judge Sue L. Robinson to comprehensively review all information and make a fair decision. We respect Judge Robinson’s decision, and at the same time, empathize and understand that there have been many individuals triggered throughout this process. We know Deshaun is remorseful that this situation has caused much heartache to many and he will continue the work needed to show who he is on an off the field, and we will continue to support him.”

They say they know Deshaun “is remorseful,” even though Judge Robinson — whose decision they supposedly respect — specifically found as an aggravating factor in determining the suspension of six games that he has a “lack of expressed remorse.”

So, the Haslam's can’t claim credibly Deshaun has expressed remorse and that they respect Judge Robinson’s decision, since that decision includes a finding that he has failed to express remorse. And if the Haslam's are referring to Watson expressing remorse regarding the impact of the allegations on others such as family members and the Browns organization, that’s the kind of hair splitting that has no place in a supposed embrace of and respect for the decision reached by Judge Robinson.

Speaking of credibility, Judge Robinson politely and tactfully concluded that Watson has none, at least not when it comes to his categorical denial of the accusations made against him. And that’s a pretty important point. In Judge Robinson’s assessment, he failed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the most significant aspect of the entire situation. If the Haslam's truly respect and accept Judge Robinson’s decision, they’re respecting and accepting the fact that, in her professional assessment, Deshaun Watson’s testimony wasn’t believable.

She only "appeared to be present". What the hell does that mean, lol.

I'd say the NY Post said "appeared to be present" because the person that wrote the story was not on site to confirm and the story doesn't matter enough to bother confirming with others that were at the practice to verify she was there. "Appeared to be present" covers their bases.

https://apnews.com/article/deshaun-watson-nfl-suspension-34fbe200366a02cd1f8d4c6977b0308e

There you go again. You see, I care what the findings of the case are. All that's been talked about on this very board since the hearing was over has been centered around people saying there wasn't hardly any evidence. That the NFL had a weak case. How the judge would view the evidence and if the NFL could even make their case. The findings by the judge is exactly what people have been waiting on. Now you are trying to blow all of that off with some weak ass smack talk. Then you talk about someone else being childish.

You seem to claim all that matters is the six game suspension. I on the other hand think what Judge Robinson found he did and did not do to these women is more important. I think her ruling based on the evidence presented to her in this case is more important than the length of the suspension. Obviously by your comments the game is more important to you than what actually happened to these women. To say I'm not surprised is an understatement.

Let's recap what the word "creepy" means to some people. Because if that's all you think this adds up to, we certainly have different ideas on what it means. Just the highlights for those easily distracted.

As to her actual findings in the report....


Just creepy huh? I mean it was only sexual assault and placing your penis on women who didn't want you to. No big deal, right? Damn! And it goes on....


So all this amounts to according to some people is that "he's creepy". She said he was guilty of sexual assault and that his conduct was predatory and people are trying to act like that doesn't perfectly describe what the term sexual predator means.

I mean that's just being creepy, right?

ESPN analyst calls out Browns for their absurd Deshaun Watson statement
Scott Rogust - Yesterday 6:32 PM

ESPN analyst Field Yates called out the Cleveland Browns for their statement saying that quarterback Deshaun Watson is remorseful following his recommended suspension.

On Monday, NFL disciplinary officer Sue L. Robinson reached a decision regarding a punishment for Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, who was accused of sexual assault and misconduct by multiple women. Robinson concluded that Watson should receive a six-game suspension without pay but did not mention any fine.

Hours after the report dropped and Robinson's 16-page explanation was released, Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam released the following statement, where they say that Watson "is remorseful for that this situation has caused much heartache to many."

ESPN analyst Field Yates took issue with the statement, pointing out that Watson last spoke to the media on June 14, where the quarterback denied ever assaulting or harassing anyone. Yates asked "at what point has he expressed any public remorse?"

The decision by Robinson to recommend a six-game suspension has been ridiculed by some, especially with the wording that was used in her conclusion. The ruling says:

"Although this is the most significant punishment ever imposed on an NFL player for allegations of non-violent sexual conduct, Mr. Watson's pattern of conduct is more egregious than any before reviewed by the NFL."

Watson faced criminal charges filed by 10 women, but two grand juries chose against indicting him. He faced 24 civil lawsuits from massage therapists, and settled with 23 of them, three of which happened this past Sunday.

A New York Times report indicated that Watson had received massages from 66 different women in a 17-month period from 2019 until 2021. That report also features accounts from some of the therapists who detailed Watson's behavior during the sessions.


It would appear that the evidence has shown that Watson's conduct is the most "egregious" that has ever been reviewed by the NFL. Oh wait, is that just the opinion of Judge Sue Robinson and she's joining the mob mentality of public opinion without reviewing the evidence? Well, the Browns appear to have their franchise QB after a 6-game suspension. We should all be proud of the fact that the face of the franchise now is a non-remorseful predator with the dubious honor of exhibiting the most egregious conduct ever exhibited by an NFL player. Winning cures all ills and moms will be outfitting their purest children in Watson Christmas jerseys as an idol to look up to for winning games for the Cleveland Browns. How proud we fans must be that the face of the franchise can lie repeatedly during the hearings and escapes perjury charges because it wasn't a legal court of law. Well, 23 of the women have been paid to shut up, Watson won't have to testify, the Browns have their franchise QB, and bygones be bygones. Cleveland finally has something to be proud of now! GO BROWNS!

RIF Scott Rogust

Just what Did Jimmy and Dee say???

Watson "is remorseful for that this situation has caused much heartache to many. Watson himself said this when he talked to the media a while back. He is still sticking to his story that most of the things he is accused of didn't happen. Is he telling the truth???? Some say yes, and some say no, while others think the truth is somewhere in the middle. IMO as in most cases the truth is somewhere in the middle, so Watson never said he was sorry that he did these things... He still claims that he did nothing wrong, only that he is sorry for the situation.

No matter the wording she felt six games was appropriate. Time to talk football. Go Browns

Sure, some will want to quickly move on from a judgement that said DW acted like a predator and this is the most egregious case ever before the NFL.
I imagine the same people who claimed this was a witch hunt. The same who said the women only did it for money. And the same people who don't care what DW did as long as the Browns win.

For others the ruling and wording in the judgement verify we have a sexual Predator at QB. That some, many, most or all of the 26 women who filed against DW were truthful and victims. For many this solidifies the taint that Will tarnish any and all achievements during the DW years.

Reading these parts of the ruling makes me think the NFL may well decide to alter the suspension. If they do I don't think the NFLPA will have much of a case to protest.

There are really only a few guys who are blowing this out of proportion and spamming the thread w/their usual crap. They are the same guys who belittled other posters for suggesting that precedence might be considered. The same guys who attacked others when it was suggested that 4-6 games were a possibility. The same guys who are defended guys like Kraft, Snyder, and Kamara.

I think it would be best if we just ignore them and not feed their insatiable need to start trouble.

I also want to highlight some of the egregious board hypocrisy. Former QB of the Browns got vilified by any for consensual interaction in a cheesecake factory parking lot. His character was absolutely trashed.

Now we have a QB with all these accusations the same people have tried to find excuses for...or worse, accused the entire situation of being a witch hunt with no basis of merit. . . but has now been categorically judged to have acted in a sexually predatory manner, the worst ever before the NFL. A QB who still shows no remorse and takes no accountability for his actions. 66 different therapists, 26 accusations, and he maintains he did nothing wrong, a he's only sorry for that some are upset. Hell, he even lied to the judge about getting an erection during the sessions...... and THIS guy gets called a leader. Complete hypocrisy!

