Watson will play against Bengals

[*bfine32*]

(08-01-2022, 01:00 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: Imagine bending over backwards to defend a multimillionaire with 24+ accusations. 

This dude literally just had a ruling basically saying he could only get massages from the teams massage therapist. 

Crazy to think someone can be so braindead that they believe all these women got together to take down Watson rather than the possibility Watson did anything wrong.

This is a bad take. I haven't seen anyone say Watson did nothing wrong; nor have I seen anyone "bend over backwards" to defend him. The judge heard all the evidence and made the ruling. I see a lot of bending over backwards to question here ruling and most of them have never actually been a judge or a female.

I feel many are looking for more simply because he is a QB for an opposing NFL team. His "victims"  feel they have been compensated for any acts committed against them. The Judge deemed it worthy of a six-game suspension and restricted where he could get messages. What would be the huge difference if she would have made it 4, 8. or 17? 

NO doubt DW did some foul shit, but it doesn't appear to rise to the level of violence or even coercion according to the ruling and the women seems content with their compensation. 

The PA won't appeal and the NFL has placed itself in a bad spot if they appeal. 

[Nicomo Cosca]

(08-01-2022, 01:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is a bad take. I haven't seen anyone say Watson did nothing wrong; nor have I seen anyone "bend over backwards" to defend him. The judge heard all the evidence and made the ruling. I see a lot of bending over backwards to question here ruling and most of them have never actually been a judge or a female.

I feel many are looking for more simply because he is a QB for an opposing NFL team. His "victims"  feel they have been compensated for any acts committed against them. The Judge deemed it worthy of a six-game suspension and restricted where he could get messages. What would be the huge difference if she would have made it 4, 8. or 17?

NO doubt DW did some foul shit, but it doesn't appear to rise to the level of violence or even coercion according to the ruling and the women seems content with their compensation. 

The PA won't appeal and the NFL has placed itself in a bad spot if they appeal. 

The ruling was based on only a handful of the cases. Not all 24. That’s part of the problem. And yes - I think 17 would have made a big difference. It would have kept him out football for another entire year.

[Au165]

One thing to note here, for anyone who cares about these kind of minor technicalities, Sue Robinson in her ruling mentioned the NFL should not have taken public perception into their decision making process. This may actually work in the NFL's favor as part of the player personnel conduct policy states that behavior that harms the league's public perception does fall under the purview of the NFL and this policy. By her contending it should not have been a factor the league potentially has grounds to argue that her decision on punishment level was incorrect as she dismissed that part and by the nature of their own policy it IS to be taken into account.

Just thought that was an interesting little nugget I found from excerpts of the ruling.

[Nicomo Cosca]

Watson used money from the Texans and Browns to settle lawsuits brought by 24 (and counting) women he sought out for "massage."
And now will suffer only $350,000 financial loss (on a $230 million contract) for his actions.
There's something, well, icky about all of this.

— Andrew Brandt (@AndrewBrandt) August 1, 2022

Understatement.

[THE PISTONS]

(08-01-2022, 01:13 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: They got their “adult at QB” alright.

Well didn't Kareem Hunt have issues too that got him released from KC? The Browns actually are in the town it happened in.

In February, Hunt had a dispute with a woman, Abigail Ottinger, in a Cleveland apartment. At the time, Ottinger told police that Hunt "pushed and shoved" her, but no charges were filed and there wasn't any footage, so the NFL didn't act. 

In November, TMZ released a video of the incident. The footage shows various angles of Hunt appearing to shove and kick a woman. The Cleveland Police Department said it had not seen the footage prior to TMZ's release because it does not follow up for such things on a misdemeanor crime. In a statement, Hunt said, "I deeply regret what I did. I hope to move on from this."


Why did the Chiefs cut Kareem Hunt? Video led to 2018 release, suspension before signing with Browns | Sporting News

[THE PISTONS]

(08-01-2022, 01:25 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: The ruling was based on only a handful of the cases. Not all 24. That’s part of the problem. And yes - I think 17 would have made a big difference. It would have kept him out football for another entire year.

The NFL only took the handful of cases forward. I think the felt the rest didn't violate the conduct policy unfortunately...or they would have taken them all.

