- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 10,843
- Reaction score
- 19,106
There's a lot of smarmy supposition in the article, IMO.
The most potentially insightful part of what Florio wrote:
Why wouldn’t someone connected to the league’s handling of the Watson case have asked Harvey, who helped develop the current policy, for his opinion on how best to properly assess Watson’s behavior? Judge Sue L. Robinson’s analysis of the policy focused on the distinction between violent and non-violent sexual assault. The league may believe that there’s no distinction under the policy. Harvey, who helped develop the policy, may believe it.
But under the documented policy even violent first offenders are in the six game bracket. I don't see how that gets them to what NFL asked for, which is an indefinite suspension with right to ask for relief at one year.
The most potentially insightful part of what Florio wrote:
Why wouldn’t someone connected to the league’s handling of the Watson case have asked Harvey, who helped develop the current policy, for his opinion on how best to properly assess Watson’s behavior? Judge Sue L. Robinson’s analysis of the policy focused on the distinction between violent and non-violent sexual assault. The league may believe that there’s no distinction under the policy. Harvey, who helped develop the policy, may believe it.
But under the documented policy even violent first offenders are in the six game bracket. I don't see how that gets them to what NFL asked for, which is an indefinite suspension with right to ask for relief at one year.