So, for months we have been waiting for evidence of wrongdoing or not. Watson still claims he did NOTHING wrong, yet the evidence presented to Judge Robinson presents a totally different story. For months posts on this site screamed for the evidence and being innocent until proven guilty.

Judge Robinson clearly states that Watson lied repeatedly at the hearing.

She clearly states that there is substantial evidence that Watson was a predator.

Judge Robinson clearly states that Watson's conduct is the most "egregious" that has ever been reviewed by the NFL.

Judge Robinson found that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report.

Judge Robinson stated, I accept the fact that a work environment with sexualized conduct is not a safe environment, and I accept as credible the testimony of these therapists that they felt unsafe and suffered emotional distress as a result of their massage sessions with Mr. Watson.

The Haslam's say they know Deshaun “is remorseful,” even though Judge Robinson — whose decision they supposedly respect — specifically found as an aggravating factor in determining the suspension of six games that he has a “lack of expressed remorse.”

The truth is somewhere in the middle? You have to be kidding!

I find Sue Robinson to be a crushing disappointment.

Her conclusion and findings were all over the place. How do you label the acts both an assault and non-violent? The very definition of assault implies violence. And what does it mean "by the NFL's definition"? Was it an assault or not?

After her findings became public it was also clear the NFL's statement the night before wasn't a warning shot, it was a plea. Based on the way she wrote her conclusion she is basically inviting the NFL to appeal and use the appeal as a springboard to take her advice to change their policies so as to avoid further appeals. So I predict an appeal, a lenghty suspension, and an admission and a wink/thank you to Robinson that they need to tighten up their policies and clearly communicate with the players expected behavior and punishment. In other words, where I thought she would like to avoid an appeal thereby making a mockery of the process, I think she actually is welcoming an appeal by the NFL by the way she wrote the conclusion.

And this is because the NFLPA must have spent an inordinate amount of time during the hearings focusing on the precedent for punishment, and I think she felt compelled to include that as part of her judgment. In other words, the NFLPA's lawyers were way better than the NFL's.

What does this all mean? If I'm correct and there's an appeal, Watson won't play this year and may never play again. I think the NFLPA will attempt to go scorched earth with the biased and unequal punishment for owners and players, but I don't think it will ultimately help Watson play for the Browns.

What a mess. I will be shocked if the NFL doesn't appeal and change the punishment. If they come out with a statement saying they won't appeal that means the NFLPA has enough to make their life a living hell for a long time and they would be choosing the lesser of the two evils at that point...make it appear you don't support women or let a bunch more skeletons out of the closet. That's the choice the NFL is currently weighing.

Lol. The cracking of jokes about the Cheesecake Factory incident isn't quite at the level of what's been said about Watson.

Well the 2 instances are nothing alike..... but are you suggesting some didn't assassinate BM character after that incident ? While so e are trying to move on quickly from this DW judgement and what Sue Robinson stated? Are you saying some didn't make out like the DW allegations were only a witch hunt and unfounded?

Agree with much of that.

I agree with a lot of this. If I didn't know the outcome before reading that report, I would have expected a very long suspension. She really was all over the place, but having to work within the framework of the NFL's off the cuff definitions, especially that of "assault", explains some of it. I disagree that if the NFLPA forces their hand when or if the NFL appeals that it won't help Watson, the owners are going to want a quick and tidy end to this and DW will benefit.

Now that we have as close to a legal finding as we're probably going to get, a respected judge who spent several days face to face w/DW and accusers, I can form my own opinion. DW was a creep and I don't believe he was innocent of all the accusations. He's paid/will pay for his deeds to the extent the system allows, and the accusers got their settlement. Once the NFL makes their decision, it will be time for closure......if DW can keep the dragon in the cave.

I said this earlier, but it was buried in a post that was much longer, but I think the best move for the NFL is to put this thing to bed.

There will be some initial outrage and Watson will never live this down. It will follow him the rest of his life, just like the allegations against Ben have followed him to this very day. Things will allay over time but never completely dissipate. What's really important is that he does everything in his power to live a good life moving forward. He can become an advocate for worthy causes, such as women's rights.

Punishment is a tool to caution those who are thinking of exhibiting poor behavior. However, it does not provide a cure for one who has already committed the undesirable behavior. Acceptable behavior has to come from within and w/the support of others who encourage and help develop a person on their quest to live a life well served. He's 26 and not a hardened criminal. There is plenty of time for him to accomplish great deeds away from the football field.

I am interested to read comments on the my take on punishment.

rish..I agree...

IMO, the Judge wants no part in being responsible for handing down such a serious judgement...a judgement involving a minimum of 24 women and lord knows how many more that could file cases against Watson in the future.

Judge Robinson knew that she would not be judged harshly for a 6 game suspension and she wants no part in handing down a more severe punishment.




Again, I agree...what a mess !

Well stated, agree 100%. On what page in NFL guidelines is their definition of sexual assault. Watson isn't perfect for sure, but he isn't a predator imo. I'm convinced the NFL will increase his penalty and players association rightly will go to trial. Money talks- owners not held responsible, but players are- those FACTS will come out at trial. NFL in a no win position. Lastly, different era, but the great Jim Brown wasn't known for being pure back in the 60s throwing a woman off a balcony. He's a great man- with some warts.....GO Browns!!!!

I don't know how many he games he should have been suspended but I think he should have been fined as well. The judge should have taken the structure of his contract into consideration as a eay to avoid some punishment.

She should have then said, had his salary been equally soaced, he would have lost X amount of money to this suspension. Therefore I am also fining him to make his caoitol loss equivalent to what it should have been

one of the better readups I have seen concerning the decision...
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...takeaways-16-page-ruling-why-nfl-get-way

Deshaun Watson of Cleveland Browns suspended six games: Takeaways from 16-page ruling, and why the NFL didn't get its way
play
6:55 AM ET
Dan Graziano
ESPN Staff Writer

Monday's news of a six-game suspension for Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson has, predictably, triggered an intense reaction. This is fair and understandable, because the allegations of sexual misconduct against Watson are disturbing and deal with the issue of how the NFL polices players when it comes to behavior toward women. The history of the league includes enough mishandling of that to justify cynicism, and a lot of the reaction on Monday seemed to root itself in that cynicism. Many expected to be disappointed by the outcome, and to a large extent, they were.

Arbitration decisions aren't designed to make everybody happy. The decisions are supposed to be based on the evidence presented and precedent in place. As you read through the 16-page report from retired federal judge Sue L. Robinson, it's clear she tried to maintain that balance.

How did Robinson explain her decision, and how did she land on six games? And what did Robinson stipulate must happen for Watson's future massage therapy sessions? Here are 12 key takeaways from the report.


Fundamentally, the NFL won its case against Watson
Robinson found Watson guilty of violating the league's personal conduct policy in three ways: by engaging in sexual assault; by engaging in conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and by engaging in conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL.

That he was found to have violated the policy at all is a critical point, because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) states that the decision of the jointly appointed discipline officer (in this case Robinson), as to whether a violation of the personal conduct policy occurred, is binding. Meaning, if she had found no violation occurred (and thus no discipline was warranted), the league would not have had the right to appeal.

The league does have the right to appeal the determination of discipline, with commissioner Roger Goodell or his designee serving as appeals officer. According to the CBA, any appeal, either from the NFL Players Association or the league, "shall be in writing within three business days of the Disciplinary Officer's decision, and any response to the appeal shall be filed in writing within two business days thereafter. The appeal shall be limited to arguments why, based on the evidentiary record below, the amount of discipline, if any, should be modified."