Look...the conduct policy is apparently poorly written.

[THE PISTONS]

(08-01-2022, 01:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: One thing to note here, for anyone who cares about these kind of minor technicalities, Sue Robinson in her ruling mentioned the NFL should not have taken public perception into their decision making process. This may actually work in the NFL's favor as part of the player personnel conduct policy states that behavior that harms the league's public perception does fall under the purview of the NFL and this policy. By her contending it should not have been a factor the league potentially has grounds to argue that her decision on punishment level was incorrect as she dismissed that part and by the nature of their own policy it IS to be taken into account.

Just thought that was an interesting little nugget I found from excerpts of the ruling.

Yes. And I wouldn't call this a minor technicality.

But, yes there is a provision in the conduct policy that basically says conduct that tarnishes the NFL image. Goodell can get him under that.

[Au165]

They finally released the full ruling and honestly the NFL will have to appeal this because THIS actually sets a dangerous precedent for the league. Robinson argues the league can't be forward looking in it's punishments for unprecedented behavior but rather must stay closely aligned to past cases of "similar" circumstances. She then goes out and says the CBA doesn't allow for non suspension or fine punishments but she is going to go ahead and apply one anyway in the way of limiting where he can get a massage.

This thing is a train wreck.

[Au165]

FYI she did find 3 violations of the policy. The limitations on the punishment though she is contending come back to some sort of past punishment precedent that doesn't even make sense. Also worth noting she does include sexual assault as one of the violations.

Again...this thing is a train wreck.

[*bengalfan74*]

(08-01-2022, 01:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is a bad take. I haven't seen anyone say Watson did nothing wrong; nor have I seen anyone "bend over backwards" to defend him. The judge heard all the evidence and made the ruling. I see a lot of bending over backwards to question here ruling and most of them have never actually been a judge or a female.

I feel many are looking for more simply because he is a QB for an opposing NFL team. His "victims"  feel they have been compensated for any acts committed against them. The Judge deemed it worthy of a six-game suspension and restricted where he could get messages. What would be the huge difference if she would have made it 4, 8. or 17? 

NO doubt DW did some foul shit, but it doesn't appear to rise to the level of violence or even coercion according to the ruling and the women seems content with their compensation. 

The PA won't appeal and the NFL has placed itself in a bad spot if they appeal. 

I don't know about that ?

Here's what it comes down to for me. And let me start off by saying I'm very far from knowledgeable about this case. I've read little pieces and bits here and there. I did read a couple statements that were supposed to be from accusers.

Anyways, we all know there's "massage parlors" out there where happy endings are what they do. But it's my understanding he was calling professional masseuses and even had some massages in rooms paid for by the Texans. So these women were expecting a professional meeting. Then Watson forced the issue by exposing himself and masturbating on them or towards them. The "happy ending" wasn't part of it in any way.

That's some sexual predator level shit right there ! And this wasn't a one or two time thing. Over 60 I heard. 24 cases filed. It screams sick induvial with some sexual predator stuff going on inside his head.  

I've no idea how he got out of criminal charges ? Perhaps the Texans paid of the D.A. to keep their name out of it ? But if the charges are true the man doesn't need to see an NFL field again, IMHO.

This wasn't some 18 year old three legged boy with raging hormones going a little to far with his GF. This was some sick shit.

[BobJones4980]

(08-01-2022, 01:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is a bad take. I haven't seen anyone say Watson did nothing wrong; nor have I seen anyone "bend over backwards" to defend him. The judge heard all the evidence and made the ruling. I see a lot of bending over backwards to question here ruling and most of them have never actually been a judge or a female.

I feel many are looking for more simply because he is a QB for an opposing NFL team. His "victims"  feel they have been compensated for any acts committed against them. The Judge deemed it worthy of a six-game suspension and restricted where he could get messages. What would be the huge difference if she would have made it 4, 8. or 17? 

NO doubt DW did some foul shit, but it doesn't appear to rise to the level of violence or even coercion according to the ruling and the women seems content with their compensation. 

The PA won't appeal and the NFL has placed itself in a bad spot if they appeal. 

