Sham means a thing that is not as it is reported to be. Bogus or false. To falsely present something as the truth.

The contractual agreement is clear. It has not been falsely reported. The NFL has the right to handle this appeal exactly the way they are. Nothing involved in this process meets the definition of a sham.

Goodell better hope he don't play himself. it would be hilarious if Watson ends up getting a reduced suspension.

NFLPA is run by morons. We knew this already.

JMHO, it could happen. A black man is judging a black QB- you can't tell me black sexual experience historically and currently isn't different than Caucasian society. Watson says he did nothing wrong- we'll get to see if the whole picture is thought out and considered. Plus, maybe Mr. Harvey holds the owners of the NFL more accountable by giving DW a lighter sentence.....time will tell.

Kevin Stefanski acknowledges ‘we have to get Deshaun (Watson) ready to play’: Quick hits
Updated: Aug. 05, 2022, 3:11 p.m.|Published: Aug. 05, 2022, 2:27 p.m.


By Mary Kay Cabot, cleveland.com


BEREA, Ohio — Kevin Stefanski admitted there’s a method to his madness for giving Deshaun Watson most of the first-team reps through the first seven days of Browns training camp.

In addition to establishing him as the leader of the team, he knows the reality of the situation: with so much uncertainty surrounding Watson’s suspension, anything is still possible, including him playing early on in the season while a potential legal battle ensues.


“We’ll let that play out, but we’ve got to get Deshaun ready to play,’’ Stefanski said before Day 8 of Browns training camp. “He hasn’t played football in a year. We’ve got to get Jacoby (Brissett) ready to play. He’s potentially going to be playing early for us and starting and we’re going to be counting on him.

“Same thing for (Josh) Dobbs and and (Josh) Rosen. Those guys have to be ready to play. So I just look at it as we’re going to use every opportunity we have out here, individual drill, post-practice, during practice, we’ve got to get all these guys ready to play.’’


The NFL has appealed Watson’s six-game suspension by NFL Disciplinary Officer Sue L. Robinson, and is seeking a minimum year-long suspension, as well as an appropriate fine and treatment.

The NFLPA will respond to the appeal by the end of the day Friday, but the union is poised to sue in federal court if it doesn’t like the outcome. If the union secures an injunction, Watson could end up on the field earlier than expected this season, possibly even in the opener in Carolina depending on what the courts say.

“I think all of these scenarios you have to be ready for,’’ Stefanski said. “Again, like we’ve talked about all along, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about various scenarios. Just deal with what’s in front of us.”


As for whether or not he feels confident with Brissett starting most or all of the season, he said, “I’m not going to go too far into the future and what’s coming. I’ve tried, and I’ve asked the players to do this, so I’m going to try to do the same. I’m going to take a one-day-at-a-time approach and focus on the day and focus on what we have in front of us, which is practice. All those conversations are probably for another time.”

Sports betting comes to Ohio on Jan. 1, 2023: Your questions answered
Still, he hopes the fans remain excited about the 2022 season regardless of the length of Watson’s suspension.

“Like we’ve mentioned, we’re excited for this season as a team,’’ he said. “The guys are very excited about 2022. You mentioned the fans, we’ve definitely felt the energy from these fans. In terms of specifics past that, I don’t know it’s that time yet. But yeah, I think the guys are excited about the work they’ve put in so far and they’re certainly looking forward to competing come September.”


Stefanski hinted he might play Watson some in the preseason game next Friday night in Jacksonville.

“These preseason games will be an opportunity to play when it’s a game setting and the defense can come after you and you’re truly in a game,’’ he said. “I think that that’ll really be more when you get closer to getting reps than say at practice.’’

It’s not the first time Stefanski has had to get a quarterback ready to replace a starter for most or all of the season. In 2017, as quarterback coach of the Vikings, he helped guide Case Keenum to an 11-3 record and the NFC championship game in place of an injured Sam Bradford.

“I definitely use my experiences in the past to help inform me now,’' he said. “And that was also a unique situation. So I definitely lean on some of those experiences. I had other experiences. Think about when (Brett) Favre came in to the Vikings late the process, when Sam Bradford got to the Vikings, a late trade after Teddy (Bridgewater’s) unfortunate injury.

“A lot of the coaches here that have spent a lot of time in this league have seen a bunch of different things when it comes to guys becoming available and then getting them ready to play and having an offseason to get a guy ready to play.’'


He noted that there are plenty of reps to go around for Watson, Brissett and the two Joshes, and that he’ll make the most of all of them.



https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...aun-watson-ready-to-play-quick-hits.html

I understand that when everything I said is factually correct you had to come at me on a personal level. It's not a common practice with you but when your back is against the wall, what else is left? Am I right?

And envy will get you nowhere.

Or Goodell told him the path where he'd like to see this go?

Starting to pick up Jacoby Brissett late in best ball drafts.

I picked him up in my superflex dynasty league weeks ago.

I understand that when everything I said is factually correct you had to come at me on a personal level. It's not a common practice with you but when your back is against the wall, what else is left? Am I right?

And envy will get you nowhere.

Vers, thanks for the link in the last thread to what watson is being accused of doing. Here it is for anyone interested in reading it.
I am still digging my way through it (long article) but what I have read so far pales in comparison to what roethlisberger was accused of doing.
I realize that it is a different would than when ben did his things so the punishment may be more severe.


https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl...ault-explained/s6wzqeubsd7s12b9h4aq6bqqz

Let me get this straight, Ben was officially suspended by Commissioner Roger Goodell who handed down the punishment of a six-game suspension a week after prosecutors decided not to charge Roethlisberger in a case involving a 20-year-old college student who accused him of sexually assaulting her in a Georgia nightclub in March. Roethlisberger also was ordered to undergo a comprehensive behavioral evaluation. Goodell will look at Roethlisberger's progress before the season and might consider reducing the suspension to four games.

Watson has been accused of sexual misconduct and sexual assault (3 of the women claim Watson forced them to have oral sex with him) that has resulted in the settlement of 53 civil claims associated with Watson's predatory nature and egregious behavior. One case has been temporarily withdrawn to protect the woman's identity and one is still an active civil suit. Ten women have also filed police complaints against Watson; eight of those 10 women are among the plaintiffs who have filed civil lawsuits. Two Grand Jury's did not bring an indictment against Watson yet only had testimony from one woman in the second GJ review. No live testimony was presented in the first.

I'm dumbfounded as to how reading that article pales in comparison to what Roethlisberger was accused of doing. Ben had one accuser of which he settled while Watson has had 53 civil suits settled associated with his actions with 1 still unsettled and 1 that still could still be refiled that we are aware of to date. If you are making that reference due to the alleged crime of rape by Roethlisberger, I suggest you look up Texas law as to the crime of sexual assault where nonconsensual oral sex is classified the same as rape under sexual assault. That said, Watsons has 3 alleged cases compared to Ben's one plus 50 additional cases of alleged sexual misconduct with his name attached.

Just an FYI
Texas crime of Sexual Assault is defined in Texas Penal Code Section 22.011(a). Subsection (a)(1) of the Sexual Assault Law deals with sexual assault of adults, where the primary issue is “consent.”
The current Texas Sexual Assault law is as follows:1

(a) A person commits an offense if:

(1) the person intentionally or knowingly:

(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person’s consent.

(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person’s consent; or

(C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person’s consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or

Also, I still don't know what Texas Law has to do w/the Personal Conduct Policy?

[quote=Jester]
Let me get this straight, Ben was officially suspended by Commissioner Roger Goodell who handed down the punishment of a six-game suspension a week after prosecutors decided not to charge Roethlisberger in a case involving a 20-year-old college student who accused him of sexually assaulting her in a Georgia nightclub in March. Roethlisberger also was ordered to undergo a comprehensive behavioral evaluation. Goodell will look at Roethlisberger's progress before the season and might consider reducing the suspension to four games.

JMHO, your Texas sex assault- DW did NONE of those things- NFL has gotten itself in quicksand- it is now judging individual moral conduct in private....with no violence involved....they are being intrusive and unfair. Next, are gay players going to be charged for their none normal sexual activity....wonder if there are any other sexual things the NFL outlaws- voyeurism- how were the Cowboys punished?

Fairness- NFL didn't make players aware of how they could be punished for NON-violent "misconduct", AND where is the list of misconduct.