The new process did some of what it was meant to do
If you're asking yourself, "What's the point of neutral arbitration when the commissioner still gets final say on discipline?" the answer is, under the new procedure, the league has to prove its case. It must, the CBA states, rely on "credible evidence" in front of an arbitrator, who in this case is a retired federal judge.


The NFLPA considers this a significant advance from when Goodell would simply hear the findings of his own investigators and rule on discipline without having to make those findings public.

Robinson was not presented with the cases of all 24 civil lawsuits filed against Watson
On Page 3 of her report, Robinson -- who writes that her decision is "limited by the record presented to me" -- makes clear the case presented to her was not about 24 different women but four. The NFL interviewed 12 of the 24 women who were suing Watson for damages in civil court and "relied for its conclusions on the testimony of 4 therapists, as well as interviews of some 37 other third parties."

The NFL's investigators do not have subpoena power and thus cannot compel all 24 of the women to talk to them. They interviewed 12, and of those 12, they decided four would form the basis of their argument Watson violated the personal conduct policy. It's unclear why they used only four, but that's what they apparently decided was the best way to make their case.

Robinson found Watson guilty of violating the personal conduct policy
The details of the behavior Robinson found the league to have proved are disturbing -- from the way Watson solicited the massages to the unusually small size of the towel he insisted on using to cover himself during them to the intent and manner of contact he made with the therapists. Robinson found the four women in question convincing based on circumstantial evidence (including the fact they said they would have refused to work with him again after the alleged incidents) and found Watson's blanket denial of all wrongdoing difficult to accept in light of what she called the "credible testimony of the investigators."

No one who reads this report can come away thinking Robinson found Watson innocent of wrongdoing. Robinson concludes Watson "had a sexual purpose -- not just a therapeutic purpose -- in making these arrangements with these particular therapists." Based on what she found to be the league's definition of sexual assault, Robinson found Watson guilty of violating the personal conduct policy by engaging in sexual assault.

Watson's actions fell under the same umbrella as Deflategate and Bountygate
In the portion of the report that decides whether Watson engaged in conduct detrimental to the league, Robinson cites "Tom Brady's deflation of the game balls used in the AFC Championship Game in January 2015 and the 2021 New Orleans Saints' 'Pay-for Performance'" scheme as past cases in which the league invoked its "detriment to the league" clause: "Although the above examples were focused on the game of football itself, it clearly is within the purview of the NFL to expand the scope of its supervision to a player's private life if he invokes his status as a player while engaging in prohibited conduct."

Because Watson identified himself as an NFL player when reaching out to the therapists in question, Robinson found credible the NFL's evidence that his actions were detrimental to the league.

If the NFL had its way, Watson would be suspended for the entire season
Having found Watson guilty of violating the league's personal conduct policy, Robinson moves on to the question of whether the league's proposed discipline was justified. The league proposed suspending Watson for the entire 2022 season and postseason and that he not be permitted to return until he satisfied certain conditions for reinstatement. Robinson writes on Page 11 she is tasked with reviewing that proposal "for consistency of treatment, uniformity of standards for parties similarly situated, and patent unfairness or selectivity."

To be clear: If you're asking why the NFL imposed only a six-game suspension, the answer is, it didn't. The NFL, which contended in the hearing Watson's conduct was unprecedented and therefore warranted an unprecedented suspension, wanted him suspended for a year.

In the final pages of her report, Robinson explains why she believed that was unjust: "Although I have found Mr. Watson to have violated the Policy, I have done so using the NFL's post-hoc definitions of the prohibited conduct at issue. Defining prohibited conduct plays a critical role in the rule of law, enabling people to predict the consequences of their behavior."

The Ray Rice discipline shaped this ruling
In citing the 2014 case of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, Robinson notes the NFLPA's characterization of what happened -- specifically that Goodell suspended Rice for two games (as was the standard for Rice's offense at the time) and only after public outcry revised its personal conduct policy to establish a six-game suspension as standard for first-time violent offenders.

She states that this policy change, even though it was a reaction to public outrage, at least "gave fair notice to its players and to the public of the probable consequences of certain violent conduct."

The word 'violent' plays a key role in the report
The post-Rice personal conduct policy specifies the six-game suspension "for Policy violations including (1) criminal assault or battery (felony); (2) domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse and other forms of family violence; or (3) sexual assault involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent." These are very specific types of violations, and Robinson states on Page 13, "It is undisputed that Mr. Watson's conduct does not fall into the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension."


She also states prior cases involving nonviolent sexual assault had not led to six-game suspensions but rather no more than a three-game suspension. (Jameis Winston, then the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' starting quarterback, was suspended for the first three games of the 2018 season for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy.) It's important to note Robinson was not starting from the six-game baseline in the personal conduct policy because she defined Watson's behavior as nonviolent and stated it did not meet the policy's requirements for a six-game suspension.

Robinson strove for consistency where the NFL argued there was none
There's an extremely interesting passage on Page 13. Robinson states the NFL argued "consistency is not possible, because there are no similarly situated players." But Robinson looks at that differently and writes, "By ignoring past decisions because none involve 'similar' conduct, the NFL is not just equating violent conduct with non-violent conduct, but has elevated the importance of the latter without any substantial evidence to support its position. While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players."

Basically, Robinson is saying something akin to, You want to argue that this behavior deserves a more severe penalty, fine. Maybe you're right. But that's not in your policy, and you can't just make policy to support one specific case as it's going on. If the league wants to do what it did post-Rice and adjust its policy to account for the type of behavior Watson is herein found guilty of, it should do that -- then everyone would know.

Interesting argument, for sure, but it answers a lot of the questions about the length of the suspension vis-à-vis some others in the past. She goes on to write, "It is inherently unfair to identify conduct as prohibited only after the conduct has been committed, just as it is inherently unjust to change the penalties for such conduct after the fact."

The six-game duration of the suspension was not random
Remember, Robinson first decided she was not starting from a six-game baseline but from one of three games or fewer, based on precedent set by other nonviolent sexual assault cases. As "aggravating factors" (that is, reasons to increase the suspension), she cites Watson's "lack of expressed remorse and his tardy notice to the NFL of the first-filed lawsuit." As "mitigating factors" (that is, reasons to go easier on him), she cites "he is a first-time offender and had an excellent reputation in his community prior to these events. He cooperated and has paid restitution."

Very interestingly, she also notes the league could have placed Watson on the commissioner's exempt list last year and chose not to, which she appears to think means the league didn't consider his behavior worthy of such punishment until it saw the public reaction to it. She makes that clear in her conclusion when she writes, "The NFL may be a 'forward-facing' organization, but it is not necessarily a forward-looking one. Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson's conduct."

Robinson writes that she settled on six games because it is the largest suspension ever imposed for nonviolent sexual conduct but that Watson's behavior is more egregious than the behavior that led to previous suspensions for nonviolent sexual conduct.

Robinson appeared to consider previous cases involving team owner behavior in determining Watson's suspension

A big part of the NFLPA's argument during the hearing (and likely a key part of its reaction if Goodell overrules Robinson and imposes harsher discipline) is the notion the league has not punished team owners for similar offenses. In Footnote 51 on Page 15, Robinson notes that argument while writing the personal conduct policy is equally applicable to team owners and management. Basically, it seems as if the NFLPA's argument that she should consider the comparatively lighter discipline given to team owners as part of the precedent carried some weight.

Watson's massage therapy must be coordinated by the team for as long as he is an NFL player
It's important to note Robinson states that Watson, as a condition of his reinstatement into the league after his six-game suspension is complete, must "limit his massage therapy to Club-directed sessions and Club-approved massage therapists for the duration of his career." This means if he is caught going outside of his team's purview for massages again, the league would have the right to reimpose the suspension.

