Deshaun Watson Suspended 11 games (Updated)

[venecol]

Goodell probably appeals Judge Robinson's ruling. It's possible he wants to add a fine ($1-$8M) to the suspension. The Judge spent a lot of time on the "fairness" of the NFL re-writing penalties after the fact (Brady says hi) and this would obviously be looked at in federal court by an appeals judge, once Watson sues Goodell if he reverses the suspension to impose his own.

Once this ends up in the federal courts, it's likely Watson plays 6 to 8 games before any decision is arrived at. As we know, most of the so-far secret findings and arguments will become public. You've gotta wonder if Goodell & the owners have the stomach to drag this out where Kraft & Jerry Jones names will be all over the news again while Watson is playing.

It'll be interesting to see what Goodell does.

 

[Deus Irae]

Agreed. And it is very seedy which makes it even harder. We have not seen all of the evidence either.

My point is claiming it is "sexual assault" is to ignore the whole justice system. It is what it is - we are down to 1 woman pressing charges so it is unlikely we will ever learn much more.

???

I, therefore, find that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report.29 Mr. Watson violated the Policy in this regard.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2022/08/In-re-Deshaun-Watson.pdf

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

???

You have to read the thread to understand.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2022/08/In-re-Deshaun-Watson.pdf

 

[venecol]

Lol

 

[Guts]

 

[SHOWTIME15]

 

[Bill Lee]

 

[Pape]

View attachment 44250

im sorry, but they gotta toss the gambling thing out of the meme... players should know from day 1 in high school or the very latest College - You NEVER bet on your own sport.

 

[Bill Lee]

Basically she said that she believes Watson violated the personal conduct penalty, and she is going to punish him an amount of games in line with previous violations of the personal conduct policy, which she did. If you look at the history of suspensions for violations of the personal conduct policy, it is overwhelmingly 1-4 games, with a small handful that went 6 games. The only ones I could find on Wiki of more than 6 games were Josh Brent (10 games for manslaughter) and Mychal Kendricks (8 games for Insider Trading).

PLEASE NOTE I am only talking about suspensions purely for violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. Other suspensions involving things like banned substances and on-field transgressions have gone longer.

I listened to Andrew Brandt's podcast. He teaches sports law and was formerly VP and general counsel of the Packers. He says the key thing is that while the judge said he committed sexual assault he did not use "violence" so it was not some new precedent-busting event that would warrant what the NFL was asking for. Instead she said it was "egregious" which allowed her to double the normal, "non-violent" penalty and give six games rather than three.

EDIT: To support what I said:




IMO the judge is taking a very simplistic view of what is violent and what is not, and letting it drive too much of her thinking.

Sexual assault is a crime. The episodes were investigated and it was thought there was not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution, so no charges were brought. The NFL lawyer's opinions are not related to a criminal prosecution. You can believe he is guilty of a crime but we are not seeing all of the evidence. Clearly a very difficult and wierd situation. I am not sure 6 games is adequate as it was not a one-time episode.

The judge said he did commit sexual assault, just the non-violent kind of sexual assault.

 

[Guts]

im sorry, but they gotta toss the gambling thing out of the meme... players should know from day 1 in high school or the very latest College - You NEVER bet on your own sport.

Yeah I agree with you was just sharing some memes lol

 

[Bill Lee]

Goodell probably appeals Judge Robinson's ruling. It's possible he wants to add a fine ($1-$8M) to the suspension. The Judge spent a lot of time on the "fairness" of the NFL re-writing penalties after the fact (Brady says hi) and this would obviously be looked at in federal court by an appeals judge, once Watson sues Goodell if he reverses the suspension to impose his own.

Once this ends up in the federal courts, it's likely Watson plays 6 to 8 games before any decision is arrived at. As we know, most of the so-far secret findings and arguments will become public. You've gotta wonder if Goodell & the owners have the stomach to drag this out where Kraft & Jerry Jones names will be all over the news again while Watson is playing.

It'll be interesting to see what Goodell does.

I agree that he probably will appeal, 60/40 odds in favor of that IMO.

He has been all about discipline in the past, and not appealing after not getting what the NFL asked for would be like surrendering his power over discipline, and would be giving a concession to the union since it was pretty much assumed the NFL would appeal anything they didn't like.

On the other hand, there probably is a large part of the NFL saying let's get past this, we don't want this to drag on into the season.

If he doesn't appeal, even if it's just because the NFL doesn't want the bad optics, I'd say it's +1 for the union, they will have weakened the Commissioner.

 

[XLIX]

That meme is ridiculously misleading and the fact that they have to mislead the reader proves they do not have a strong point.

 

[Bill Lee]

That meme is ridiculously misleading and the fact that they have to mislead the reader proves they do not have a strong point.

It makes the point that the judge found that he committed sexual assault yet gave him a ridiculously small penalty.

As above I think she put herself into the position of taking a very narrow view of what is violent and what is not, and what precedent applies and what does not.

By finding him guilty yet punishing him lightly she seems to want to have her cake and eat it too, rather than just looking at what he did and finding a punishment that fits the crime.

 

[XLIX]

It makes the point that the judge found that he committed sexual assault yet gave him a ridiculously small penalty.