Read the posts Vers, if you're going to state that "I am still digging my way through it (long article) but what I have read so far pales in comparison to what roethlisberger was accused of doing." Then you are stating as to what he did to violate the PCP. If you're going to hang your hat on the alleged rape allegation against Ben, then it stands to reason that Watson's alleged violations need to be considered also. The NFL only addressed one such instance against Ben while we know that 3 women have accused Watson of forced nonconsensual oral sex which carry's the same weight as rape in the state of Texas. Then you need to add in all the other alleged sexual misconducts and there's a hell of a lot of difference between the two cases. Watson is a serial predator and no matter how many excuses you make up for him the NFL investigation proved that and the violation of 3 PCP standards according to Judge Robinson. That cannot be disputed according to the CBA.

Steeler's fans are pissed that Ben got so much for so little and Watson gets the same for so much more.

NFL Players Association files reply to NFL’s appeal of Deshaun Watson’s six-game suspension; also poised to sue in federal court
Updated: Aug. 05, 2022, 9:33 p.m.|Published: Aug. 05, 2022, 4:48 p.m.


By Mary Kay Cabot, cleveland.com


BEREA, Ohio -- The NFL Players Association announced Friday that it replied to the NFL’s appeal of Deshaun Watson’s six-game suspension by NFL Disciplinary Officer Sue L. Robinson for violating the NFL’s personal conduct policy.

“We have filed our reply brief to the NFL’s appeal regarding the Deshaun Watson matter,’’ the NFLPA said in a statement posted on Twitter.

The union, which had two business days to reply, had no further comment.


The matter is now in the hands of appeals officer Peter C. Harvey, the former New Jersey Attorney General who was appointed Thursday by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. There’s no set timeframe for a decision, but it must be processed on an expedited basis. The two sides — the NFL and NFLPA — can also try to negotiate a settlement before the ruling.


But the NFLPA is still poised to sue in federal court, possibly pending the outcome of the appeal.

“If the new arbitrator increases Watson’s punishment – once again this sets up a legal battle between the union and league challenging the fairness of the penalties and (Roger) Goodell’s authority to penalize the players for their alleged roles,’’ said attorney Daniel Moskowitz, a sports law litigator in Dallas, who has represented several NFL players in NFL investigations involving the personal conduct policy, violation of league substance abuse and other code of conduct policies.

The NFLPA and Watson’s legal team can also file before the decision by Harvey, who helped develop and implement the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy.


In 2017, Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott didn’t wait for appeals officer Harold Henderson to rule on his domestic violence case before filing suit in U.S. District Court.

“The district court, having found it could intervene due to a lack of fundamental fairness throughout the process, ruled for Elliot, and granted his request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the player’s suspension from taking effect,’’ Moskowitz said.


Elliott’s six-game suspension was ultimately reinstated, but he played the first seven games of the 2017 season before serving it.

Tom Brady also sued in federal court to have his four-game Deflategate suspension overturned, and the ruling went in his favor. He played the entire 2015 season before the NFL won its appeal and the suspension was reinstated. He sat out the first four games of 2016.


The NFLPA, which fought for no suspension at all for Watson, will likely argue that Sue L. Robinson was unable to find a definition of sexual assault in the Collective Bargaining Agreement or the Personal Conduct Policy. Short of that, one of the NFL investigators, on behalf of the league, defined it during the three-day hearing in June as “unwanted sexual contact with another person.’’

Based on that definition, Robinson found that the NFL carried its burden to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that Watson engaged in sexual assault against the four massage therapists identified in the report.

But Watson’s team has maintained all along that he didn’t use force or coercion, and therefore, didn’t engage in sexual assault. They abided by the six-game suspension, but will likely fight hard against a significantly longer ban absent violent sexual misconduct.

The NFL, which has argued from the start for an minimum season-long suspension with the opportunity to apply for reinstatement, is once again seeking the full year, along with an “appropriate fine” and treatment for what it has deemed a disturbing pattern of sexual misconduct.


Indeed, Robinson described his behavior in her 16-page report as “predatory” and “egregious.”

The NFLPA, led by attorney Jeffrey Kessler, might also look to the precedent set in 2015 in the domestic violence case against former Cowboys defensive end Greg Hardy.

In that case, Henderson reduced Hardy’s suspension from 10 games to four on the grounds that it far exceeded any precedents in the league.

“I find that the conduct of Hardy clearly violates the letter and spirit of any version of the (personal conduct policy) since its inception, and of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws long before then. The egregious conduct exhibited here is indefensible in the NFL,” Henderson said in a statement announcing his decision. “However, ten games is simply too much, in my view, of an increase over prior cases without notice such as was done last year, when the ‘baseline’ for discipline in domestic violence or sexual assault cases was announced as a six-game suspension.”

Robinson wrote something similar in her explanation of the six-game suspension despite finding Watson violated three areas of the policy.


“While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players,’’ she wrote.

The two sides can also reopen settlement talks, but negotiations up until shortly before Robinson’s ruling on Monday proved fruitless. According to ESPN’s Dan Graziano, the NFLPA was willing to concede 6-8 games, but the NFL wasn’t willing to budge on anything less than 12 games and an $8 million fine.

The NFL is adamant that Watson should forfeit more than the $57,500 per game he’ll owe based on his $1.035 million base salary for the 2022 season. The Browns lowered the base and gave him a $45 million signing bonus to clear cap space for the season. It’s part of his fully-guaranteed five-year, $230 million contract extension after the Browns traded for him in March, sending a net of five draft picks to the Texans, including three first-rounders.


Goodell designated Harvey for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Goodell isn’t in position to process the appeal quickly. He’s currently attending the Pro Football Hall of Fame festivities in Canton, and will then head to Minnesota next week for an important league meeting on Tuesday in which the sale of the Denver Broncos will take center stage.

Harvey, a former federal prosecutor and now a partner at the Paterson Belknap firm in New York, is uniquely qualified for numerous reasons, including the fact that he’s one of the foremost authorities in the country on sexual assault cases.

He serves on the Board of Directors of Futures Without Violence, focusing on domestic violence, sexual assault and childhood trauma policy issues. As the New Jersey Attorney General, his initiatives included refining and strengthened a ground-breaking Sexual Assault Response Team/Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SART/SANE) program to assist sexual assault victims in coming forward without fear of being victimized again by the justice system that is meant to help them.


He’s also served as the commissioner’s designee in other arbitrations, and was one of four consultants on the Elliott’s domestic violence case.

Harvey “may overturn, reduce, modify or increase the discipline previously issued” and his word will be final -- unless the Watson sues, which appears likely.


https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...deshaun-watsons-six-game-suspension.html

Forced oral sex. I have always found that sketchy. All a person has to do is say "Bring it on, big boy" then snap the teeth 2-3 times. I think that would put an end to that.

I am not making light of anything, but some things are believable, and some things aren't.

JMO

xx xxx xxx I have always found that sketchy. All a person has to do is say "Bring it on, big boy" then snap the teeth 2-3 times. I think that would put an end to that.

I am not making light of anything, but some things are believable, and some things aren't.

JMO

Forced oral sex. I have always found that sketchy. All a person has to do is say "Bring it on, big boy" then snap the teeth 2-3 times. I think that would put an end to that.

I am not making light of anything, but some things are believable, and some things aren't.

JMO

What's wrong with this post y'all? You need to just let Peen be, this was how it was in the 30s-40s-50s deep south, so he thinks this should fly today too. Getting old is hell, let me tell ya.

I understand what you are saying, but you are also assigning guilt to a person when you do not have proof of his guilt. OCD mentioned peen being like dudes in the old south, but not allowing the legal system to rule on criminal cases goes farther back than that. Back to the Salem witch trials. And even further than that......back to the Medieval times and beyond.

Look, I have NO PROBLEM if some of you are so disgusted that you can't root for Watson and/or the Browns. It's a free choice. However, the rest of us should be permitted to make our own choice and not receive the constant shaming because we believe in the laws of the land and don't want to be part of the mob. This is a Cleveland Browns message board for fans of the team. It's not a social activist board where we compete to see who is the most "woke."

Question - at this point, knowing the NFL is appealing and putting aside if that is right or wrong, what do people think the final suspension will be?

I'm going to say 12 games and a $10M fine and language for Watson to attend behavioral classes. It wouldn't surprise me if there isn't that big of a game addition, while imposing a financial penalty that will be donated to women's causes.... that's the sort of optics the NFL wants imo.

Does anyone think that this is the way the Browns saw this whole Watson thing going? So much for research!

I think that is the bare minimum. The NFL doesn't want watson playing game 1 and it sounds like they don't want him playing week 12 vs houston.
I think he also gets fined to make up for the structure of his contract.