I agree with what you wrote, but the NFL won't. Goodell and the NFL front office care about one thing and one thing only...winning. And in this case that means winning against Watson. And Robinson opened the door wide open for them to do that.

I think they will appeal because they don't fear a lawsuit. I think this will be misstep by the NFL because they have a false sense of confidence after being sued in the past. But I think this time it will be more organized and more substantial than anything they've seen, and they will end up regretting that decision.

But it still won't help Deshaun get on the field for the Browns.

My hope is they don't appeal and it's over. I just don't see that as a likely outcome given Robinson's conclusion. No matter if you think what he did is severe, minor, if he's really a good guy, if he learned his lesson, or if he will live a great life helping others the rest of the way, it's not about any of that for the NFL. It's about winning and beating Watson at this point. Goodell lost the round one battle. He can still win the war.

I pointed out that the statement was not absurd. They simple quoted what Watson already said. That he was sorry for the situation, not that he was sorry he had done anything wrong. Big difference.

As far as waiting months for proof... well we still don't have ANY. We have Sue doing her job and saying in her opinion (which is the only one that counts right now) that it's more likely that he did these things than that he didn't. That's her job and many people will agree with her. She didn't prove anything. We are still where we were a year ago... Watson could actually be guilty of everything he was accused of (I don't know) He could also be innocent of everything he was accused of (once again I don't know) The truth could be in between (like I said I don't know) IMO It's in between but that's only my opinion. It's not fact, or proof. It could be right or wrong.

I agree w/much of what you say. The NFL is under a lot of pressure from the media and public to lengthen the suspension. And I agree w/you about the NFL cares about their image over what is right or wrong. It's a business. Thus, they might appeal and try to increase the suspension.

With that said, Jeff Darlington just reported as I was typing that if the NFL does appea, the NFLPA will sue and that the process will take a long time to play out. Thus, the suspension would be put on hold and Watson would be available to play starting game one and continue to play until the courts provide their ruling. LMAO...........that's crazy to even think about.

I wonder if that possibility would make the NFL hesitant to appeal?

I didn't say it wasn't simple, I just said that no matter what, he's got a price to pay.

As I read it...Robinson was not happy about the vague (and especially unwritten) definitions...specifically for sexual assault. We have to remember she is not making a judgement based upon a legal definition of assault by federal or state laws. But by the CBA...and since this is a private company, therefore it is the NFL's decision. So she could have ruled specifically to the letter of the CBA which has no definition...and had she thought that Watson was not using this method for sexual gratification...she might have. But she leaned towards the NFL's "adhoc" definition. and by that adhoc definition, he was in violation. He was in violation of the broad definition of point #2 based on the violation of point#1. After that, point #3 is a no brainer...

I think the the NFL is going to have to tread very lightly here. It is my hope that this event helps to create better definitions within the CBA. But it is also my hope that it doesn't have to get ugly in order to do that. If the NFL appeals...it is going to get VERY ugly. But they are accustomed to getting their own way. They are going to have to decide which hit is going to be greater...the hit against all the dirt that comes out on the owners or on Watson...In my eyes....I think the hit is potentially greater on the dirt with the owners...I think we have seen in the past, that Watson would eventually blow over faster. But the social narrative of the rich getting away with anything and the owners not wanting any dirt to come up might linger longer and have more far reaching effects...But that is just an opinion...Not to mention the contention already between the NFL and NFLPA...this can only exacerbate that....what good will come from it??? again...JMO

Oh....if there is an appeal by the NFL....Watson will at VERY LEAST start the season...because an appeal will start the federal Lawsuit process and his suspension won't go into effect until that process has completed...heck that could take a year or more...

You articulated very well my central problem with the ruling, the parsing between the terms assault and non-violent. That has been a sticking point with me though I haven’t said it nearly as well as you did. I think most women would view assault of any kind as being versions of violence.

BUT… this is not a law or a semantics class and as far as I’m concerned the same holds now as held over the last few months; that no one is going to move off their established beliefs and trying to bludgeon each other into moral submission is a stupid waste of time. The decision to support or abandon the team is each individual’s to make. What the ruling is now or ends up being really shouldn’t factor in much. I’ve heard some say they will support the team/city and not the individuals but sort of blurring my eyes to the player numbers and just rooting for the colors is a contortion I’m not sure I can pull off. For some the ruling becomes the structure around the intellectual gymnastics needed to continue supporting the team. The lighter the sentence, the easier the justifications and ease of sticking the landing. I’m not sure I’m that good at it.

So personally I’m indeed still very conflicted. I have a wife who was assaulted years before we were together and this whole thing has pretty much put a black X on the team for her. I have a 17yr old daughter who is just starting to navigate the world of men and boys (late bloomer) and I’d hate for her to think I don’t take it seriously. But I’m a life long Browns fan and I’d never be able to root for another team. The idea of just burying football altogether is just bleak and frankly, not terribly realistic. It’s a quandary. But I’m pretty sure no one this board nor any revisiting of the existing evidence is going to move the needle a whole lot for me. So I’m not here to try to move your needle. It might just be that I don’t wear the Jersey and I don’t toot the horn but I low key keep an eye on things and just hope the good eventually overwhelms the bad. Kinda pathetic.

We’ll see how the ruling shakes out. And I’ll see how my fandom shakes out.

I respect your position and understand where you are coming from.

Just removed the article text to avoid a huge quote.

Lots of interesting parts to that story.

Given that Robinson found Watson guilty of the violations the league now has the option of going for a harsher sentence. Hopefully they do not do that because the punishment given was due more to the league structure than to Watson's behavior. Robinson had to start at 1-3 games minimum instead of 6 because of the league's framework for violations. Much like with Ray Lewis the league needs to take it's lumps, learn from this and build a better policy if it wishes to prevent future similar incidents. The NFL really needs someone competent to manage it's Conduct policy and hopefully this is a step in the right direction.

I agree with Robinson that the NFL did not pay attention to the 'Watson incident' until public outcry forced their hand. Sadly I think the Browns giving Watson the huge contract to woo him ended up bringing the incident to more people, what once was a city issue became a national issue.

The ruling that his massage therapy must be coordinated by the team for as long as he is in the NFL seems like they feel he would/could continue this behavior, which concerns me that he will try and do it on the down low going forward. Hopefully this doesn't become a series of rolling 6 game suspensions ala Gordon.

I must be the only person on this board who has no idea about the Cheesecake factory "incident". I don't want anyone to provide details as I am sick of reading salacious details of players making poor decisions. I am trying to figure out how I can read this board frequently and have no clue.

Baker was not vilified for the Cheesecake Factory thing. A few guys joked about it. I personally said I would not get on Baker about it for the same reasons I wouldn't say Watson was guilty of allegations. The above claim is yet another example of a poster trying to deceive others.

I disagree. In terms of the guy that's the face of our franchise, an impartial judge saying he engaged in predatory behavior is kind of a big deal. I guess we'll just have to see if he's remorseful after the specter of civil action is done.

I am not arguing w/you, but a word of caution. Judge Robinson was presiding over a case that was about whether or not Watson violated the terms of the Personal Conduct Policy. Her decision was not in an actual court of law. In that regard, it's not really fair to claim that he is actually guilty of a crime and assigning labels to his name is unfair.

That is true. He was before 2 separate grand juries and they did not have enough evidence to take the case to trail. In this Country until you are found guilty you are to be assumed innocent.

After reading Robinson's ruling I am left ill at ease.

