NBA OFF TOPIC THREAD

[thunderc]

So pointing out possible holes in someone story = not open minded?

24 is a lot but yeah I’m sure there are a few that just added on for the money.

 

[shopson67]

Per our laws.

This is where you are getting messed up.

The NFL is a private organization. If a player does something that embarrasses the league, they can punish the player as they see fit.

The NFL can’t make Watson do time, but they can sure as hell prevent him from playing football again.

And you and I both know if he did nothing wrong there wouldn’t be 24 women saying he did.

There are only 4, keep up...

 

[trojanfan12]

24 but ok, yeaf

24 is a lot but yeah I’m sure there are a few that just added on for the money.

Imo, that many is interesting because while it increases the likelihood that some of these accusations are true...it also increases the likelihood that some are not.

 

[dtgold88]

I am not talking about a court of law.

I don’t think anyone else is either.

We are talking about NFL suspension. The NFL doesn’t need to clear the reasonable doubt threshold to suspend one of its players.

So highly unlikely they let Watson slide. And they shouldn’t.

He isn’t getting charged criminally because they don’t have evidence beyond accounts of the women.

No doubt they can suspend without being sure or even believing it's just possible with no proof. While a year wont shock me it does seem harsh without anything that can be pointed to as fact. I mean, based on the lead detectives comments the only way Watson should be able to get out of this was if he taped the sessions (and, of course, it showed he didn't do what he was accused of).

 

[shopson67]

Maybe he's the most proficient masterbator in history

You never know!

 

[dtgold88]

I have a real problem with this, slippery slope for false accusations (not that these are necessarily false, but per our laws, unproveable is treated as false). Plurality doesn't preempt burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree with this.....though there's probably enough to suspend based on the vague personal conduct policy.

 

[shopson67]

No doubt they can suspend without being sure or even believing it's just possible with no proof. While a year wont shock me it does seem harsh without anything that can be pointed to as fact. I mean, based on the lead detectives comments the only way Watson should be able to get out of this was if he taped the sessions (and, of course, it showed he didn't do what he was accused of).

That's bizzaro-land to me. He has to have photographic evidence to DISPROVE, but the accusers don't need any lol.

 

[shopson67]

I agree with this.....though there's probably enough to suspend based on the vague personal conduct policy.

...and the general weakness of the NFLPA.

 

[dtgold88]

24 is a lot but yeah I’m sure there are a few that just added on for the money.

"just a few"? Not possible half or more than that?

 

[shopson67]

"just a few"? Not possible half or more than that?

20?

 

[trojanfan12]

I have a real problem with this, slippery slope for false accusations (not that these are necessarily false, but per our laws, unproveable is treated as false). Plurality doesn't preempt burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes and no. Even in criminal cases where there is actual evidence and a high burden of proof, it can often come down to who the jury or judge find most believable.

It is even more likely to come down to believability in a civil case.

 

[dtgold88]

That's bizzaro-land to me. He has to have photographic evidence to DISPROVE, but the accusers don't need any lol.

I can even agree with her assertion the first response by law enforcement is to believe the accuser. At some point, though, with no evidence, it has to revert back to innocent until proven guilty.

so many keep pointing to the amount that means he must be guilty. 26 women and not one shred of actual evidence?

 

[thunderc]

"just a few"? Not possible half or more than that?

We obviously have no way of knowing. What we do know is his intention in all 24.

 

[dtgold88]

Yes and no. Even in criminal cases where there is actual evidence and a high burden of proof, it can often come down to who the jury or judge find most believable.

It is even more likely to come down to believability in a civil case.

Not sure if I mentioned it here, but I think the length of this suspension could come down to how believable (and even likeable) Watson was when they spoke to him.

 

[dtgold88]

We obviously have no way of knowing. What we do know is his intention in all 24.

we actually don't know that.

 

[thunderc]

we actually don't know that.

Lol ok

 

[fightinfunbags]

Imo, that many is interesting because while it increases the likelihood that some of these accusations are true...it also increases the likelihood that some are not.

Is it interesting though? Does it matter if there are 13 legit cases or 17 or 21?

 

[fightinfunbags]

Man, Tony Siragusa died today too.

 

[trojanfan12]

Not sure if I mentioned it here, but I think the length of this suspension could come down to how believable (and even likeable) Watson was when they spoke to him.

Imo, when it comes to the NFL determining punishment, I don't think the number of cases is what will hurt him the most.

I think it will be the fact that he hired 66 different masseuses, which tends to show that it wasnt about getting a massage...and the fact that at one point he made a comment along the lines of not having any regrets that he had to try to walk back later. That seemed to indicate that he wasnt taking it seriously.

 

[Black Adam]

Man, Tony Siragusa died today too.

Aw damn...!