Question - at this point, knowing the NFL is appealing and putting aside if that is right or wrong, what do people think the final suspension will be?

I'm going to say 12 games and a $10M fine and language for Watson to attend behavioral classes. It wouldn't surprise me if there isn't that big of a game addition, while imposing a financial penalty that will be donated to women's causes.... that's the sort of optics the NFL wants imo.

Forced oral sex. I have always found that sketchy. All a person has to do is say "Bring it on, big boy" then snap the teeth 2-3 times. I think that would put an end to that.

I am not making light of anything, but some things are believable, and some things aren't.

JMO

I think---just guessing--that he will get at least 12 games and perhaps a year. I think the fine will be large and they will probably add in counseling.

What kills me is that almost everyone said they would be good w/Judge Robinson's decision. She decided on 6 games. But now, that isn't enough. Pffftttttt.....

I thought Watson deserved less than 6 games, but I accepted her decision. But, those who love to play God are not satisfied and want more punishment. Justice should come through the legal system rather than vigilante style. Judge Robinson oversaw a case that was about whether or not Watson violated the terms of the Personal Conduct Policy. She was not rendering a legal decision. The crap that went on w/that hearing would not walk in a court of law. And I wish peen or 05 would expand on that. For example, how can you allow the testimony of a witness to stand w/out cross examination? There was no video evidence. No tangible evidence. No medical reports that suggested abuse. No eye witnesses. Just the unchallenged word of the 5 participants [4 accusers and Watson.]

Watson is not being accused of rape. It was also found there was no physical force.

This is the kind of crap when the mob makes decisions. The story gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

It was also found there was no physical force.

Watson is not being accused of rape. It was also found there was no physical force.

This is the kind of crap when the mob makes decisions. The story gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

You look at these situation from a perspective of male, maybe you're big and strong enough to handle yourself in most situations in life. That's why it's hard for you to understand/accept (its not personal against you but this view is a general misunderstanding among many men) why these women continue with the sexual act if they found it unpleasant. Here in Scandinavia they have done a lot of research about this phenomenon why some women (and men) "freeze" and continue do unpleasant things against there will. You have probably read about how our reptile brain works but the report basically says that when we feel we're in danger we revert to three types of reactions. FIGHT! FREEZE! ESCAPE!

None of us know the state of mind of these women when these sexual acts happened. Maybe from Watson's perspective it was just a "proposal" but from theses women's perspective they received it as some sort of threat, rightfully or not this was probably their understanding at the time it happend.

You and I can question why they panic, freeze, instead of talked to Watson and explained why they felt uncomforted. Totally reasonable question but as the report said when a person feel threatened many of us revert to reptile behavior and when this happen normal reactions flies out of the window.

That's why I'm saying if it happens to a man once in his life, I will give anyone accused of this the benefit of doubt, but if several women, in this case 24 different individuals tells similar stories then maybe its time for Watson to self reflect and accept some sort of guilt.

My theory is that Watson, who was treated as a elite talent in college, later a NFL QB , the local teams biggest star, wasn't probably used to be denied any of his wishes. That's why he eventually become tone death and didn't recognize when someone showed negative signs and just continue without understanding the seriousness in his actions.

Do you have some kind of point

Has the Bible ever addressed whether or not we should judge others? I thought you were a believer?

When I become skeptical is when numerous other victims start coming out of the woodwork … and then when some of them are deemed “not credible” it’s difficult to know what to beleive

We are not to be hypocritical about our judgement.

I think that's natural to some extent. But then 70% of sexual attacks never get reported to anyone, and there is safety in numbers... so it would also be natural for victims who remained silent to gain courage after learning of others coming forward.

As for some claims not being credible? I think it's also expected that you'd get some 'band wagoners' trying to make a fast buck. But I think using them to undermine the rest is unfair. That's like saying all the police are bad apples because there are some rotten apples who are law enforcement. . . . as to which claims have been deemed not credible? I only know of one example where a woman's son came forward to say his mum was falsely making accusations to make money - and that women was interviewed by Buzbee and not accepted as a client. That again seems unfair as a basis to diminish the claims of others.

Watson is not being accused of rape. It was also found there was no physical force.

This is the kind of crap when the mob makes decisions. The story gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

Or Goodell told him the path where he'd like to see this go?

All I see is your one sided tunnel vision in a situation you are guessing what the facts actually are. Unless you’re telling me Deshaun invited you to sit In on the actual sessions. As with all arguments my money is on the probability that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Is he guilty of something. My opinion is yes but I can’t sit here and tell you what.

Also the fact that 23 of the 24 civil lawsuits settled out of court also points to the probability that a chunk of the accusers were in it for the compensation. Does that make the Court of public opinion anything more than opinions?

The real story IMO is the NFL setting up a third party to ignore when they don’t fall in line. This is beyond even Goodell. This is a pure power play by the owners which should have everyone including fans players and coaches on watch. With nothing to do with racism or watsons skin color this is Rich White Privilege at its best

I'm going to take a page out of your book here. You are not factually correct because it's 'purported', not 'reported'. Sham is a thing that is not as it is purported to be. So no, you're not factually correct per Pit argument logic. Checkmate :-p

More to the point, though... this new conduct policy/process was put in place for the sole purpose to take power out of Goodell's hands. Previously, Goodell was judge, jury, and executioner, and that was seen as a big problem. This new process was supposed to take a large part of that decision-making power out of his hands and give it to a neutral party, thereby allowing for the possibility of it becoming a fair and legit process. As we now see, that's not the case because the NFL has 0 issue with appealing the decision if it doesn't get its way, and that process goes right back into Rog's hands.

TLDR: new process was supposed to be more legit because it would no longer be subject to Goodell's whim... which is clearly still the case... therefore sham.

Again, you fail to see the hypocrisy of your statement. Nonconsensual intercourse (rape) doesn't have occur with physical force. Ask any woman or woman that's suffered nonconsensual intercourse. Nonconsensual oral sex does not have to have physical force either. Verbal threats, intimidation, or fear of bodily harm is not physical. Again, ask any woman or woman that has submitted to unwanted verbal threats, intimidation, or fear of bodily harm resulting in nonconsensual sex (either oral or intercourse).

Again, ignore it all you want but the fact remains that Watson has been accused of nonconsensual oral sex that is clearly defined as sexual abuse under Texas Law and within the exact same statute as nonconsensual intercourse (rape). As much as you or anyone else for the fact wants to separate the two, in Texas (where this all occurred) they are one in the same. Those are facts you cannot refute.

I didn't comment on ben's punishment, but that was a travesty. And then they cut the suspension down. WTF?!
Ben should have been suspended indefinitely minimum a full season.

I don't believe this for 1 second.

"3 of the women claim Watson forced them to have oral sex with him"

If that were true - he would have been brought up on criminal charges. That is rape, pure and simple. I believe those women are lying out of their arse, if that is their claim.

I understand what you are saying, but you are also assigning guilt to a person when you do not have proof of his guilt. OCD mentioned peen being like dudes in the old south, but not allowing the legal system to rule on criminal cases goes farther back than that. Back to the Salem witch trials. And even further than that......back to the Medieval times and beyond.

What kills me is that almost everyone said they would be good w/Judge Robinson's decision. She decided on 6 games. But now, that isn't enough. Pffftttttt.....

Yet a former judge who actually listened to all of the evidence thinks you're wrong. I guess we should trust your feelings more.

Watson is not being accused of rape. It was also found there was no physical force.

This is the kind of crap when the mob makes decisions. The story gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

Has the Bible ever addressed whether or not we should judge others? I thought you were a believer?

No doubt he did something and was guilty of lewd behavior.

Well, anything from Buzbee should be taken with ten grains of salt … that dude is the least credible guy involved. He’s a snake

And I agree 100%. And while I'm not pointing the finger at you, it seems many people are using the excuse that since Ben got away with a far too mild a penalty that's the perfect excuse why the same thing should happen with watson. They seem to be proposing that since the NFL is trying to correct their mistakes from the past by not punishing the abuse of women severely enough that's a terrible thing. If we've learned anything throughout history it's that if we had never corrected mistakes from the past we would be living in a world where slavery is still legal, women couldn't vote and the black community still wouldn't have civil rights.

Some people think using the past as an excuse to treat the abuse of women with a slap on the wrist is a sound thought process. Some of us don't.

And we thought you would accept her findings. I guess that means everyone is disappointed.