The penalty she gave was in line with other violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. In fact, it was on the high end when compared to most PCP transgressions.

Basically she refused to do to Watson what the League did to Brady. She refused to let the League arbitrarily create a punishment which was way out of line with prior violations by other players. Now, of course, the League can overrule her, but she punished Watson for breaking the PCP and her punishment was in line with other players who broke the PCP.

As for the meme, none of those punishments (besides Watson) were for violations of the PCP so they are kinda irrelevant. The substance abuse policy is a separate rule, and is spelled out very clearly in black and white.

 

[Ring 6]

The penalty she gave was in line with other violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. In fact, it was on the high end when compared to most PCP transgressions.

Basically she refused to do to Watson what the League did to Brady. She refused to let the League arbitrarily create a punishment which was way out of line with prior violations by other players. Now, of course, the League can overrule her, but she punished Watson for breaking the PCP and her punishment was in line with other players who broke the PCP.

As for the meme, none of those punishments (besides Watson) were for violations of the PCP so they are kinda irrelevant. The substance abuse policy is a separate rule, and is spelled out very clearly in black and white.

What prior punishment would it be out of line with?
Who is your precedent for a serial sexual abuser?

 

[Bill Lee]

The penalty she gave was in line with other violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. In fact, it was on the high end when compared to most PCP transgressions.

Where you see justification, I see rationalization.

Basically she refused to do to Watson what the League did to Brady. She refused to let the League arbitrarily create a punishment which was way out of line with prior violations by other players. Now, of course, the League can overrule her, but she punished Watson for breaking the PCP and her punishment was in line with other players who broke the PCP.

What that creep did was way out of line with what previous violators did, IMO. Even if you say NFL presented "just 4" cases, who else showed such a pattern of what the judge decided was predatory sexual assault?

As for the meme, none of those punishments (besides Watson) were for violations of the PCP so they are kinda irrelevant. The substance abuse policy is a separate rule, and is spelled out very clearly in black and white.

This is inline with what I see as the judge not being willing to take a broader view. She chose to color within the lines, whereas I think this case went far beyond the cases she used as precedent and justified a much greater penalty.

 

[Bill Lee]

Not a single peep out of NFL about appealing the Watson penalty, instead they choose this exact moment to drop the bomb about Steven Ross tampering with Brady and Payton and offering to pay Flores $100k to lose each game but, yeah, that was just Steven's way of joking around...

See, we do discipline owners too... And ain't Watson looking good in practice?

 

[XLIX]

Where you see justification, I see rationalization.


What that creep did was way out of line with what previous violators did, IMO. Even if you say NFL presented "just 4" cases, who else showed such a pattern of what the judge decided was predatory sexual assault?


This is inline with what I see as the judge not being willing to take a broader view. She chose to color within the lines, whereas I think this case went far beyond the cases she used as precedent and justified a much greater penalty.

As Judge should, as you say, "color within the lines." There is simply no precedent whatsoever for giving a first time offender of the PCP anything more than 6 games - and even 6 games is pretty rare for first time offenders - so why should she go above that amount?

If the NFL wants to change the punishment schedule for such offenses, then more power to 'em. Go for it. But the whole point the Judge is making - one which was also argued to no avail in the Brady case - is that you can't just arbitrarily change the rules on the fly.

If I were a betting man, I would bet her decision won't stay. But she indeed made some very valid points.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

I listened to Andrew Brandt's podcast. He teaches sports law and was formerly VP and general counsel of the Packers. He says the key thing is that while the judge said he committed sexual assault he did not use "violence" so it was not some new precedent-busting event that would warrant what the NFL was asking for. Instead she said it was "egregious" which allowed her to double the normal, "non-violent" penalty and give six games rather than three.

EDIT: To support what I said:




IMO the judge is taking a very simplistic view of what is violent and what is not, and letting it drive too much of her thinking.


The judge said he did commit sexual assault, just the non-violent kind of sexual assault.

Agreed and thanks for the Andrew Brandt notes - that is interesting. I think the judge wrote "sexual assault (as defined by the NFL)" to differentiate from sexual assault which is a criminal charge. Some posters saw "sexaul assault" and I believe they did not see the qualifiers (non-violent kind, as defined by the NFL).

 

[venecol]

Where you see justification, I see rationalization.

I think the judge made her findings based on the written Policy and precedent. It's not up to her to come up with new guidelines. In fact she stated that the NFL is trying to impose penalties post-hoc w/o due notification (what they did to Brady) which flies in the face of "fairness."

What that creep did was way out of line with what previous violators did, IMO. Even if you say NFL presented "just 4" cases, who else showed such a pattern of what the judge decided was predatory sexual assault?

It's curious why the NFL chose to only present 5 cases (one was tossed out) instead of piling on w/ a dozen + cases. You have to wonder why they did that. Again, as a fan you can be emotional about the case. As an arbiter, she can't.

This is inline with what I see as the judge not being willing to take a broader view. She chose to color within the lines, whereas I think this case went far beyond the cases she used as precedent and justified a much greater penalty.

It's not in the Policy. She stated this. Her reasoning will be reviewed by a federal judge if Watson/NFLPA sue Goodell. She's looking at this as a matter of law, not PR.