(08-01-2022, 11:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: To Fred's defense, he never said DW didn't do anything wrong; he said he broke no laws.


If the women he supposedly assaulted/victimized settled for cash then DW "walking" was a decision they made. 

Luckily I think there's at least one that didn't settle; so we'll see how that plays out. 

(08-01-2022, 11:31 AM)Au165 Wrote: It was a $3900 in bets over 6 wagers, 5 of which were multi leg parlays and the 6th was an in game total points scored bet. He lost on all 6 bets and made nothing.

(08-01-2022, 12:05 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: but he bet, that is the bottom line, you can;t start having players bet on their own sports while they are playing.. he could have been banned from the game to be honest... Watson actions were a moral failure but had zero impact on a game, Ridley actions could.. 

(08-01-2022, 11:41 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: It's not about laws. It's about the NFL's personal conduct policy. 

Obviously they saw an issue with what he did so they disciplined him.

(08-01-2022, 12:08 PM)Au165 Wrote: Oh I thought you were asking a real question. I wasn't commenting on anything related to punishments or whatnot, I was literally just answering your question.

(08-01-2022, 12:10 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Yes and they did discipline him, some on here are acting like he murdered someone

(08-01-2022, 11:31 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: You literally chose a fictional RAPIST as your profile pic, and you have the gall to come into a thread like this and question people’s opinions on the matter? You’re quite a piece of work.

(08-01-2022, 11:26 AM)Au165 Wrote: This thread, and many you see on social media have actually highlighted the bigger issue of this new system for the NFL that they didn't foresee. When the NFL handled all punishments there was an internal "ranking" of severity that allowed them to say "If this person go this for that then this person probably needs to get more/less". By outsourcing this process they have now created two punishment tracks that no longer have that reliance on each other. In cases that aren't personal conduct policy the NFL still retains control and uses their sense of morality while in personal conduct policy situations they interject a 3rd party's scale for severity.

This creates these comparisons of "x got Y, how is this real?" and that is a bad situation for the NFL to now be in. They went this route because they thought the perception of being judge, jury, and executioner was a bad look but in this new processes first implementation it has done far more damage then we have seen in previous cases where people cried unfair. The NFL now has a choice to make, do they let it stand and lean into being "impartial", or do they decide it was just too wildly out of line with their moralities and override the ruling?

A couple things for people to understand here that I do think matter. The 3rd party only heard complaints on 5 specific incidents. The NFL chose to limit it to only 5 specific incidents which in hindsight was probably a pretty bad miss by the NFL. They probably thought they could paint the best picture with those 5, however the power in this situation I think is in the sheer volume. That said, the 3rd party only made this based on 5 incidents not the 25 people keep mentioning which needs to be kept in perspective.

Another thing here that I think is worth noting is that the NFL can override the 3rd party, but that is not without other issues. The NFLPA and Watson could file for a temporary restraining order to prevent any extended punishment from going into effect. Even in past cases where the NFL succeeded the restraining orders have been issued until the cases could be heard which means such a move could have Watson on the field to open the season which the NFL probably would prefer not to happen.

The other side of this is that the NFL probably can't take those other 20 cases into account if they up the suspension as that probably would give Watson a decent leg to stand on to challenge this. This is why I come back to my first point, where the NFL screwed up it appears is in not making the argument based on the totality of cases but rather the 5 they thought they needed to drive this home.

(08-01-2022, 12:05 PM)Sled21 Wrote: When Fred says DW broke no laws, he's full of it and he knows it. There were allegations of forcible sodomy. Just because there is not enough evidence for a conviction "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean no laws were broken. They did not indict simply because there was not enough evidence to convict,  as is often the casein sex cases. The GJ decision came prior to he women accepting settlements.

This is simply a case of the NFL paying for their Rapistburger 4 case suspension. TO come down hard on Watson give him the ability to scream racism. 

(08-01-2022, 11:58 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: He’s scum. He hasn’t showed one ounce of remorse during any of this.

(08-01-2022, 12:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I really didn't want to step foot in this thread... Not saying that Watson doesn't seem very scummy in this whole situation, but it actually wasn't enough evidence for even an indictment "probable cause". Twice. It never even got to the level where there could be a possibility of conviction. That's two different grand juries (24 people) who heard the whole case and didn't even think it warranted going to trial.

(08-01-2022, 12:23 PM)Whatever Wrote: It still seems light based on precedent even going off of only 5 complaints.  Roethlisberger got 6 games(reduced to 4 on appeal) for two settled accusations with no criminal charges filed.  Watson should've been looking at 15 games reduced to 10 on appeal based on 5 accusations with no criminal charges filed and 4-5 settlements.

(08-01-2022, 12:21 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: Some people are gonna defend guys like Watson no matter what. A couple of these guys have been doing so for months in other threads.

They'd rather defend the multimillionaire with 24+ accusations than believe that these women could be telling the truth.

Hell one of these threads these same guys basically said it was the women's fault because EVERYBODY knows that massage therapist are known to do sexual favors for money so they should have expected it when they went into that career.

(08-01-2022, 09:58 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Watson broke no laws and what he did did not effect the game like deflating footballs would.

(08-01-2022, 12:23 PM)Whatever Wrote: It still seems light based on precedent even going off of only 5 complaints.  Roethlisberger got 6 games(reduced to 4 on appeal) for two settled accusations with no criminal charges filed.  Watson should've been looking at 15 games reduced to 10 on appeal based on 5 accusations with no criminal charges filed and 4-5 settlements.

(08-01-2022, 12:40 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: [/url]Mark Madden
[url=https://twitter.com/MarkMaddenX]@MarkMaddenX

2h

One key factor that gets ignored: The Steelers wanted Ben suspended, feeling he was out of control. They gave the NFL no pushback. The Browns just want Watson to play, &Watson was going to sue.

(08-01-2022, 12:25 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: From day one he is defended he did nothing wrong and acts were consensual and in the court of law a grand jury did not have enough evidence to bring charges so why would he now change course on his position?  Yes you see him a scum, others see this as a witch hunt, each have a right to their opinion just as others on here that may disagree with you have a right to their opinion. 

The bottom line is he has been disciplined and will lose $$ from the suspension and the more $$ from lack of endorsements etc so not like he is going free in the eyes of the NFL or public opinion.

(08-01-2022, 12:26 PM)Frank Booth Wrote: No no no we’re all scumbags who don’t believe women, including the jury. Get with the program