Only egregious sexual behavior. Only sexual assault. Only predatory behavior. Only endangering the life of others. Some people wish to make it smaller and smaller.

There is no allegation that Mr. Watson exerted any force against any of the therapists.

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

I am confused. All the posts I have seen, to me it looks like Vers is accepting Judge Robinson's ruling.

I am confused. All the posts I have seen, to me it looks like Vers is accepting Judge Robinson's ruling.

Your last part I believe is incorrect - Josina Anderson recently reported that Buzbee did file a lawsuit for that woman. When asked about it, Buzbee said that he was unaware at the time that her son had talked to the NFL, and that everything the son said to the NFL was false because his mom never talked to her son about Watson. Let's just say, I don't believe that.

The "sexual assault" was as defined by the NFL, which waited to define what sexual assault is until after the investigation. And as the report also says there is no evidence of force that makes what he did more akin to harassment than assault as defined by most standards.

6 (1) Conduct that Qualifies as a Sexual Assault As noted above, the conduct of “sexual assault” is not defined in the CBA, the Policy, or the Report. On behalf of the NFL, one of its investigators defined the term at the evidentiary hearing as the “unwanted sexual contact with another person.”15 The NFL contends that Mr. Watson committed sexual assault by allegedly “touching [his] penis to the women without their consent.

Mr. Watson had a sexual purpose – not just a therapeutic purpose – in making these arrangements with these particular therapists.27 Finally, I find that the NFL has produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the last prong of the test, that Mr. Watson knew such sexualized contact was unwanted. Of course, there is no indication on the record that even experienced therapists “want” such contact, and Mr. Watson certainly did not seek out the most experienced therapists.

Her ruling is absolutely unequivocable

You do this a lot. You take an opinion and turn it into an emphatic fact to bolster your side of the argument ...words like "absolutely" only embellish the point. The truth is that your statement above is an opinion. There are plenty of innocent people in jail. Maybe they had bad lawyers, bad witnesses, corrupt police, overzealous prosecutors, etc. Are the judgements in those cases unequivocable and should be without question forever?

I am not saying Deshaun is innocent. I am simply saying you won. You got the judgment you wanted in terms of who Watson is as a person. No need to embellish by emphatically trying to turn an opinion into a fact.

I am confused. All the posts I have seen, to me it looks like Vers is accepting Judge Robinson's ruling.

You do this a lot. You take an opinion and turn it into an emphatic fact to bolster your side of the argument ...words like "absolutely" only embellish the point. The truth is that your statement above is an opinion. There are plenty of innocent people in jail. Maybe they had bad lawyers, bad witnesses, corrupt police, overzealous prosecutors, etc. Are the judgements in those cases unequivocable and should be without question forever?

I am not saying Deshaun is innocent. I am simply saying you won. You got the judgment you wanted in terms of who Watson is as a person. No need to embellish by emphatically trying to turn an opinion into a fact.

They are. Some people have a problem with reading.

I understand what you are saying, but you are also assigning guilt to a person when you do not have proof of his guilt. OCD mentioned peen being like dudes in the old south, but not allowing the legal system to rule on criminal cases goes farther back than that. Back to the Salem witch trials. And even further than that......back to the Medieval times and beyond.

Thanks, but it's more like they have a problem telling the truth.

You have decided that your opinion of which you saw none of the evidence actually carries some validity over a retired judge who saw and heard it all. It certainly does not. It appears you wish to ignore reality based on "your feelings". Good luck with that.

It's a free choice. However, the rest of us should be permitted to make our own choice and not receive the constant shaming because we believe in the laws of the land and don't want to be part of the mob.

Has the Bible ever addressed whether or not we should judge others? I thought you were a believer?

So when a judge rules someone guilty on all the charges in front of her, her ruling isn't "absolutely unequivocal"? When she finds the actions of the defendant egregious, sexual assault, predatory and that endangered the life of his victims, you don't determine that she ruled absolutely unequivocally?

You seem to be trying to blur the lines about cases that were ruled on that later turned out to be wrong. Which from a percentage standpoint happen very rarely but do happen.

That's not what was said or even suggested. What was stated was in regards to the ruling of the case. And yes, her report was absolutely unequivocal.

Sure they do Peen. Then maybe you can explain how this which was posted by Vers "Agrees with her ruling"....


Maybe it's your comprehension that's the issue here.

Isn't that the same thing Goodell is doing?

It's freaking annoying reading things where they are quoted, but that's my problem.

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

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

Can you tell me what about the NFL's definition is so wrong?

Yes she is a former judge but is not acting as a judge in a court of law. She is acting as an arbitrator in the court of the NFL. My interpretation is that that burden of proof required in this situation is more like a civil court case - more likely than not, rather than the burden of proof in a criminal case - guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Yes I can.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Goodell is using the process as is outlined in the contract per agreement with the NFLPA.

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

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

Just decided to do a quick Google for Sexual Assault Policy

Edit:

www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Yes I can.

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

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

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

The NFL is going to do what it does and at some point, RDW will be our starter because they will not take that away.

But he had similar opinions to you your own so I'm sure you won't call him out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, you are saying I didn't say allegations of rape? Do you think I proofread my post? I know he wasn't charged. I knew they were allegations. You are just looking for a fight.

Yes I can.

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

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

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

Not looking for a fight at all.

Certainly not the BS you continue to spew.

j/c:

Okay. Believe what you will. I think most of the board knows exactly what the truth is.

Revisionist history doesn't change what you posted in your response. Nothing here in any way describes what you find fault with in terms of what the definition itself states. Instead you claimed it did and created some lame personal attack because all you want to do is fight.

Reports: NFL doesn’t want Deshaun Watson playing Texans in 2022
Jared Mueller
Wed, August 3, 2022, 8:52 PM·2 min read


The clarity that so many Cleveland Browns fans and the organization were hoping for has turned into even more unknown. After Judge Sue Robinson issued her six-game suspension to QB Deshaun Watson, the only thing left was whether or not the NFL would appeal.


The NFLPA had announced before the decision that they would not appeal but that announcement is not binding.

Now that the NFL has appealed the suspension, Roger Goodell can decide who hears that appeal including deciding he is the person to do so.

It has been known that the NFL has wanted at least a year suspension since the discipline hearing started. We also found out the two sides tried to settle before Robinson’s decision but couldn’t find common ground.


During that settlement talk, the NFL wanted a 12-game suspension and a huge fine while Watson’s side was more open to a six to eight-game discpline.

According to multiple reports, which started with Adam Schefter’s appearance on ‘Get Up’, the reason the NFL wants Watson out for at least 12 games is that they don’t want him playing in Houston this year:


As it has seemed with the NFL in a variety of situations, public relations seems to be a primary motivator once again. Whether someone believes that Watson deserves a longer suspension or not, extending it for this reason is not about doing the right thing.

With the appeal from the NFL in, the NFLPA has two days to respond before the appeal process begins. That process may not take too long before a new punishment is enacted. From there, Watson may choose to pursue a federal lawsuit ala Tom Brady.

More uncertainty and, seemingly, more PR spin while Browns training camp carries on.

https://sports.yahoo.com/reports-nfl-doesn-t-want-005220166.html

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

I think the Browns should be investigated to as to their knowledge of the problem.

You mentioned it twice in your post and I pointed out it was not used in the report for any finding.

Since you are having an issue grasping your error I've bolded it. At no point did I say her ruling was based on the point he ejaculated on someone as you claim. I asked you if you were saying you would not consider ejaculating on someone without consent sexual assault. I asked you if you believed a reasonable person would not think the same action could not be considered "Disorderly Conduct" and "Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel".


Those are the three areas the Judge based her response on. I've highlighted the entire sentences for you because THAT is what I said, not what just what you focused on. You refused to answer the question because the answer is not one you want to say.

Why on earth would you think that? To what end?

Jerry Jones unsurprised owner misconduct included in argument on behalf of Deshaun Watson

Posted by Charean Williams on August 7, 2022, 7:48 PM EDT


In his argument for Deshaun Watson, the NFL Players Association specifically pointed to owners who weren’t punished at all or weren’t punished significantly for actual or potential violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. The NFLPA focused on Daniel Snyder, Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones.

On Sunday, Jones spoke to Clarence Hill of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram about his inclusion in the NFLPA’s brief. Jones made clear he “can’t talk about any club, Watson or to refer to anybody’s punishment,” but called comparing owners’ punishment to that of players as “shooting volleys.”


