Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Sexual Assault Suits Against Watson

NFL wants immediate suspension of Deshaun Watson, NFLPA doesn’t rule it out
Posted by Mike Florio on August 10, 2022, 1:21 PM EDT

Earlier today, we raised the possibility of appeals officer Peter Harvey ruling in the next two days that Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson should be suspended for a full year, and that it should begin immediately. We have an update.

Yes, the NFL has asked for a one-year suspension starting now. If implemented before Friday night, this would keep Watson off the field for the preseason opener against the Jaguars. And, no, the NFL Players Association hasn’t ruled out the possibility of this happening.

As one source with knowledge of the union’s thinking on the case said, “We are ready if he does.”

Everyone else needs to be ready, too. Today, tomorrow, or Friday. Harvey can issue a ruling, and Watson will be barred from playing. And if the union plans to try to fight the decision in court, the league may be tempted to wait as long as possibly, thereby limiting the amount of time that the union has to launch a counter aimed at getting Watson on the field, for the balance of the preseason.

Regardless, this became an issue for us after Commissioner Roger Goodell spoke so bluntly about Watson on Tuesday. The league surely doesn’t want to see Watson in an NFL uniform on an NFL field, with highlights played on NFL Network. And since they’re pretty good at getting what they want, it makes sense to believe that, if they don’t want Watson in the building in Jacksonville on Friday night, he won’t be.
 
Browns announce they plan to start Deshaun Watson on Friday
Posted by Charean Williams on August 10, 2022, 4:41 PM EDT


The Browns announced they plan to start Deshaun Watson in the preseason opener at Jacksonville on Friday. It’s now up to appeals officer Peter Harvey to determine if that will happen.

The NFL wants an immediate suspension of Watson, and the NFLPA hasn’t ruled out the possibility as both sides wait for a ruling from Harvey. He could make his decision in the next two days and bar Watson from playing in the preseason.

As it stands now, Watson is eligible to practice and play with the team until Aug. 30.

Coach Kevin Stefanski said this week that Watson likely plays one of the three preseason games but didn’t indicate which game. The first one makes sense given Harvey will issue his ruling sooner than later and could make Watson leave the team immediately.
Will that come before Friday’s kickoff?

Watson has not played in a game since Jan. 3, 2021, while with the Texans, who made him inactive for every game last season.
“I wouldn’t say that I see rustiness,” Stefanski said of Watson, via Mary Kay Cabot of cleveland.com. “These preseason games will be an opportunity to play when it’s a game setting, the defense can come after you and you are truly in a game. I think that that will really be more when you get closer to game reps than say a practice.”

The Browns leave for Jacksonville today to participate in team-building activities before the game.

“We’re just dealing with today,’’ Stefanski said. “I really don’t know any other way to do it. And I think the team understands that.’’
 
1492878465_beavis-and-butthead-eat-popcorn.gif
 
Goodell is just huffing & puffing so he can say, “I tried?!?”

Harvey is going to look at the same evidence & come to the same conclusion.
 
djohn2oo8 said:
His lack of remorse alone will keep him out of the league.
Click to expand...

If only…. I am dumbfounded by the punishment handed down. More importantly, if he were my employee and there was evidence that he lied to his employer along with defaced my company… that would be grounds for termination which in this league equates to indefinite suspension.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
thunderkyss said:
Ok… Pat explained it to me. I now understand

Click to expand...

He keeps it real doesn't he? 🤣 When the hell did NFL 🦵 ers have this much swag.

Don't get me wrong I definitely agree with about 90% of what he's saying here, don't agree at all how he expresses his messaging. You were a punter dude, stop trying to be a supreme badass in tank top shirts. As I type this I look over my shoulder to see if a superplex is coming off the top turnbuckle lol. 😄 Is this real life anymore
 
Carr Bombed said:
He keeps it real doesn't he? 🤣 When the hell did NFL 🦵 ers have this much swag.

