I'm sure
Not going to bother because it really doesn't matter. But nice way to avoid an honest question.
Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
Sexual Assault Suits Against Watson
- Thread starter Texansballer74
- Start date
Not going to bother because it really doesn't matter. But nice way to avoid an honest question.
LMAO, I only have one hero
Jesus Christ
What don't I want to hear? It's all there in her writing that he lied to her.
Funny thing is you think I'm outraged. I'm not, I'm just waiting on karma or the next group of complaints. Whichever comes 1st. There are more women out there and when they find out what the last 4 women got paid you can bet they will be filing a complaint too. See: the woman who hasn't filled but did the SI article.sure thing mod….
i have a “thing” for fake outrage and hypocrisy.
maverick512000
Hall of Fame
Dude you have entirely the wrong idea, if you read the judge's report she basically said yeah Watson is a sexual predator but the history of the NFL in regards to punishment for this behavior doesn't justify a harsher punishment. Big picture wise it was more a slap in the face of the NFL and how they ignore anything if a player is talented. Its just like a judge handing out a sentence to a serial killer in a state with no death penalty, they may personally feel like the person deservers it but they are bound by the rules set in place so they pass down enough life sentences that the person never is out from behind bars. She even said that with six games its still the worst punishment ever handed down for this type of behavior. If anything this shows how corrupt the NFL is but really we all knew that.
As far as Buzzbee goes the evidence was exactly as strong as he wanted/needed it to be and that was to make Watson settle. Neither he nor his clients actually wanted to go to court because he knew his clients would, rightfully or wrongfully, get dragged through the mud and fanatical sports fans that worship players like gods would harass and threaten them and maybe even act on those threats, its happened before. So again he is overjoyed with this result and honestly he was most likely smiling as much as Watson was when Watson got that 230 million contract. Don't confuse Buzzbee with a DA or even an NFL rep, his sole job was to get his clients as much money as possible, he couldn't put Watson in jail even if he wanted to and had a signed confession, and he did his job.
Me, I'm just glad he's Cleveland's problem and I don't have to worry that supporting the team means supporting someone I personally find appalling. Supporting the NFL as a whole however............lets just say I'm glad Rock is bringing the XFL back.
Edit: In fairness I'll add that they will ignore anything an owner does as well as much as they can but again that is par for the course on companies. Vince McMahon had to be dragged out kicking and screaming, Bobby Kotick is still in charge at Actvision-Blizzard and the list goes on. Again at the end of the day it comes back to rich and famous can do pretty much whatever they want. They have become the new nobility in our society that are not bound by the rules created to keep the commoners in line.
Last edited:
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Judge Robinson’s ruling on Deshaun Watson hinges on issue of “non-violent sexual assault”
Posted by Mike Florio on August 1, 2022, 11:49 PM EDT
On Monday, Judge Sue L. Robinson found, as to the factual allegations against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, that he did what the league accused him of doing. Her decision to suspend Watson only six games arose from separate considerations.
Specifically, she concluded that Watson engaged in a “non-violent sexual assault.” And she found, based on past precedent, that a non-violent sexual assault does not justify the kind of punishment the league sought.
At page 13 of her ruling, Judge Robinson writes that “prior cases involving non-violent sexual assault have resulted in discipline far less severe than what the NFL proposes here, with the most severe penalty being a 3-game suspension for a player who has been previously warned about his conduct.”
That player is, we’re told, Saints quarterback Jameis Winston. He was suspended three games to start the 2018 season, for touching an Uber driver “in an inappropriate and sexual manner without her consent.” Winston’s suspension was the result of a negotiated compromise between the league and the NFL Players Association.
Judge Robinson concluded that the league is attempting to dramatically increase the punishment for non-violent sexual assault “without notice of the extraordinary change” in the league’s approach. The league’s position is that the rules aren’t changing, but that the facts have changed. At page 12, Judge Robinson explained that the league characterizes its recommended punishment of a one-year suspension as “unprecedented . . . because his conduct is unprecedented.”
Basically, the league’s position is that it hasn’t changed the rules. The league’s position is that it’s applying existing rules to a set of fact it never before witnessed.
As to Winston’s three-game suspension, he had only one victim. Watson had four. The NFL interviewed 12 of the persons Watson allegedly assaulted, but he was sued by 24 different people — and settled with all but one of them. Although Judge Robinson managed to ignore these basic realities, most will have a hard time doing so.
And some will have a hard time distinguishing “non-violent” sexual assault from sexual assault. Sexual assault is still sexual assault. If anything, it appears that clumsy efforts in the past by the league to be lenient as to some players prevented the league from getting the ruling it wanted from Judge Robinson as to Watson.
That said, the league secured the factual findings from Judge Robinson necessary to permit the Commissioner or his designee to impose a much higher punishment, if the NFL appeals the ruling. Again, she concluded that Watson did what he was accused of doing. At this point, it would be a surprise if the league doesn’t appeal the decision to Goodell, and it would be a surprise if he doesn’t increase the suspension.