“It is a standard Players Association comeback,” Jones told Hill. ”That is the drill. That is the drill to go around to say you didn’t punish such and such. Anybody would know that every player case and every case that involves non-players in the NFL are dealing with dramatically different principle facts, which is all the difference in the world.”

The Personal Conduct Policy says, “Ownership and club or league management have traditionally been held to a higher standard and will be subject to more significant discipline when violations of the Personal Conduct Policy occur.”

The league, though, did not investigate the 2015 voyeurism scandal involving former Cowboys vice president of communications Rich Dalrymple, which led to $2.4 million settlement with four former Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.

That provided the NFLPA with ammunition in its argument for a lighter sentence for Watson, whose six-game suspension from disciplinary officer Sue L. Robinson now faces a league appeal.

Jones said the argument was “not unexpected.”

“It would be like walking down to the courthouse and saying, ‘You didn’t give that guy that much,’ and not take into account what the action was or the circumstances behind it,” Jones told Hill. “That’s called shooting volleys. That’s just shooting stuff over your back. That’s the way I look at it when I see something like that.”


https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...in-argument-on-behalf-of-deshaun-watson/

Just a couple of reasons. The Browns said they did an exhaustive comprehensive search into Watson that started I believe sometime in early November, and they were comfortable with what they found. What did they find?

The Texans settled 30 civil suits for basically enabling Watson. Now there's ripple's wanting the Texans investigated and held accountable by the NFL for their part in the Watson saga. Depending on what the Browns discovered or what the Texans may have told the Browns (surely there was talk between the teams prior to the trade), did the Browns receive information about Watson's predatory actions or the Texans trying to cover things up prior to the suit and not report that to the NFL?

Are the Browns equally guilty of enabling Watson if they had information of Watson and the Texans indiscretions and not report their knowledge of the violations to the NFL or have the Browns just been totally buffaloed by Watson's claim of innocence and the Texans silence even after claiming they investigated the player and the allegations for over 4-months but didn't discover any of the items we now know as being true based on the NYTimes investigation, NFL investigation, Judge Robinson's determination of PCP violations and the Texans settlement?

I'm not saying the Browns did anything wrong, but they should be looked at to make sure that they didn't have previous knowledge that they should have reported to the NFL and basically just did a very poor job of vetting Watson before they traded for him and gave him the biggest guaranteed contract ever in the NFL just because they didn't do a good job of vetting him.

When the Browns GM says that his organization has done a proper investigation that they’re satisfied with and that they’re comfortable with what they found is probably more of a indication of a dysfunctional and incompetent leadership then anything else. Instead of a honest and neutral attempt to find the truth about the allegations they handing the biggest contract with guaranteed money in the history of the NFL to a player with such a questionable background.

Accountability starts at the top and the Browns supporters deserves better then such spineless leadership.

I still support the Browns and I suspect that folks like you are in the minority. We'll see what the stadium looks like come opening day.

That's a whole lot of gibberish to try and make excuses for the fact that nothing in the contract reads as you have described. The process was obviously stated. There is no confusing or complicated language surrounding the process.

It appears you jumped to conclusions or your preconceived notions as to exactly what you thought or felt the new agreement on this process accomplished when it obviously did not. That's not by any stretch a sham. What you "thought" it accomplished has nothing to do with the very clear language in the agreement.

I still support the Browns and I suspect that folks like you are in the minority. We'll see what the stadium looks like come opening day.

Just a couple of reasons. The Browns said they did an exhaustive comprehensive search into Watson that started I believe sometime in early November, and they were comfortable with what they found. What did they find?

The Texans settled 30 civil suits for basically enabling Watson. Now there's ripple's wanting the Texans investigated and held accountable by the NFL for their part in the Watson saga. Depending on what the Browns discovered or what the Texans may have told the Browns (surely there was talk between the teams prior to the trade), did the Browns receive information about Watson's predatory actions or the Texans trying to cover things up prior to the suit and not report that to the NFL?

Are the Browns equally guilty of enabling Watson if they had information of Watson and the Texans indiscretions and not report their knowledge of the violations to the NFL or have the Browns just been totally buffaloed by Watson's claim of innocence and the Texans silence even after claiming they investigated the player and the allegations for over 4-months but didn't discover any of the items we now know as being true based on the NYTimes investigation, NFL investigation, Judge Robinson's determination of PCP violations and the Texans settlement?

I'm not saying the Browns did anything wrong, but they should be looked at to make sure that they didn't have previous knowledge that they should have reported to the NFL and basically just did a very poor job of vetting Watson before they traded for him and gave him the biggest guaranteed contract ever in the NFL just because they didn't do a good job of vetting him.

It also has no bearing on the idea that the NFL made the rules from the facts of the case so that it was a forgone conclusion. That does have bearing on this case and Robinson even pointed out the NFl had no prior definition.

It's only gibberish due to your willful ignorance and/or need to argue. Simple Google search brings up countless articles on the new policy and Goodell previously being judge, jury, executioner... no transparency... etc.

So it's then your assertion that since the media and their reporters didn't bother to read the agreement and falsely reported it, that's somehow the leagues fault. That plain English in the contract means nothing and somehow no matter how plainly the process is spelled out means nothing to you. Got it.

Why don’t you hold the Browns owner, GM and HC accountable the same way you hold the NFL and their owners accountable for hypocrisy regarding poor historical treatments on black players?

Do you honestly think that the Browns has from a PR and professional standpoint handled this well? The Browns and judge Robinson’s conclusions about Watson’s character is like night and day. Where the Browns are “comfortable with what we know” judge Robinson sees a lier and a sexual predator.

Don’t you notice the discrepancies in character judgement and who’s opinion do you think hold most weight in the national media and among the majority of the public opinion?

No, I didn't answer that specifically as what I think of that really has no bearing on the idea it wasn't used in this case. I don't think people should shoot each other, but that isn't important in this case either.

No, one should no go around randomly ejaculating on other people without their consent. But that has no bearing on this case. It also has no bearing on the idea that the NFL made the rules from the facts of the case so that it was a forgone conclusion. That does have bearing on this case and Robinson even pointed out the NFl had no prior definition.

It's my choice to decide what I believe. It's your choice to believe what you will. I am not trying to change your mind. I don't care what you believe. However, you can't dictate what I believe.

In fact, I actually support the Browns for going after Watson. He is a top-tier QB and he will give us a great shot at winning. The Browns had a terrible qb in Baker Mayfield and realized the need to part ways w/him for a guy who can actually play at a high level. You don't have to agree, but that is my line of thinking and you and the other Baker guys can't change my opinion.

Vers! My Browns supporting buddy!

I think we both can agree that DSW is a better QB then Baker in almost every department. Have we ever had different takes on that? I also totally agree with you that he’s top tier QB who will give the Browns a great shot at winning something when that time comes. Hugs and high5 bro! No disagreement regarding these things either.

My only concerns is if he’s rusty or too affected of all these drama surrounding him?

Let’s now bury our differences regarding suspensions and punishments. It is what it is and tomorrow comes brand new news to worry about.

Your assertion that the NFL "made the rules from the facts of the case so that it was a forgone conclusion" is simply a BS conspiracy theory. And all Robinson did was point out what her decision was based on just like any other judge would point to the statute they based their decision on. The fact is the definition points out what would be criminal acts and he was found guilty of these acts in the hearing. Of course it's not uncommon in this age to blame everyone else other than the person who committed atrocious acts. And especially when it comes to those acts being perpetrated against women.

It seems to be a common theme that watsons revolting behavior against women isn't that bad, it's only creepy, the league stacked the cards against him and it's everyone elses fault he is being held accountable and expected to receive a fitting punishment.

Hey Frank, it’s been awhile. I am wondering what your beliefs are on Watson.

This article and the few others I've seen on this topic are 100% GARBAGE. Anyone that follows/knows the Browns contracts or other NFL teams for that matter can see a deliberate pattern with how they are managing their cap and this is not "rigged". This is a poor attempt to paint a public narrative that ain't true.

Well, maybe it isn't a poor attempt because people are clearly falling for it.

It's also written by some kid, straight outta college, trying to cut his teeth as a sportswriter.

As the NFL’s Deshaun Watson case nears its conclusion, the next step is murky and frustrating

Charles Robinson·NFL columnist
Tue, August 9, 2022, 3:09 PM·9 min read

As we approach the final stage of the NFL’s personal conduct ramifications for Cleveland's Deshaun Watson, there are no shortage of questions and a vast supply of frustration and vague answers surrounding the case of the Browns quarterback who was accused of sexual misconduct or sexual assault against multiple women, a violation of the league's personal conduct policy. It's partly due to Watson’s case being the first test to an altered disciplinary system and because the first arbitrator to impact the process, Sue L. Robinson, appeared to both align with and against the NFL.