I have spoken to my daughter and daughter-law. My daughter follows no sports at all. My daughter-in law is from Australia and has become a Browns fan through my son who I have also spoken to on the subject. I listened closely to all of them. None of them are ease with any of this whole thing.

i completely understand Robinson's ruling. But how she got there is what I was waiting to find out. Like you I am conflicted about "assault." I don't know how to get to what "non violent" assault is?

It has been my opinion all along that the process was inherently faulty. Robinson clearly pointed that out.

I am and will remain a Browns fan. Whatever is decided in the end. I will accept.

Watson's "behavior" in the end is unacceptable however it is defined.

He is a 26 year old man. Myles and Hunt are also young men who play for the Browns. Their behavior was unacceptable as well. Both were suspended by the NFL. Both of them were accepted back. Both of them have done a lot to rebuild their reputations.

I will give DW the same oppotunity.

For me in the end I wish none of this was under consideration. I just like to watch my team win football games.

I want to be clear. I am not saying Watson is innocent. I don't know the truth. I was just pointing out that Judge Robinson was ruling on the Personal Conduct Policy and this wasn't an actual legal hearing under the laws of the land.

The "predatory conduct" thing is right there in her report. I guess you can try to argue her on that, but that's her statement from her own report. Long story short, she believes Watson engaged in predatory behavior, but the NFL is such a clownshow that her hands were tied in terms of the length of the suspension.

Sorry in advance as this is a lengthy post, but I think this guy really broke the situation down without any bias:












Continued.....

NFL in no win situation....as you pointed out if this goes to trial, the owners conduct will see a lot more light....therefore, I now predict the owners will tell Roger NOT TO APPEAL because they don't want their conduct examined in the court of law. Go Browns!!!

What? I wasn't arguing w/her. I said that she was ruling on the Personal Conduct Policy and this was not an actual case in a court of law. You don't have to agree. But, I'm pretty confident that the NFL isn't a court of law.

Continued....

That was a good read. Thanks.

Thanks for the research and posting.

What is important is waiting for all the facts to come out. Instead of jumping to conclusions beforehand.

Robinson has the credentials to impartially review everything in totality.

He findings are based upon a complete picture of all factors. That at least is an improvement over letting Goodell an employee of the NFL to act as judge, and jury.

Thanks Memphis, that is a concise coverage of where we are today imo.

Holy cow, dude.

Verbal assault

j/c...

Said by the man who claimed he would respect and honor her decision. I guess that means until he didn't like what it said. Then he adds qualifiers to it.

It would be easy then to say verbal assault.

That was not mentioned.

Clem posted something before that now after reading Robinson's findings rings clear.

"Being a fan is harder work than it used to be... and it's measurably less rewarding."

I know when games begin I will be there watching. I will still want to win.

But like many things the shine is fading some.

Last year the Braves won the World Series. It really caught me by surprise. And I loved every minute of the playoffs.

I really don't know what I will feel this coming football season.

Or maybe placing you penis on women who doesn't want you to? Spitting on someone is considered assault. Is that violent?

It amazes me that you can tell people that under the law spitting on someone is assault and they at the same time can't comprehend how putting your unwanted penis on a woman is also assault.

Thanks for the informative tweets.

One thing I didn't see mentioned was the statement "It is undisputed that Mr. Watson's conduct does not fall under the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension."

I feel like with the word "undisputed" thrown in there, this would be a binding "fact" that would prevent the NFL from making an unprecedented suspension under appeal. Most I could see them bumping it up with this "fact" is another 2-4 games (for 4 instances of conduct that normally have a suspension of 2-3 games).


For those struggling with the "non-violent assualt." Robinson is basically likening his conduct to someone making unwanted sexual advances while also making non-violent contact with the other party - so more than just words. Think "copping a feel" - that's probably the best way to explain it. The sexual assault moniker was only used because of the definition the league gave after-the-fact.

A very good read .......

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...-deshaun-watson-case-it-was-unavoidable/

Good read. I see he has dropped the entire, "My source says they have no case" BS.

well watson's last happy ending came from a retired federal judge.

You obviously haven't read her 16 page report.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22124209-deshaun-watson-suspension-ruling

May not have the effect some of you think it will..

CBA:
Section 5. Commissioner Exempt: Players who are placed by the Commissioner on the
Exempt list prior to the determination of discipline and any appeal therefrom under the
Personal Conduct Policy will be paid while on the Commissioner Exempt list and credited
for the regular and post-season games missed against any suspension ultimately imposed.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, if such a suspension is ultimately
imposed, the player must promptly return and shall have no further right to any salary for
the games for which he was paid while on the Commissioner Exempt list that were cred-
ited to the suspension (i.e., for a number of games no greater than the length of the
suspension).


In other words, if the NFL appeals, then the NFLPA sues, Watson could essentially be put on the Commissioners Exempt List for as long as it takes to go through the court system. THEN, once it is resolved, the game time will be time served, however, if they uphold Judge Robinson's 6 games, he will be deducted the 6 game checks and keep the remaining game checks for the games he missed, but not suspended for.

So, in essence, if the trial takes until next off-season, whether the NFLPA wins or loses, the Browns organization loses him for a year. The only real outcome would be whether Deshaun Watson loses more than 6 game checks.

They could ask for an expedited trial, but the court would be in no obligation to give it to them. If Judge Robinson's timeline from hearing to final report took 6 weeks, it is pretty likely the court process would take a minimum of 6 months. It will take at the very least a full month, just to set the court date, which will most likely be 4 months out, which will run into the holidays.

If the NFL appeals, Watson will not play in 2022 most likely.

He apparently picked up some new BS, though. "She did it wrong".

This is from the end of March, but it still seems relevant.

Who is "he" and who is "she?" Did what wrong?

Try reading the entire thread. Oh that's right, you can't see this. So instead you ask someone to explain it to you.

Watson could be in serious trouble with an NFL appeal after the heavy punishment against the owner of the Dolphins.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...or-tampering-with-sean-payton-tom-brady/

Hey at least many of you have O.J on your side. I mean if anyone understands how to treat a woman it's O.J. Am I right?

not likely.
Anything is possible, especially with Goodell, but it's not likely.

Heavy?

lol man when this dude comments its so cringe and hilarious. remember when he wrote that book "if i did it"? this man refuses to lay low.

This was in regards to the Civil Cases, not a suspension. He stated they will not put him on the exempt list waiting for the civil cases to be resolved.

These are two separate issues.. 1) Exempt list for outside civil cases as opposed to criminal cases and 2) imposed suspension, delayed by appeal.

If you say so.

I don't say so, the CBA says so... Don't shoot the messenger

What's more is when you realize that if he had never killed his wife, the Kardashians and that entire circus would be irrelevant and unknown.
The butterfly effect is real.


Oh, what could have been....

You were asking about how the word could be used and be non violent. I gave you one.

I know what the CBA says and I read the part you quoted. I don't think you accurately interpreted Goodell's own words when he addressed whether or not he would put Watson on the exempt list and the WHY behind it. Try reading it again and note the placement of the Civil Court vs Criminal Court. If you still think it's likely that he will put Watson on the Exempt list.........so be it.

In the report Robinson said that sexual assault was defined by the NFL at that point (and she quoted it... I kinda feel like that was a subtle smacktalk to the NFL), and that she was bound to go by their definition.

The point was, the NFL was considering the exempt list for the criminal case, once that was resolved the information from YOUR post was put out that they would not be placing him on the exempt list for the remaining civil cases to be resolved. It didn't have anything to do with him being suspended and a possible appeal and subsequent lawsuit to follow (which is where the exempt list has a secondary usage stated in the CBA). It would not make sense for there to be an appeal, a lawsuit based on the appeal results and him not being placed on the commissioners exempt list while that lawsuit is resolved. The NFL doesn't want Watson on the field immediately. This is an easy way to resolve him not being on the field to start the season, why wouldn't they follow a CBA resolution to that problem?

