Judge Recommends Suspension of 6 Games for Deshaun Watson

[Schmoopy1000]

 

[HaroldSeattle]

 

[jarntt]

2. The NFL submitted a 215-page investigation report, and it introduced evidence regarding five accusers. One was based on a media report, and Judge Robinson excluded it from the record. So there were four accusers whose claims were considered, not 24 or more.

4. Judge Robinson found that Deshaun Watson: (a) intended to cause contact with his penis; (b) did so for a sexual purpose; and (c) knew such contact was unwanted.

These are the most intriguing to me.

#2 what happened to the other cases? That's a huge amount of information to exclude from the hearing

#4 that is clearly a crime. But other NFL players who were accused or even convicted of crimes weren't necessarily suspended for longer. Which takes us back to #2. If only heard from 4 victims/accusers it makes sense a longer suspension wasn't doled out. I wonder if as part of his potential appeal Goodell uses the other 20ish accusers as his basis

 

[jarntt]

This is the most compelling reason for the thin penalty, IMO. I don't really know the rules but I assume Robinson does.

I'll also point out that this decision can't protect Watson from being the target of demonstrations, or the Browns, the NFL, or anybody televising Watson games or their sponsors from boycotts.

yeah, this one similar:

7. Judge Robinson concluded that the NFL was trying to change the standards for non-violent sexual assault without fair notice to the players. She called the proposed change to the rules "extraordinary."

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Nope but many a VIP been forced out for sexual harassment of this sort. Roger Ailes comes to mind. Indefinite suspension is what I expect and hoped for.

Lol hoped for?

Why?

 

[Stakesarehigh]

A real man would own his own massage parlor full of sex slaves

 

[wilwhite]

OJ Simpson's case went to criminal trial. This was deemed not even fit for trial. If there are dozens of valid accusations then this is a bigger issue than the NFL.

That was just an easy example. The Watson cases are all he said/she said.

No other witnesses, no physical evidence, not immediately reported to the police... tough row to hoe.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

yeah, this one similar:

7. Judge Robinson concluded that the NFL was trying to change the standards for non-violent sexual assault without fair notice to the players. She called the proposed change to the rules "extraordinary."

I like how sexual assault gets minimized. Didnt cause a bruise so fuck your psyche or your soul.
We are talking of a rich famous sports player here. The ladies mental wellness doesnt matter.

 

[wilwhite]

#2 what happened to the other cases? That's a huge amount of information to exclude from the hearing

Per the ruling, the NFL was only able to interview 12, and of those 12 only presented four cases.

Robinson said in her ruling "my decision is limited by the record presented to me" - so I have to amend my earlier math.

Three games for Winston groping an Uber driver after having been warned by the league, and did not settle.

Six games for Watson for four incidents, not having been warned, and having settled the cases. So what would have been 12 games at three games per incident was cut in half based on not having been warned beforehand and having "paid restitution."

That seems appropriate... if you only count four incidents.

But Robinson said:

It should be noted that the NFL relied on a fifth accuser who gave an interview to a magazine but who declined to be interviewed by the investigators. I excluded such testimony from the disciplinary record, but acknowledge that there is documentary evidence associated with her testimony which is consistent with the NFL’s findings.​

Not sure why being interviewed by the NFL is a necessary condition for consideration, if there's other evidence.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

All this does is make it that much harder for a woman to come forward against a famous person. Why go through an experience, then come forward to have themselves dragged through the mud for at best a slap of the wrist for the famous person. Or get away with it completely.

This judge sue even admits she believes he did wrong by calling his actions egregious. Then slaps his hand & says now dont do that. That is bad.
Justice served.

I am pretty amazed by all this honestly. Disgusted as well.

 

[ArlingtonCowboys100]

This is a slap in the face to Big Ben and Zeke Elliot.. they got 6 games for one instance..

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Lol hoped for?

Why?

Why? Because he has it coming, that's why. The guy has lead a charmed life thus far, refuse to play on the field , yet still receives million of dollars, then get his already large contract redone for an even bigger record setting contract. Using your status to pressure women into sex is wrong and plenty of folks like Roger Ailes have lose their position for doing so. I understand everyone wants to have the stars play, but there needs to be some accountability and that is why the personal conduct clause came about.

 

[futballiscool]

That was just an easy example. The Watson cases are all he said/she said.

No other witnesses, no physical evidence, not immediately reported to the police... tough row to hoe.

I don't see this as he said/she said but rather he said/(30 times) they said.
That should be enough if this crossed into criminal behavior.
While I do generally support the me too movement I do think it's created an oversimplification on these types of allegations. There's no nuance, there's no gray area etc. What he did was wrong and the victims should be supported and compensated but I also don't think Watson should face an unprecedented punishment

 

[dtgold88]

All this does is make it that much harder for a woman to come forward against a famous person. Why go through an experience, then come forward to have themselves dragged through the mud for at best a slap of the wrist for the famous person. Or get away with it completely.

This judge sue even admits she believes he did wrong by calling his actions egregious. Then slaps his hand & says now dont do that. That is bad.
Justice served.

I am pretty amazed by all this honestly. Disgusted as well.

I'm pretty amazed that's what you got by her ruling (if you actually read it)....OK, no I'm not.

Hard to tell if she has more contempt for Watson or the NFL.

 

[PDay8810]

Why? Because he has it coming, that's why. The guy has lead a charmed life thus far, refuse to play on the field , yet still receives million of dollars, then get his already large contract redone for an even bigger record setting contract. Using your status to pressure women into sex is wrong and plenty of folks like Roger Ailes have lose their position for doing so. I understand everyone wants to have the stars play, but there needs to be some accountability and that is why the personal conduct clause came about.

Funny the question was asked

 

[dtgold88]

Why? Because he has it coming, that's why. The guy has lead a charmed life thus far, refuse to play on the field , yet still receives million of dollars, then get his already large contract redone for an even bigger record setting contract. Using your status to pressure women into sex is wrong and plenty of folks like Roger Ailes have lose their position for doing so. I understand everyone wants to have the stars play, but there needs to be some accountability and that is why the personal conduct clause came about.

I guess lucky for Watson Robinson ruled based on facts and evidence and not emotion.

6 games is some accountability.

 

[broncosmitty]

Lol hoped for?

Why?

I was hoping he’d get atleast a year. If not more.

I’m still hoping they add on more games.

Dude should be behind bars.

 

[dtgold88]

Funny the question was asked

If he expected an answer based on reason and facts you are right. Should have known it would be an answer based on emotion.

 

[PDay8810]

If he expected an answer based on reason and facts you are right. Should have known it would be an answer based on emotion.

Yet he gave reason and facts.

FU

 

[broncosmitty]

Per the ruling, the NFL was only able to interview 12, and of those 12 only presented four cases.

Robinson said in her ruling "my decision is limited by the record presented to me" - so I have to amend my earlier math.

Three games for Winston groping an Uber driver after having been warned by the league, and did not settle.

Six games for Watson for four incidents, not having been warned, and having settled the cases. So what would have been 12 games at three games per incident was cut in half based on not having been warned beforehand and having "paid restitution."

That seems appropriate... if you only count four incidents.

But Robinson said:

It should be noted that the NFL relied on a fifth accuser who gave an interview to a magazine but who declined to be interviewed by the investigators. I excluded such testimony from the disciplinary record, but acknowledge that there is documentary evidence associated with her testimony which is consistent with the NFL’s findings.​

Not sure why being interviewed by the NFL is a necessary condition for consideration, if there's other evidence.

I’m not 100% sure, but I believe this was a union issue. Employer vs employee. Only evidence directly handled by the league would apply.

But like I said, not sure.