Don't get me wrong I definitely agree with about 90% of what he's saying here, don't agree at all how he expresses his messaging. You were a punter dude, stop trying to be a supreme badass in tank top shirts. As I type this I look over my shoulder to see if a superplex is coming off the top turnbuckle lol. 😄 Is this real life anymore
Click to expand...

To be fair even in his playing days he had a reputation for saying whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted about whatever he wanted.
 
Goodell didn't say anything about Watson that wasn't true or written by Robinson. [Florio continues to present the narative that employers don't care about their employees' off-duty egregious or predatory behaviors that obviously reflect on their employer.]

****************************

Goodell’s strong comments about Deshaun Watson could be used against NFL in federal court
Posted by Mike Florio on August 11, 2022, 9:36 AM EDT


As the Miranda warnings explain, Anything you say can and will be used against you. That concept applies in plenty of other legal contexts and settings.

When it comes to the blunt, candid comments made by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday regarding Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, a question has emerged as to whether Goodell’s remarks will be repeated by the NFL Players Association in any eventual legal battle regarding the inevitable suspension imposed on Watson by appeals officer Peter Harvey.

Why wouldn’t they be? Goodell’s comments could be characterized as an effort to send a strong and clear message to Harvey, who surely wants to retain his relationship with the league and who will be inclined to give Goodell what Harvey thinks Goodell wants. Goodell is trying to tip the scales of in-house justice his way by making sure the judge knows what he who butters the judge’s bread would like to see happen.

That said, Harvey already knows what Goodell wants. The league consistently has been seeking a suspension of at least one calendar year in duration. As the preseason opener approaches and the prospect looms of Watson playing in an NFL game for the first time since the conclusion of the 2020 regular season, Harvey undoubtedly realizes that Goodell wants Watson to be blocked from doing so.

Goodell could have handled the appeal himself, ensuring that he’d get what he wants. But since he knows Harvey will give Goodell what he wants anyway, why not build in a layer of insulation if he knows he’ll get the same result he would have secured if he had done it himself?

“There were multiple violations here, and they were egregious an it was predatory behavior,” Goodell told reporters regarding Watson. Egregious. Predatory. How will Watson not be suspended for a full year?

Would it have made more sense for Goodell to say something like, “We’ll defer comment until the legal process ends”? Sure. But legal niceties must be balanced against P.R. realities. Beyond those Browns fans who struggle (and understandably so) to separate their rooting interests from the question of whether Watson has had a full and proper reckoning, most NFL fans want to see Watson suspended for a full year. Last week, a PFT Twitter poll that asked for the preferred length of suspension with the choices being six games, eight games, 12 games, and a full season, nearly 71 percent responded by selecting the longest duration.

The NFL is sensitive to this reality. Although some have accused the NFL of being overly concerned with optics, the entire Personal Conduct Policy is based on optics. The vast majority of American employers don’t (and shouldn’t) care about off-duty behavior. The NFL, with the agreement of the NFL Players Association, does. It has to. Fans who are expected to devote money and time to the product expect that action will be taken against players who misbehave, even when the misbehavior has nothing to do with the NFL. (Of course, in this case, Watson used his status as an NFL quarterback to secure massages that he tried to flip into sexual encounters. That will not help him on appeal.)

There’s an obvious disconnect between law and optics. It’s why four violations, within the four corners of the Personal Conduct Policy, become 24 (and up to 66) within the minds of anyone and everyone who has been paying attention. That’s another reason why the NFL will throw the book at Watson. The league knows it’s 24 (and up to 66). Harvey knows it, too. The federal judge who presides over the case, if/when there is one, will know it, too.

Maybe that’s why Goodell said what he said. Why he doesn’t care if his words are repeated in court as part of an argument that Harvey was partial or biased or whatever. Four is really 24, and is as many as 66. Everybody knows it. And it will be difficult for anyone to set it aside.
 
Florio has no clue what he's talking about. Every employer I've ever had has had me sign a document indicating that any off the job actions that bring undue embarrassment/attention to the company could result in my termination. ALL businesses have to protect their reputations & public perceptions.
 