The result has two issues rippling into this week. First, the league’s appeal of Robinson’s six-game suspension to Peter C. Harvey (who was chosen by commissioner Roger Goodell to deliver a final ruling); and second, the question of what options remain for Watson and the Browns once Harvey delivers a final decision.


Yahoo Sports spoke to three sources who have participated in the Watson case up to this stage of the process, asking where the relationship stands between all parties involved and whether there is clarity in the next phase.

Arbitrator Peter C. Harvey is 'really the most important person in this now'
The vantages of opinion all had some undertones that delivered a similar message: Virtually everyone walked away from the Robinson decision and subsequent league appeal upset about how the initial arbitration unfolded. And now there is little clarity about where this will ultimately go. But everyone involved now agrees on one point: Harvey, who is a former New Jersey attorney general with NFL ties, has significant power to end the Watson case with a judgement that creates a more layered compromise than the one Robinson delivered.

Conversely, Harvey could slide the punitive scale entirely into the league’s direction, putting Watson and the NFL Players Association into a fighting stance that leads to another form of litigation.

As one source involved in the Watson case put it, “[Harvey] has the last word, literally, in what has been bargained [between the NFL and NFLPA]. He gets to say, ‘This is what it is’ with no threat of an appeal. So he’s really the most important person in this now. Everything depends on him, but he still has the challenge of finding something that’s not just equitable, but also makes everyone willing to move on. That’s it at this point, just making everyone willing to take a result. … Or you go the other way and it’s going to be — it’s going to be more bare knuckles and pugilistic than it has been, I’ll tell you that. But I still think there’s a zone of compromise. Probably not happy for anyone, but I don’t think any part of this process was about creating happiness.”

Clearly, happiness wasn’t the end result after Robinson’s decision, which was layered in criticism for essentially everyone involved. Robinson essentially told the NFL her hands were tied and the result was a six-game suspension, but added in her footnotes that while the personal conduct policy “is equally applicable to players and team owners and management,” in the past it did not appear to be applied equally across all those parties.

Once Robinson’s decision had been parsed, two polarized camps developed.

In one corner, the league essentially saw the judgement as largely agreeing with everything the NFL asserted, but disagreed with Robinson leaning on past suspension precedents. Instead, in appealing, the NFL continued to hold the stance that Watson was a special case in which unprecedented behavior required an unprecedented suspension.

In the other corner, while the union had some issues with Robinson summarily adopting the league’s viewpoint on Watson’s behavior, it was satisfied with her use of past precedent as guardrails in her decision. This despite even Robinson noting that her suspension ruling was generally going above a normal standard, applying the kind of justice that had been attached to first-time domestic violence violations.

In hindsight, details of settlement talks foreshadowed the NFL’s appeal. The league’s last “spitball” settlement suggestion to Watson and the union was a 12-game suspension and a significant fine (something approaching the $10.5 million he earned from the Houston Texans in 2021). That’s a wide margin higher than a six-game suspension. And in turn, that chasm was ultimately large enough for the league to undermine Robinson’s suspension rationale.

That’s how we got to this week, with Goodell selecting Harvey for the appeal. Here are the basic questions at hand.



Browns owner Jimmy Haslam spoke to Mark Maske of The Washington Post at the league’s owners meetings Tuesday, saying the team would “respect and honor the process” of the appeal. It’s fair to wonder what that means. You can respect and honor a process while it’s in motion and later fight it when the process concludes. Ultimately, Watson and the NFLPA are the ones who would be obliged to take up the fight, potentially with or without the Browns.

So what is happening now? Harvey is weighing the briefs from the NFL and NFLPA and then deciding if he can make an expedited suspension determination without another hearing. Legal opinions are that he can. But he also is in charge of steering this part of the process — not the league or union or the litany of outsiders who are sharing their analysis.

As of Monday, there was no suggestion from sources that settlement talks were taking place between the NFL and Watson’s camp or the union. If anything, the relationship was described in more strained terms than ever before in the process. That doesn’t bode well for a breakthrough, particularly when it couldn’t be achieved weeks ago, when the two sides were on better terms.

It’s worth noting that Harvey has the same element of control that Robinson did when she operated along her own timeline. While Harvey has been designated for this task by Goodell, there has been no suggestion that he was ordered to make a decision on a finite timeline. That means he will get to the decision when he deems fit, and the NFL and Watson’s camp will be made aware of it when there is a conclusion. This is the essence of each side “respecting and honoring the process.”

What could Harvey do here with his decision?
This is an interesting question, and it has had some varying answers. One source involved in the process suggested that Harvey “in theory” could reduce Watson’s suspension to three games, operating along past precedents that Robinson noted in her decision. That same source said such a scenario was “not realistic.” A second source in the process noted that because Watson didn’t appeal the six-game suspension handed down by Robinson, that becomes a baseline and Harvey’s options would be limited to simply standing on Robinson’s six-games rather than having the ability to reduce it.

“I do not practically think there will be a reduction of the six [game suspension],” the second source said.

From all standpoints, the larger question is how much further Harvey will choose to go beyond the suspension that's already in place. It’s possible he could embrace eight- or 10-game suspensions that were mentioned in Robinson’s decision, although she had framed those as domestic violence suspensions and noted that applying them to Watson’s case would be setting a new standard in what was deemed by the league to be non-violent sexual assault. Harvey could also operate on the knowledge that the NFL had at one point appeared agreeable to a 12-game suspension with a significant fine, establishing that as a middle ground (although Watson and the union were not previously open to those settlement parameters).

Of course, there’s also the possibility that Harvey could review the transcripts, briefs, Robinson’s decision, and the NFL’s 215-page investigative report and ultimately side with the league’s interpretation of special circumstance. In other words, a one-year ban that fits the league’s narrative of unprecedented punishment for an unprecedented situation.

Is there another avenue of litigation, and what would it mean for Watson’s season?
This is by far the most debated and speculated point since the NFL filed its appeal of Robinson’s decision, while Watson and the union chose not to cross-appeal the outcome. Rather than get into the back-and-forth of the granular arguments, it’s simplest to boil it down to this: Nobody is 100 percent certain about what kind of arguments can be mustered following Harvey’s decision. And part of that is because Harvey hasn’t actually made a decision, so there’s nothing to drill down on in an argument.

That said, there seems to be some agreement that it’s going to be hard for Watson and the union to go back and argue over the six-game suspension and win any kind of victory. However, that doesn’t mean such an avenue is closed, either. Just because it sounds like a losing path doesn’t mean it’s a closed path. Especially when the current process features new elements and is still in motion.

Generally, everyone involved appears settled on the six-game suspension being locked in by Robinson and Harvey’s role being one of “modifying” that decision. That’s the language written into the process. But nobody wants to make any definitive statements before the process has finished about whether a future injunction is impossible.

One source familiar with the language governing the process, as well as the arguments being made within it, summed it up with a frustrated retort: “Nothing is automatic. There’s nothing for certain here. There’s no guarantee of anything.”

From a legal sense, that’s a fair statement. The previous system had its day in court with the Ezekiel Elliott and Tom Brady cases. This modified system hasn’t. And there’s no telling whether some kind of misstep in the process (which we can’t yet see) suddenly occurs in this final stage with Harvey.

That alone is enough to make the outcome less than certain. It’s still a process in motion, without a final rendered judgement and plenty of unanswerable questions, all with the underlying reality that Harvey could reach some kind of conclusion that everyone can live with. At which point all of these other questions become nothing more than wasted breath and conjecture.

https://sports.yahoo.com/as-the-nf-...-is-murky-and-frustrating-190940927.html

Come on Vers, you know as well as I do that there were 30 civil suits against the Texans for enabling Watson's behavior. That's 30 additional claimants that are alleging that Watson sexually abused/misconduct/harassed them, and the Texans were aware of it. We don't know how many are cross-overs, if any at all, but there are 30 civil complaints. Then you have the original 24 of which 23 are settled. That's 53 separate settled civil complaints attached to Watson's name. It's a fact that cannot be disputed. Afterall, the Texans don't get sued unless Watson is predatory with egregious behavior.