Oh it certainly was a knock on the NFL. Her reports is worded such that Watson got a 6 game suspension because the NFL's incompetency prevented her from giving him anything more. While it does deal with Watson it puts the NFL is a poor light.

And it was defined as " On behalf of the NFL, one of its investigators defined the term at the evidentiary hearing as the “unwanted sexual contact with another person.”

Actual physical unwanted sexual contact.

Okay.......I'm guessing that you aren't going to answer my questions. Here is what transpired.



You were replying to Pit, so I can only imagine he made yet another invalid claim.

I am also guessing the "he" is me. And the "she" is Judge Robinson.

So, I will try and be real clear................I have no problem w/Judge Robinson's ruling. Before our recent conversation, I said I was good w/her decision. I said I thought it was too long of a suspension, but that I accepted her ruling. I can provide the exact quote if you like.

Nothing has changed my opinion regarding her ruling. I accept it and think she is more fair than Goodell would have been.

The only thing I asked you to keep in mind is that she was hearing a case involving the Personal Conduct Policy and it wasn't an actual case in a court of law. Thus, we should be cautious about assigning legal definitions to a situation that wasn't an actual case in a court of law. It had nothing to do w/the laws of the land. It was about whether or not Watson violated the terms of the Personal Conduct Policy. She ruled that he did and I completely accept her decision. I think she did a great job of chastising both Watson and the NFL. All I'm saying is that her decision is not proof that Watson actually committed a crime that has been established by our legal system. I'm not sure what is so confusing about my stance?

Disclaimer: If you were not talking about me and Judge Robinson, then please accept my sincerest apologies.

One more thing.........just because Pit makes a claim.....it does not mean it's a truthful claim.

Okay. I don't think they will put him on the Exempt list due to his language and how this went down. I could be wrong. We'll see.

Considering the penalty against the Dolphins owner now, I would be shocked if the NFL doesn't appeal the Watson suspension. I suspect the NFL will back it up a bit to an 11-game suspension. However, if the NFLPA sues in Federal Court, the NFL will put Watson on the exempt list and the suspension will be a year or longer waiting for a court date. That will open up the bag of additional suits against Watson, any civil court proceedings, criminal charges and of course additional NFL action. All of this providing Watson can keep himself out of additional trouble while waiting on the courts.

Just as Watson settled 3 civil cases the day before the current ruling in an attempt to sway Judge Robinson's ruling, the NFL has taken a page from the Watson team's legal book and invoked a large penalty on an owner before they appeal Watson's ruling.

And there it is folks. He has no idea what was posted because he has me on ignore. Jumps to conclusions because he refuses to see it and even though he has no idea what was posted, still can't keep my name out of his mouth. Since oober refused to explain it to him he exploded. Nothing new here. He blocks people, asks people no to quote them because he doesn't want to see their posts then asks people to tell them what I posted. Brings a whole new meaning to Ozzy's song Crazy Train. Because as of now all he is doing is taking A Shot In The Dark. Sad, just sad.

Pit was commenting on Florio. You having him on ignore but still needing to respond to replies to him isn't my problem.

Besides that, click to view the post instead of asking numerous questions about it while repeatedly telling us all you have him on ignore. Obviously that doesn't matter because you two still argue all day long.

Yeah, I should just sit here and ignore that he keeps calling me a troll and making comments about me when he doesn't even know what I'm posting.

Just a couple thoughts I had while reading through the full report again....

Robinson really didn't seem to be privy to any groundbreaking evidence than what has been made public. Maybe she was cognizant of what was/wasn't public and took efforts to not disclose anything the public didn't already know, but the specific points she brings up are all things that were pretty generic pieces of information and were known.

It also seems, to me, that the NFL only presented the 4 strongest cases. Robinson specifically states that none of the 4 therapists chose to work with Watson again, even though we know many did. She also mentioned that 3 of those 4 were licensed even though she also states that Watson's MO was to pursue massage therapists with light and/or questionable credentials.

I'd be shocked to see the NFL try this, and I think the Dolphins thing is more about the NFL saving face after Robinson's report than anything to do with Watson, at all.
Furthermore, if they DID try that move, it would simply underline the shots Robinson took at the NFL regarding how they don't do things until after-the-fact. Robinson was very clear that her ruling is based on precedent; them doing something AFTER her ruling does not create grounds or a basis for altering that ruling.

JMHO, Curt Warner stated he thinks NFL will come down harder and should--THEY, the NFL, want to set a new precedent- what they- NFL- did to Ross seems to set a new bar for owners. Draft picks and $500,000 isn't a light penalty in my book. I'm concerned DW is headed for a much longer penalty. JMHO, losing last year also should factor in....but it probably won't. Go Browns!!!

They may want to set a new precedent and the should. It should be a more comprehensive Policy that the Judge can use so the NFL doesn't have to do it. Watson deserves only 6 games, not more, because the NFL isn't clear on it's punishments and can't be arbitrary. Well, can't be arbitrary going forward any longer at least.

j/c instead of responding to individual posts.

What Robinson is doing is simple if you read the full report. She doesn't come out and say it verbatim but it's littered throughout her commentary.







What she's really saying:

"Your whole process for discipline is mad whack, and hiring me to be the "arbiter of justice" is not going to mean I willingly fall victim to this chicanery. On one hand, you don't allow me to define any of your charges; sexual misconduct, conduct detrimental, etc; as if I can't think and judge for myself... On the other, you're asking me to hand down unprecedented punishment for something that is not defined and has no structure for punishment in your CBA. Your process and language for enforcement is convoluted; if you want me to rule on it, I'll stay within the confines of precedence... and of your "contract"... that's what it's there for."

Sue did a perfect job. Pretending to care about the victims just enough so the NFL wouldn't lose money, but not enough to ruin the Browns season.

Debate the Deshaun Watson suspension, but the report’s finding is clear: He did it -- Doug Lesmerises

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The decision Monday said Deshaun Watson did it.

The punishment, a six-game suspension now, may be longer if the NFL appeals, certainly matters. But for the first time, an investigation was conducted, both sides had their say, and a neutral arbiter looked at the evidence and declared that Watson committed the sexual misconduct of which he has been accused. And that matters, too.

Read the 16-page report from Sue L. Robinson, and it doesn’t read like a six-game suspension report. It reads like a report for a 12-game or season-long suspension that is pulled back in the end by precedent, but not by evidence.

Maybe you don’t trust the NFL and you don’t put any weight in this decision. But as the criminal justice system struggled with the Watson case, it leaned on what the NFL would say.

The district attorney in Houston, where a grand jury declined to indict Watson, said in June on a podcast, ”I think to determine whether justice was done in this case you’re going to have to wait and see how it all comes out on the civil side of things and then through the NFL on the administrative side of things. And then people will determine whether that’s justice.”

The lack of indictment then wasn’t exoneration, it was an indication of the difficulties in prosecuting sexual crimes with only two people -- the accused and the accuser -- present in the room. But, as we know, Watson has multiple accusers.

The NFL decision won’t take away Watson’s freedom. But it should undercut his outright denials of misconduct. It should undermine the plausible deniability that the Browns bathed in when trading for Watson in March, when the news at the time was the lack of grand jury indictment.

In March, it was presented as “maybe he did it, maybe he didn’t.” In August, this report says he did it.