Hottoddie said:
Florio has no clue what he's talking about. Every employer I've ever had has had me sign a document indicating that any off the job actions that bring undue embarrassment/attention to the company could result in my termination. ALL businesses have to protect their reputations & public perceptions.
Click to expand...
Florio doesn't care about the truth or the facts... he's just after the clicks
 
Hottoddie said:
Florio has no clue what he's talking about. Every employer I've ever had has had me sign a document indicating that any off the job actions that bring undue embarrassment/attention to the company could result in my termination. ALL businesses have to protect their reputations & public perceptions.
Click to expand...
When I worked for someone, I never had an off duty code of conduct policy. Even now as a business owner, I could care less what someone does when they go home. That said, if they do something that places them in jail or something that's illicit and brings law enforcement to my offices and such, then that's different.
 
It's interesting to see how the Browns/Watson team twists and views the CBA process..........all of which was aggreed upon by the NFL AND the NFLPA. Nowhere was there any clause dictating that the NFL and Goodell had any obligation whatsoever to consult with the NFLPA regarding an assignment of a Goodell designee. But here's the humorous "strawman" argument.

**********************************************************************************************************************

On August 5, the NFL without any consultation with the NFLPA, appointed Peter C Harvey to handle the appeals process of Sue L Robinsons 6 game suspension. Harvey has over 30 years of experience as a trial lawyer and federal prosecutor, as well as being the former attorney general of New Jersey. Harvey also has experience working with the NFL on various sexual abuse and domestic violent cases. Most notably being on a panel to determine Ezekiel Elliot’s 2017 suspension.

Watson and the NFLPA vs Goodell and the NFL

In a statement by the NFL: “Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Mr. Harvey’s written decision ‘will constitute the full, final and complete disposition of the dispute and will be binding upon the player(s), Club(s), and parties’ to the CBA.” This is somewhat concerning for future NFLPA negotiations. Considering that their was no vetting or consultation with the NFLPA before Goodell’s designation of Peter C Harvey. Whereas with Sue L Robinson, both the NFLPA and NFL agreed on her. link
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
leebigeztx said:
When I worked for someone, I never had an off duty code of conduct policy. Even now as a business owner, I could care less what someone does when they go home. That said, if they do something that places them in jail or something that's illicit and brings law enforcement to my offices and such, then that's different.
Click to expand...

There is no business that any of us could operate can even be comparable to the NFL, with it's high profile entertainment nature and dependence on public funds to build their stadiums. This places the NFL in a unique position that is not like anything representing a regular business operation.

That said, I know many large companies that have personal conduct policies. For instance, one large manufacturer here in Houston can terminate employment if they catch you smoking in your free time. There is nothing illegal about smoking, but since employees signed the conduct policy to work there, they have no legal recourse if caught and fired.
 
leebigeztx said:
When I worked for someone, I never had an off duty code of conduct policy. Even now as a business owner, I could care less what someone does when they go home. That said, if they do something that places them in jail or something that's illicit and brings law enforcement to my offices and such, then that's different.
Click to expand...



The general principle here would be a restatement of the old wisdom that "your business ends where my nose begins", i.e., while it is true that a person's off-duty activities are a person's own affair, that works only as long as the person does not interfere with the rights of others. In an employment context, employees are free to do what they will in their own free time, as long as what they do does not adversely affect coworkers, the employer, or the employer's clients or customers.

In general, a company has the right under Texas law to take action against an employee for off-duty conduct if such conduct has the effect of damaging company business (remember, though, the exception for NLRA-protected activity) or work relationships.
Click to expand...
tx.gov
 
Double Barrel said:
There is no business that any of us could operate can even be comparable to the NFL, with it's high profile entertainment nature and dependence on public funds to build their stadiums. This places the NFL in a unique position that is not like anything representing a regular business operation.

That said, I know many large companies that have personal conduct policies. For instance, one large manufacturer here in Houston can terminate employment if they catch you smoking in your free time. There is nothing illegal about smoking, but since employees signed the conduct policy to work there, they have no legal recourse if caught and fired.
Click to expand...
Yep. I was responding to a poster who compared his job to nfl. Nothing compares to pro sports or entertainment imo
 
There are plenty of companies that are white collar and blue collar that would fire you for doing something that could damage their companies reputation outside of company time.