It's not funny math - did the Texans settle with 30 unidentified women because of Watson's predatory egregious behavior that they enabled? Did Watson himself settle with 23 women so far for his predatory egregious behavior? That's 53 civil suits with Watson's name as being the focus of the narrative in every single one of them. Now, you can say that Watson admitted no guilt, the Texans admitted no guilt and that would be true, but I can say that 53 claimants say he's a scum bucket and that would also be true. All I know for a fact that is sure is Watson's name is attached to 53 civil suits and 53 women have received payment(s) because his name was attached to those suits and that's a fact no one can deny.

That there were 30 women who settled claims against the Texans compared with only 24 who sued Watson potentially indicates that more women will file suits against Watson in the future. The six additional women have not been identified and Buzbee declined to share any details about their claims.

The whole world wants Watson suspended forever, fined, stoned, and hobbled. It is mob mentality at its finest.

The only people who don't care are Browns fans (no, not all Browns fans).

Not really. He originally said 53 claimants. A claimant is an individual. He is just backtracking because he was called out for trying to deceive others yet again.

Not really. He originally said 53 claimants. A claimant is an individual. He is just backtracking because he was called out for trying to deceive others yet again.

I would imagine that vast majority of people outside of Cleveland that do have an opinion feel that the 6 game suspension was pretty light, especially if they read the full report.

i agree and that's where the problem lies. Discounting the Cleveland area, the vast majority outside of Cleveland having the opinion that the current suspension as being pretty light casts a very dark cloud on the Browns and some of their fans that winning trumps all and paints us as very anti-woman. All you have to do is read the pro Watson posts in this forum. The ones that do not actually belittle the women only reference the effect all this is having on Watson, the Browns, and winning. Very little accountability is accepted by those posters for mistreatment of the women by Watson much less the Browns or Watson. Actually, the theme is a noncaring attitude as to what the women are going thru mentally or physically.

I'm also of the thought that if the NFLPA tries to sue after the decision comes down to expose the lack of consistency of the NFL, even more truths are going to be exposed as to Watson's predatory egregious behavior. I think there's a hell of a lot more to this story than what we know and if the NFLPA keeps this thing open, Watson is going to pay an even bigger price than what he's potentially looking at now with the 4 cases and 12 PCP violations.

So, our only choice is to non-stop slam Deshaun and the organization or we're "anti-women"? WE are not discipline officers. WE are not grief counselors. We're Browns fans.

LOL........I'm watching First Take right now and the two black guys are mad as hell because the owners are not being punished and the white dude is arguing that the NFL is defending the NFL.

I watched it too Vers. You are 100% right that they are calling out for equal treatment. What you left out though was every one of them, 3 gentleman and a lady, all agreed that Watson's suspension by Judge Robinson was extremely light and that he should be suspended for 12 games to the whole season with a hefty fine. That the NFL has to set an example that this type of conduct is not to be tolerated. They also need to address the owner's situations immediately after passing judgement on Watson. Though you are right, you left out the part of the story you don't want to admit is the basis for the whole issue. You're welcome.

I do have to say my barber down here in SC said he thought the NFL was wrong and that he hopes Watson isn't punished more. But, people who are more rational tend to be more quiet. It's the complainers who shout the loudest in situations involving public figures. It's as if they think they look better while pushing for a harsh punishment.

I would imagine that vast majority of people outside of Cleveland that do have an opinion feel that the 6 game suspension was pretty light, especially if they read the full report.

I know I am not anti-women. Not even close. In fact, I think most of you who have viewed my posts over the decades know that I champion the rights of women and minorities.

Thanks, I didn't see the segment and I would never have got that takeaway from the original post.

What's "fair" is the contractual obligation and agreed upon process in the collective bargaining agreement that was signed by both parties. It was written in plain English which is often times not the case in contractual language. There is no misrepresentation in that wording.

So, our only choice is to non-stop slam Deshaun and the organization or we're "anti-women"? WE are not discipline officers. WE are not grief counselors. We're Browns fans.

As a response, are you saying the only two options are "belittle the women" and "non-stop slam Deshaun"? Granted it seems like that is the stance of those that support him, but that isnt the only two options.

When it started I was more critical of the Browns for risking everything they did on a complete question mark. After the decision I was critical of the NFL for downplaying their lack of stricter punishments available to the Judge. But Watson does need to be accountable for what he kicked off too. As NFL fans that have tossed aside the character of QBs for speeding tickets and goodbye letters it seems really plausible to have issues with actions that led to 53 lawsuit settlements, doesnt it?

NO, I'm not saying that at all. Quite the contrary. My reaction is to the endless signaling that any positive reaction to "Deshaun the player" means that I'm ignoring my own accountability (see above) to the new "guardrails" I must stay between as a Browns fan.

Also, I don't give a crap about what the rest of the country thinks of those fans they want to lump together as "anti-women", because they choose to root for their team as opposed to picketing outside the stadium.

This is no different than anything else in the age of "social mob media". Those that scream loudest drown out all other voices. Mostly because those voices don't care to make themselves heard amidst the din. Now we're using "noise" as some mysterious gauge that says "Browns fans are scum, all they care about is winning". Who cares?

You think I'm going to act differently to try and move the needle? What should I do, just attach qualifiers to every statement? "Man he throws a nice ball, despite his sexual dysfunction, which I am in no way endorsing."

To your last question... my answer is much the same. Tell me which part I have wrong -- If I root for a player, root for my team, I am "tossing aside the character" of certain players? Sounds to me like any person with that point of view is doing more to quantify "fandom" than to champion women's/ victim's rights.

To each his own. I'm disgusted with this whole situation. I really hope there is a point in our future when Deshaun "makes amends". I think he's a pig. But there is no way for me to throw away football, throw away a lifetime of bleeding the colors, throw away the annual childlike optimism for a great season (which is already all-but-ruined this season)... and then try to tiptoe around my enthusiasm for sport? Probably not. I come to sport to avoid all that bs.

Sorry for the rant.

So you don't think the people in this country read any of the assorted articles that outlined Sue Robinson's account of watson's wrong doing?

And you're a part of it.

Nice non factual based theory. So you don't think the people in this country read any of the assorted articles that outlined Sue Robinson's account of watson's wrong doing? Yeah, those damned people caught up in the mob mentality. The only mob mentality I see are those on this very board who excuse her findings and try try to downplay the punishment he should receive that is going through the very process the NFLPA agreed to. Any objective observer of this board could see where the mob mentality is. And you're a part of it.

So with the browns saying Watson is going to start Friday, that kinda pushes the NFL to make their move before that

The suspension only applies to regular season games.

j/c:

I expect Harvey's decision will be made public either today or early tomorrow. I expect the penalty to be harsh. Baker fans will rejoice and Browns fans will be depressed yet again.

The suspension only applies to regular season games.

j/c:

I expect Harvey's decision will be made public either today or early tomorrow. I expect the penalty to be harsh. Baker fans will rejoice and Browns fans will be depressed yet again.

“Frankly, this is an embarrassment”: Robert Kraft’s bold take on Deshaun Watson controversy
Robert Kraft thinks that Watson's six game suspension is an embarrassment to the entire league


By FS Desk -August 2, 2022



The Deshaun Watson controversy is the next big thing in the NFL. The season hasn’t even started yet and still, this can go down as one of the most controversial NFL seasons in the history of the league.



Robert Kraft, CEO of the Patriots was not satisfied by the punishment that Watson received, he thinks it was an embarrassment to the entire league.



“The independent arbitrator coming back with only a 6 – game suspension for Deshaun Watson is frankly an embarrassment for the entire league,” Kraft said as reported by McNeil on Twitter.

The CEO of the patriots was trying to portray the NFL to a higher standard by not tolerating serious charges like sexual assault. Though there was no violence involved the women themselves felt ‘violated’ by the acts of the Browns QB.

Also Read: “Take a peek at his game”: Chiefs HC Andy Reid claps back at an unnamed Defensive Coordinator for his baseless criticism of Patrick Mahomes


“Hypocrisy at it’s peak”: Twitter reacts after the statement by Robert Kraft
CC Express 20220802 1526250 - FirstSportz

"Frankly, this is an embarrassment": Robert Kraft's bold take on Deshaun Watson controversy 2
We don’t know if the statement made by Robert Kraft was right or wrong but what we do know is that Twitter wasn’t happy about it. The problem was not in the statement but in the person who said it.

Robert Kraft was himself involved in many scandals, with the massage parlour scandal being of them. When this statement was released by Kraft it didn’t take time for the people to start commenting on Twitter.