“I never did the things that these people are alleging,” Watson said in March.

In August, Robinson said he did.

The word the Browns used repeatedly in the news conference after the Watson acquisition was “comfortable.”

“The bottom line is we got very comfortable with Deshaun Watson the person,” owner Jimmy Haslam said.

“We feel confident in Deshaun the person. We have a lot of faith in him,” general manager Andrew Berry said.

That comfort, confidence and faith was placed in a quarterback who this report says committed sexual assault.

“I think we got comfortable in the legal process. If you follow the legal process, it is part of it. We have to trust in the legal process,” said owner Dee Haslam.

That legal process didn’t indict. But this process -- not legal, but thorough, with each side having its say -- found that:

1. “The NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report.”

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

3. “It is apparent that Mr. Watson acted with a reckless disregard for the consequences of his actions by exposing himself (and the NFL) to such public scrutiny and speculation. Mr. Watson’s predatory conduct cast ‘a negative light on the League and its players,’ sufficient proof that he violated this provision of the Policy.”

The punishment got the primary attention after the ruling. That was action. Something was taken from Watson for what he did. Certainly, six games may not be enough. But that’s a debate over sentencing.

There was no doubt on the verdict, as determined by a process agreed to by an employer and the union representing the employees.

He did it.

The criminal justice system didn’t say that. But it didn’t say innocent, either. In civil court, Watson said in March his plan wasn’t to settle the 24 civil suits against him.

“That is not my intent. My intent is to continue to clear my name as much as much as possible, and that is what I am focused on,” Watson said.

He has since settled 23 of the 24. That isn’t an admission of guilt either. We don’t know the amounts or the circumstances. Maybe Watson just wanted the suits to be over, and was willing to do what it took to make that happen.

So neither the criminal nor civil courts were clear. This decision was clear.

We often reference the court of public opinion. It’s there where this decision should reverberate like a thunder clap. We understand that there is no criminal prosecution, and we understand the civil suits are private. The debates over those decisions, and the debates over suspension length, will continue, with frustration, anger and disappointment likely on both sides.

But when it comes to believing Watson, when it comes to rationalizing the Browns’ choice to bring Watson here, when it comes to believing the women who said Watson sexually assaulted them, we have what we didn’t before the report.

We have a decision. And the decision said he did it.

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...0cTkD_tad8498RoKrRWQ7MMcMAZcPbRTfCOSuYk8

Sadly he writes in the Cleveland market. His comments will not be treated kindly. As we see more and more in today's society, honesty is often punished and not appreciated as it was in days past. Good luck going forward Doug Lesmerises. I think you're going to need it.

You do know what their definition of sexual assault was in this case, right? Or don't you?


How much further than that do you feel it needs to go to be called sexual assault? Are you trying to say that purposefully placing your penis on a woman when it is unwanted isn't enough for you?

All she is doing is referring you to what her rulings are based on. Each of those are spelled out clearly in the decision. This wasn't a state or local court. So what the rules/laws and their definitions had to come from somewhere and as a judge or attorney you have to show where and what you are basing your ruling on. That's exactly what she did here.

Per example, in an actual criminal trial the judge would say something similar to this, "based on Ohio statute 3.145 the court rules...."

Anybody claiming it wasn't sexual assault needs to have an unwanted stranger's erection suddenly exposed and drug across their forehead. Then they can decide if that felt sexual assault-ish enough for them.

Honest question bro. How many women said he placed his penis on them?

There is a threshold that makes it unacceptable?

idk GM, but how many does it take to be considered assault? The report clearly stated that it happened. That is good enough for me.

You would have to ask Robinson. What I did was provide what the NFL set as a guideline to constitute sexual assault and the she found him guilty by those guidelines. How many women would he have had to have done that to in order for you to agree he was guilty of sexual assault?

Glad we have an answer... hoping that no one appeals and we can move on...

Nope I asked a simple question and you didn't answer it did you?

BULL It didn't say that quit making chit up.

All I did was ask a simple question. yet for some strange reason none of you can answer it. Why didn't anybody answer my question???

I think what a lot of people are having trouble with is that they are defining it as sexual assault but then saying it was non-violent. I don't think I'm alone in that when I hear the word "assault" I think violent acts. I also think that is part of what Robinson was pointing to in their definition. She pointed to previous cases and even stated succinctly that she was comparing him to previous non-violent sexual misconducts.

One thing I don't like about the process, is the lack of actual evidence. She takes the testimony of the NFL investigators as true, but what if Watson's lawyers said they interviewed the same women and that they said something totally opposite? I don't mean this to say that I think Watson is innocent, just a flaw in the process from my standpoint.

I did answer your question. I don't know how many cases that applies to. I'm not Sue Robinson. I didn't review the four cases so I have no way of knowing. I do know that in the cases she heard she found on more than one occasion “unwanted sexual contact with another person.” That was in her report. So yes, I did answer your question. My answer is a simple one. I didn't see or hear the testimony so I have no way of knowing the answer. It was however found to be true.

So now are you going to answer my question?

No Bro you didn't answer my question. DW could be as guilty as you say he is... I have no idea. Yet nobody can or will answer my question because they don't know. I don't know, you, don't know nobody knows. That's the part I have trouble with.

ONE to answer your question. Just give me proof of one and I will agree with you on that one. However when people say he is guilty in all with zero proof, then I have a problem

When he turned over on his back, it is alleged that Mr. Watson exposed his erect penis and purposefully
contacted the therapists’ hands and arms multiple times with his erect penis.

Page 5 2nd Paragraph 3rd Line

One of the therapists alleges that Mr. Watson not only contacted her arm multiple times, but that he
ejaculated on her arm.

Page 5 2nd Paragraph 5th line


Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the
therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he
ever developed an erection during a massage.24 It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial
when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists
and other third parties.
25 Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts
relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of
massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my
conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect
penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them.

Page 7 Paragraph 2

If you haven't listened to Quincy's take on what he thinks the NFL would do, I highly recommend it. Some good stuff...

Yet you post a she said he said. ZERO proof either way... which is what I have been saying. Two grand juries, Sue spending forever looking at the case and sill ZERO proof. Give me proof and I am all in. Make up things in your own mind and I say screw that. Give me proof. and I will agree with you 110 percent.

I understand that. But that is based on "feelings and thoughts" and not based in facts. Let me give you an obvious example which I've pointed out before.


While spitting on someone is not considered an assault everywhere, it is in many states and jurisdictions. I understand that people have a certain perception in their minds but that doesn't change the reality of it This plainly points out that "making contact with another person in an offensive manner, it qualifies as a simple assault."




In anything less than a criminal court, the job of the judge is to listen to testimony from both sides. Look at all the evidence presented to them from both sides and make the decision of who is credible and who isn't. That was the process used in this hearing. Even watson's most avid supporters said that she was well qualified for the job. As such she based her decision on the evidence. Obviously it was quite clear to her who was credible and who was not.

Maybe you should read the report. And nobody can give you the number of women that claimed it because as far as I know, that info is not available.

So your stance is the process with a Judge was valid to not indict him but the process with the Judge that found him at fault was flawed?

You don't want proof, you want excuses to not believe.

I read it all why didn't you?

I make no claims... you do... yet you can't back up your claims. Look in the mirror bro.

If the findings of an independent judge does not convince you, nothing will. It appears you intend to dispute Sue Robinson's conclusion to continue on your path of denial.

From page 7 of her report....


Now you have stepped it up a notch by disputing a judges finding. So be it.

I did read it all, a couple of times. I just quoted for you the part that says they claimed it. I made edits to my post that you probably didn't see, but I both answered your question and brought the receipts, so that is that.