All if not most legitimate companies have a code of conduct that employees are given upon hire and are reminded in future trainings.
 
How NFL could rightfully demand 24-game suspension for Deshaun Watson
By Ryan Gilbert

The NFL felt like a six-game suspension for Deshaun Watson is simply not enough. The league appealed the decision and could be seeking a much longer suspension for the Cleveland Browns quarterback.

In fact, 92.3 The Fan’s Browns beat reporter Daryl Ruiter shared on Audacy’s “It’s Always Gameday in Cleveland” podcast how the NFL could demand a suspension four times the length of Judge Sue L. Robinson’s initial punishment.

The formula for Deshaun Watson's suspension

“I came up with a formula where the NFL would be well within their rights to request and demand a 24-game suspension under what the commissioner said about how the league views these violations,” Ruiter said (10:12 in player above). “He violated the conduct policy in three ways: sexual assault as defined by the National Football League, endangering another human being, compromising the integrity of the shield. That’s what Sue L. Robinson found.

“Now, the league presented four cases in which the therapists accused him of this sexual misconduct,” he continued. “So here’s how I got to 24 games, ‘cause here’s how this averages out. Two games per kind of policy violation. That gets you to six games per instance or violation, right. Well, the league contested in front of Sue. L Robinson he did it at least four times. Six times four equals 24.

“So if the NFL really, if they wanted to absolutely stick it to Deshaun Watson and the Cleveland Browns, and this I think is part of the reason why they originally asked for the indefinite suspension with a minimum of a year and now it seems like they’re willing to settle, and I use the term ‘settle’ loosely. The league seems content to settle to just get the 17 games and postseason this year out of this is because of that formula that I just kinda threw out there.”

There is a wide gap between six games – about a third of the season – and 24 games – nearly a season and a half. The suspension is likely to fall somewhere in that range.

“I think it’s gonna be anywhere from 12 to a full year for Deshaun Watson once this ruling comes down. That is why you’re seeing the commissioner take such a hard stance. They want to make sure nothing like this ever happens again because in the NFL world. It’s now a corporate world, the sport of professional football and the way employees and coaches and people behind the scenes conduct themselves today, I can tell you drastically different than the stuff I used to hear on the practice field 20 years ago,” Ruiter said. “It is a very corporate environment these days. And with a corporate environment and inclusive environment that the NFL has tried to foster over the last 10, 15, 20 years, well, the tolerance level for this type of behavior just isn’t there.”

If Watson’s alleged violations only occurred once or a few times, perhaps we’d see the six-game suspension (or less) stick. However, the league is within their bounds to not see it that way.

“The NFL views it not as one violation. They feel that they presented four separate instances in which Deshaun Watson violated the policy three different ways,” Ruiter concluded. “Twelve violations in total times two games per violation you get 24. They’re not asking specifically for 24, they were asking for one year minimum of an indefinite suspension.”
 
JB said:
Every job that I had that wasn't a mom & pop small business had one. Any thing you did that was illegal or could embarrass the company (if they found out) was grounds for termination
Click to expand...
I worked for a large corporation for over 30 years. Every year we had to sign a 'Code of Business Conduct' form which included everything from getting a DUI (you would be taken out a driving job and if you could pass the tests given a non-driving job before it came to trial. Otherwise you lost your job, just being accused was enough), conflict of interests, to how we had to conduct ourselves online. Refusal to sign was grounds for being fired.

Their favorite line was 'punishment up to and including termination'.
 
leebigeztx said:
When I worked for someone, I never had an off duty code of conduct policy. Even now as a business owner, I could care less what someone does when they go home. That said, if they do something that places them in jail or something that's illicit and brings law enforcement to my offices and such, then that's different.
Click to expand...
For the most part I agree. But what if a vendor tells you one of your guys sexually assaulted her?

You're Cal McNair & one of the team's contracted masseuse says your guy is ejaculating every other session?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top