There’s a saying called “practice what you preach” this can be applied in the situation of Robert Kraft. You can get away from the court of Law but the court of Public Opinion will never forgive you.

https://firstsportz.com/nfl-news-bold-robert-krafts-take-on-the-deshaun-watson-controversy/

You never know. The ruling by Robinson may temper his decision. I think that is why this "expedited" matter is taking so long.

How do you feel about the fact that the NFL letting the owners off the hook? Do you feel black players should be punished more harshly than white owners?

My conversations with non-Browns fans actually go more with what Rish is saying (and I'm not even outside of OH). Most non-football following folks aren't weren't even aware of any of the particulars regarding Watson beyond something was going on. None, not even Bengals fans, even knew the full Robinson report was available, much less read it. Small sample size, but that has been my experience (fwiw).

Regarding point 1... I definitely agree with this, but at the end of the day would they just be yelling at clouds? They signed on the new CBA same as the NFL did. The policy is spelled out and they followed what everyone agreed to. The only thing that speaks to negotiating in bad faith is the appointment of Harvey (used him before, and everything else kinda calls into question his unbaised-ness).

If it's indefinite, it is immediately and applies to preseason also. If he only changes the number of game by adding or subtracting to it, then this is true.

My conversations with non-Browns fans actually go more with what Rish is saying (and I'm not even outside of OH). Most non-football following folks aren't weren't even aware of any of the particulars regarding Watson beyond something was going on. None, not even Bengals fans, even knew the full Robinson report was available, much less read it. Small sample size, but that has been my experience (fwiw).

j/c:

So the guy who was linked to frequenting an establishment accused of participating in the illegal sex trade and not being punished at all by the NFL is now calling the 6-game suspension "an embarrassment?" The NFL owners are out of touch w/reality. Here is the text, but the tweets are easier to read if you follow the link.

j/c:

I expect Harvey's decision will be made public either today or early tomorrow. I expect the penalty to be harsh. Baker fans will rejoice and Browns fans will be depressed yet again.

This is fake. Reflog posted this as a joke. It's what he does on Twitter. Kraft did not say this.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the opinions...For me...at least right now....This has become less about Watson and more with about the process and the VERY dangerous precedence this is setting for future players. Watson is just an example or a piece of evidence in that light. But the lack of motion (or apparent motion) on the part of the NFLPA is concerning. We haven't heard a peep from DeMaurice Smith through this entire process. My thoughts are not about Watson or "getting him off"...It is about this fairness of this process. The NFL is acting towards the CBA as lettered. But those letters are EXTREMELY skewed in power to the NFL.

j/c:

Hunt or D. Johnson for Jimmy G? The latter reworks his contract? Good move for the Browns. Not so sure if it is a good move for Jimmy G? One year rental isn't exactly what guys want.


Since Garoppolo arrived in SF, the team is 35 and 15 w/him as the starter. The 49ers are just 8-27 without him. That's hard to ignore.

On the negative side, he has been injured a lot and he makes some really dumb throws. In addition to SF's record w/and w/out him, Jimmy G is beloved by teammates. He is a great leader and would be a welcome addition after the Browns have had to deal w/Mayfield's immaturity and ego the last 4 years. He also has played in a Super Bowl and was in the NFC Championship last year after they knocked off both Dallas and Green Bay in the playoffs. They would have beat the Rams in that game had the SF not dropped a gimme interception.

I'm guessing the decision was made up awhile ago. The days of waiting for the Harvey ruling are simply optics to make it seem like they took a judicious route to their appeal process and determination.

j/c:

j/c...

If the Browns go out and trade for Jimmy G, they will have the following invested in the QB position for 2022:

Garopplo______$24,200,000
Mayfield______ $10,500,000
Watson________$8,993,000
Brissett________$4,650,000
Dobbs___________$895,000

Total_________$49,238,000

He's "willing to accept"

The gall of RDW, he will accept what he gets.

He's "willing to accept"

The gall of RDW, he will accept what he gets.

If Watson wants to get on the field quicker I'd bet the NFL would take some games off his suspension for a huge fine.

j/c...

If Watson wants to get on the field quicker I'd bet the NFL would take some games off his suspension for a huge fine.

If the Browns go out and trade for Jimmy G, they will have the following invested in the QB position for 2022:

Garopplo______$24,200,000
Mayfield______ $10,500,000
Watson________$8,993,000
Brissett________$4,650,000
Dobbs___________$895,000

Total_________$49,238,000

Define huge .... Huge for you and me? Huge for an average NFL player? Huge for the guy who signed the biggest gauramteed contract in NFL history.

Really strange this is being released right now. Goodell was just on TV yesterday confirming him and Sue were in bed together and they are going for the stranglehold. He was not shy in the least about it. He knows he's working from a position of strength and leverage.

What does this accomplish? My only hope is that the NFLPA has some meat behind a lawsuit and although the NFL will take their chances, they might not really want to. Fingers crossed.

Define huge .... Huge for you and me? Huge for an average NFL player? Huge for the guy who signed the biggest gauramteed contract in NFL history.

j/c...

Btw----I still wish the money from the fine would go to an agency or agencies that support women instead of into the NFL's pockets. Maybe multiple Rape Crisis Centers or Women's shelters, support groups, etc. You know, because the NFL cares so much about women.

As a Browns fan, I have been hoping of the number of games to stay at 6 and Watson getting a huge fine in the $8 to $10.5 million range. That probably won't happen, but the 8-game suspension w/a hefty fine is possible. Kraft did not get any punishment. Nor did Jones. The owner in Miami was fined $1.5 million, which is basically tipping money because he is worth $82 billion or something like that. Snyder was fined $10 million, but he is beyond wealthy. So, the owners/NFL will still be sticking it to the black player but it might pacify the sharks thirst for blood a bit.

The second item is the owner's discipline, namely fines. I think it's pretty shallow to think that because an owner has x amount of wealth, the fine should be based on their wealth. The richest owner in the league is in Carolina and he has a wealth of over 16.7 billion earned outside of football.

I agree. We have this mob mentality against people with wealth. It doesn't matter what they make or how much money they are worth, fines should be based on the infraction....period.

The NFL and NFLPA need to some up with some structure regarding fines. The same infraction for a guy making $2 mil a year is way less than a person making 10 mil a year.

Game suspensions shouldn't necessarily mean a player loses all of his game check for that game. A speeding ticket isn't factored on what a person makes. It is on a set scale. One person isn't going to get a $50 fine and another $300 for similar infractions..

^This^ story could easily have its own thread.

All things considered I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up on the Browns. Only time will tell.

If it had its own thread that would ruin the objective of those trying to derail this one.

j/c:

Just ignore the trolls. You made yourself clear.

Robinson was independent and super qualified. She was thorough. She ruled within the structure of the agreement.

Now it has turned into a dart game. What is an appropriate suspension? Unknown.

That is why you hire a person like Sue Robinson.

Good points by both. My question about the amount of $$$$ was driven by one or two posters claiming that the $10M Kraft fine wasn't any sort of punishment at all. Despite there being much less to his scandal than there was the 26 allegations and 53 settlements that Watson is dealing with.

Maybe, but again, to my point, what Kraft is worth shouldn't have any bearing on what the NFL levies against the guy. I will say that with owners it may be a little different in that game suspensions don't mean squat. He is still the owner, their being suspended doesn't impact the team or fans in any way, and as for money, the owner can decide to take a $10 mil bonus next year to make up for a $10 mil fine this year if they want. Well, probably not, but I think you get my point.

At some point the team has to start giving Brissett all the reps with the first team, right?

At some point the team has to start giving Brissett all the reps with the first team, right?

The difference in the offenses should make a difference. This isn't an apples to apples comparison. Never in the history of the NFL has anyone, be it an owner or a player had 53 lawsuits settled based on their sexual behavior towards females. This is totally unprecedented. Which I expect the fine and suspension will also be.

It would be nice if we could talk football in this forum instead of this teenage girl BS.

At some point the team has to start giving Brissett all the reps with the first team, right?

To me it seems she structured it in a way to point out the process isn't good, maybe with hopes that it can bring more objectivity to the whole thing.

Still hung up on numbers i see.

Yes because numbers matter.

Since you can't find any precedent even close to this all you can do is try and discount the numbers. Then there's the fact she found watson to be predatory, his actions egregious and he is a liar. And those aren't numbers.

BTW if you think the NFL is being unfair, a large variety of people would lose their jobs for much less that the issue Watson caused, can we agree on that?