Look I'm not the NFL or the judge which is why I'm not gonna say much about the length because nothing's changing that.

I guess I'm still thinking about the other thread on Watson a while back but plenty of people were defending him and those same people are in here defending him now.

Hell like I said someone in the last thread literally blamed the massage therapist for going into that career knowing it has a reputation for happy endings.

That same poster and many other still act like he did nothing wrong because he settled with the women, so yea I'd say that's bending over backwards to defend the guy.

[THE PISTONS]

Tom Pelissero
@TomPelissero

Judge Sue L. Robinson found that Deshaun Watson violated the NFL’s personal conduct policy on three counts. So why only a six-game suspension? From Robinson’s 16-page decision:

The three counts as alleged by the NFL and all sustained by Robinson:

Conduct that Qualifies as a Sexual Assault;

Conduct that Poses a Genuine Danger to the Safety and Well-Being of Another Person; and

Conduct that Undermines, or Puts at Risk, the Integrity of the NFL.

On the first count, Robinson found it “more probable than not” that Watson “contacted the therapists as claimed by them” — conduct Robinson says Watson continued to deny in the hearing.

[THE PISTONS]

(08-01-2022, 01:50 PM)Au165 Wrote: FYI she did find 3 violations of the policy. The limitations on the punishment though she is contending come back to some sort of past punishment precedent that doesn't even make sense. Also worth noting she does include sexual assault as one of the violations.

Again...this thing is a train wreck.

Yes. It comes down to a loophole in the wording of the conduct policy. Sexual Assault apparently has to be violent to merit a longer suspension...which is a terrible precedent.

[Sled21]

I still think the league will appeal.

[Au165]

(08-01-2022, 02:08 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yes. It comes down to a loophole in the wording of the conduct policy. Sexual Assault apparently has to be violent to merit a longer suspension...which is a terrible precedent.

It doesn't actually require it, only that it can be a modifying factor to increase. The ruling also detracts from the other violations. She didn't seem to stack punishment for violations but rather say the biggest for any individual count was 6 games so we are going with 6. There are a lot of openings here for the NFL to pretty logically tear this apart on appeal and put in whatever they want. 

[Au165]

(08-01-2022, 02:09 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I still think the league will appeal.

I think they will chase the full year and settle with him between 10-12 games with an agreement he can't sue them and tie them up in court (Even though they probably win there like they have previously).

[ezekiel23]

This automatically makes the Browns a playoff contender.Like him or not,Watson is a game changer.I’m a little surprised he didn’t get 8 or more games suspension.Who knows,after his appeal,it may only be a 3 or 4 game suspension.

[THE PISTONS]

(08-01-2022, 02:21 PM)ezekiel23 Wrote: This automatically makes the Browns a playoff contender.Like him or not,Watson is a game changer.I’m a little surprised he didn’t get 8 or more games suspension.Who knows,after his appeal,it may only be a 3 or 4 game suspension.

So...I see teams do this all the time. They bring in the guy with legal charges that is talented. And everyone is like 'Wow - They're going to win the championship now because of that player!'

And I can't think of 1 example where it works out that way.

Like the Browns have Kareem Hunt. Now Watson.

You want your QB to be a leader. The behavior he showed, is not leadership.

In fact...what have the Texans won with him?

[THE PISTONS]

(08-01-2022, 02:12 PM)Au165 Wrote: It doesn't actually require it, only that it can be a modifying factor to increase. The ruling also detracts from the other violations. She didn't seem to stack punishment for violations but rather say the biggest for any individual count was 6 games so we are going with 6. There are a lot of openings here for the NFL to pretty logically tear this apart on appeal and put in whatever they want. 

And...the appeal goes to Goodell.

So why not stack and call it a day?

Will Watson sue? If he takes it to court, maybe something comes out that makes this a criminal case?

[Au165]

(08-01-2022, 02:26 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: And...the appeal goes to Goodell.

So why not stack and call it a day?

That's a question for her. The logic she used throughout the ruling was weird, it flips back and forth and doesn't seem consistent while she claims she has to do things for consistency. 

I think Goodell probably still has one of his Lt's hear the appeal rather than him but I have to think he's already heard from a lot of owners on this and they aren't happy.