Credibility zero.

Not for nothing, but Sue's interpretation of the evidence she saw is probably the best we're gonna get.

It's the only OFFICIAL story out there, period.

She was such a straight shooter just a few days ago though. Shame she had to ruin it all by not believing Watson. /s

Bottom line is the evidence presented convinced Judge Robinson that "Watson did it." Watson lied to the Judge, shows no remorse, has been deemed a predator, and sexually assaulted the women per the NFL guidelines. So, six weeks of suspension (unless appealed) and Watson will become the face of the franchise after sexually assaulting 25 or more women. With every snap Watson plays going forward the NFL and more importantly the Cleveland Browns will be condoning the actions of a man who has shown no remorse for the women he assaulted. This is a sad day for Cleveland and the NFL. Obviously, winning football games has a higher priority for the Browns than sexually assaulted women by their player.

j/c:

It seems odd that on a Browns message board, posters get ridiculed for wanting actual tangible proof for the allegations and those that assign guilt on hearsay and bash the Browns on almost every single post they make are not even questioned.

I understand what GM is saying. He isn't saying Watson is innocent. What he is saying is that there is no actual proof. It's the word of four separate witnesses vs his. She made a ruling and I am fine w/that ruling. She did the best she could. But the only people who really know the truth are the actual participants. There is not any video evidence. No medical reports. No eye witnesses. No physical evidence. The ruling is based on what the four women had to say vs what Watson said. And once again...........this was NOT a legal trial. It was a hearing to see if Watson violated the terms of The Personal Conduct Policy. Those claiming this proves his guilt are the same people who have said he was guilty as soon as we made the trade. The truth is not what they seek. They are fueled by the need to force their opinions down the throats of others.

Yet some folks around here quote it as FACT when it's not. I have said around here several times that they could be right, they could be wrong, or that the truth is in the middle yet many of you start crying that he is guilty 110 percent with no proof. You need only look in the mirror to see who is being honest, and it ain't you bro.

The only thing I don't get in all that is the remorse part. How is he supposed to show remorse with ongoing civil suits? Or was he supposed to throw money at the "problem" and settle straightaway (because that's so much better)?

WTH?

You can take your tired-ass goalposts and shove 'em. I've said NOTHING on how I think sexual assault should be judged.

All I stated is what Robinson exposed over and over in her brief. She's working within an environment with a bunch of ambiguities, the NFL defines all the language on the fly and expects her to leap of the edge and approve unprecedented punishment.

You want to take that, and accost me with stupid penis questions? GTHOH.

I've never done anything to excuse Watson's behavior. My commentary is on how the case was judged and the lunacy that is NFL protocol and practice. Take your virtue-signaling ass on down the road.

Get your LWL and then pound salt.

NO your making chit up. Point out one time I ever complained about her. Point out one single time I said she was wrong. You can't. Because I didn't. You and some others are so intent of proving Watson guilty that you won't take a honest look at whats going on. I have, and I admit 100 percent that he could be guilty, innocent, or somewhere in between which is where I stand. Not that he is innocent of everything, but that he is not guilty of everything.
Yet I get bashed by the he is a skumbag, worthless piece of crap crowd.

Says the man who claimed he would accept her findings. Until suddenly he didn't like her findings. Now he points the finger in the other direction. Color me shocked.

Well, I get that. But this isn't truly a "he said she said". This is a "he said, THEY said". And in her report, the preponderance of the evidence made her side with the women's claim it happened as they claimed. She found DW's denial of any wrongdoing, not credible. It's not that hard to understand. Lacking any further evidence to the contrary, this is now the official story as far as football is concerned.

I'm pointing out how you refuse to admit her findings are correct and don't consider that evidence. I'm sorry there are no 8x10 color glossies or video tape for you to review.

What is funny as hell is that nobody answered my question. All they did was bash me for not agreeing with them. Anybody with a IQ over 50 can see that.

Mr. Watson is hereby suspended for six (6) regular-season games without pay. Although
this is the most significant punishment ever imposed on an NFL player for allegations of
non-violent sexual conduct, Mr. Watson’s pattern of conduct is more egregious than
any before reviewed by the NFL.
• Recognizing that the only discipline mentioned in the CBA is a fine or suspension,53 I
nevertheless believe it appropriate for Mr. Watson to limit his massage therapy to Clubdirected sessions and Club-approved massage therapists for the duration of his career,
and so impose this mandate as a condition to his reinstatement.
• Mr. Watson is to have no adverse involvement with law enforcement, and must not
commit any additional violations of the Policy.

Page 15 3 bullet points

Pretty sure I answered it, and I don't think I bashed you either. Asking if you even read it is not bashing GM, but take it however you want, I don't really care.

Point out one single time I ever said her findings were not correct.

This is what he does. Makes lies up about people and repeats them over and over and over. I never saw you bash Robinson. Not once. I haven't bashed her either. I actually respect her decision. She did the best she could given the circumstances. She chastised both Watson and the NFL. She made her ruling given the information of what was presented to her. I think she did a great job considering the circumstances.

Of course, Pit just makes up stories to win an argument. He's a straight up troll. He doesn't root for the team anymore and trashes the Browns and its fans every single day. Don't let his BS get to you. Any reasonable person can see what he--and a few others--are doing.

Sorry about your overly emotional diatribe. I didn't mean to send you over the edge. There's help for that.

What she did was point to what she was basing her rulings on. It's nothing but basic court speak. Judges point out what statute or law they are referring to in making their rulings. In this case it was the guidelines the NFL set. As I said, those are pointed out in the report so people can look at them in reference to the report.

You on the other hand tried to make it seem as if there was something wrong with those guidelines and made that obvious. When I pointed out that their guideline was perfectly reasonable in regards to sexual assault and asked you to clarify your position on it you blew a gasket. I'm not really surprised by that.

Carry on....

I first read that and thought it was very unfair, for the reason you stated. Ain't nobody "showing remorse" for something they are denying in a court of law. The fact that people have to conduct themselves that way is more of an indictment of her profession and our system of justice than their actual lack of remorse. I would have preferred she outright said he "lied" (he did), and stated that as an aggravating factor. Dude's still denying he ever had an erection lmao.

Then I thought maybe there was opportunity within this process for him to show remorse to her personally, or at least exhibit any kind of grief that was evident to her. Or perhaps her statement comes from a place where she thinks he is "unphased" by any of this and doesn't seem to care. I don't know.

Jimmy Haslam says otherwise, and let's be honest... if there is any remorse to be shown, he would see it way before the person deciding Watson's fate for charges that are basically "unprovable" with actual evidence. Obviously, the flip side, is his heavily vested interest in "Deshaun the player".

People show remorse in a court of law when evidence has already proven guilt beyond any shadow of doubt. Nobody walks in and says "I did it! But I'm really sorry." Remorse is a dish that's best served after dinner, not before the waiter has seated you at the table.

And I have never once disputed any of that. So what in the hell is your point.

Once again he calls me a troll and talks his chit about me while not even knowing what I posted. How cowardly can one person be? Obviously this is considered acceptable behavior on here. The man knows no shame.

Is "chit" a new thing here now?

Can it be served on a Chingle?

Not sure, but I think Haslam might have been referring to how Watson has said he is remorseful for all the negative attention has been brought to the doorsteps of those close to him either professionally or personally. I don't think he has ever indicated that he was remorseful for something he maintains he never did.

This playing the uninvolved agitator is straight-up trolling too. You do it often like it's second nature.

Says the guy who admitted the only reason he would come back to the board was to troll me and diss Watson every Sunday.