Posted by Mike Florio on August 1, 2022, 11:49 PM EDT
On Monday, Judge Sue L. Robinson found, as to the factual allegations against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, that he did what the league accused him of doing. Her decision to suspend Watson only six games arose from separate considerations.
Specifically, she concluded that Watson engaged in a “non-violent sexual assault.” And she found, based on past precedent, that a non-violent sexual assault does not justify the kind of punishment the league sought.
At page 13 of her ruling, Judge Robinson writes that “prior cases involving non-violent sexual assault have resulted in discipline far less severe than what the NFL proposes here, with the most severe penalty being a 3-game suspension for a player who has been previously warned about his conduct.”
That player is, we’re told, Saints quarterback Jameis Winston. He was suspended three games to start the 2018 season, for touching an Uber driver “in an inappropriate and sexual manner without her consent.” Winston’s suspension was the result of a negotiated compromise between the league and the NFL Players Association.
Judge Robinson concluded that the league is attempting to dramatically increase the punishment for non-violent sexual assault “without notice of the extraordinary change” in the league’s approach. The league’s position is that the rules aren’t changing, but that the facts have changed. At page 12, Judge Robinson explained that the league characterizes its recommended punishment of a one-year suspension as “unprecedented . . . because his conduct is unprecedented.”
Basically, the league’s position is that it hasn’t changed the rules. The league’s position is that it’s applying existing rules to a set of fact it never before witnessed.
As to Winston’s three-game suspension, he had only one victim. Watson had four. The NFL interviewed 12 of the persons Watson allegedly assaulted, but he was sued by 24 different people — and settled with all but one of them. Although Judge Robinson managed to ignore these basic realities, most will have a hard time doing so.
And some will have a hard time distinguishing “non-violent” sexual assault from sexual assault. Sexual assault is still sexual assault. If anything, it appears that clumsy efforts in the past by the league to be lenient as to some players prevented the league from getting the ruling it wanted from Judge Robinson as to Watson.
That said, the league secured the factual findings from Judge Robinson necessary to permit the Commissioner or his designee to impose a much higher punishment, if the NFL appeals the ruling. Again, she concluded that Watson did what he was accused of doing. At this point, it would be a surprise if the league doesn’t appeal the decision to Goodell, and it would be a surprise if he doesn’t increase the suspension.
maverick512000
Hall of Fame
I do agree with this part here, I follow her thinking and for the most part agree with it but she is not taking it to its logical conclusion. If she is using past punishments as the precedence, which is very common in a court of law so she should be familiar with it, then she would say that one case of this resulted in a 3 game suspension therefore four cases of it should result in a 12 game suspension. Even the argument that Wilson physically touched the person and Watson may not have doesn't hold water as the courts have ruled in the past that spitting is considered physical assault so the same should apply to other bodily fluids. It really hard to say since we don't know fully what evidence was presented to her just that it was enough for her to rule in the NFL's favor.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
That's not logical at all b/c you're basing your idea of what the suspension should be only on some linear scale that doesn't take into anything other than the number.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
Eh, i'm not confusing Buzzard with anything other than what he is....a lawyer..someone who is good at convincing folks he cares passionately about something & he's "fighting" for them when in reality after he's done with the case he ain't giving it a 2nd thought. Buzzard's antics are as responsible for his clients' name getting drug through the mud as Hardin or any court proceedings would've done...... so that dog don't hunt. he started with all the public callings out and the claims of FBI investigations...that only brought more scrutiny to his clients.
Otherwise I agree with everything else you're saying for the most part...
But look in the 1st paragraph of the conclusion. She makes a point that is very important to the NFLPA's argument.
"Here, the NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to - and consistency of consequence for - those in the NFL subject to the Policy.51"
And that has been one of the NFLPA's problems with the NFL's player discipline actions. Making up stuff as they go along in an inconsistent manner. I don't think the NFLPA would choose to use the Watson case to make a stand against the NFL's capricious decisions against players. But this is the case they have. They have to fight the NFL's attempt to abort the concept of a jointly appointed disciplinary officer and the league's uneven disciplinary practices. Judge Robinson gave the NFLPA a winning argument in a succinct statement.
I know the NFL wants to punish Watson (and the Browns) more severely. Watson for dragging the league's name through the mud (as has happened so often by so many). And the Browns for giving Watson an unprecedented contract. Not to mention, public opinion would be very favorable to the league for coming down much harder than Judge Robinson did. The NFL cares about 2 things. Money. And PR that affects their money.
But there are reasons why the NFL may not want to change Judge Robinson's ruling in a significant way (indefinite suspension). First, they would likely be sued by the NFLPA on grounds of violating the CBA. A ruling against the league could force the NFL and NFLPA to go back into negotiations to resolve the PCP section. Which could force the league into a more explicit agreement with the players, but also spell out how non-players (including owners) will be disciplined in an even-handed manner. And then, there's discovery.
The NFL has a lot of documents they want to keep from the public. A lawsuit by the NFLPA would bring unwanted information out in the public. That's a big deal for these guys. Even bigger than their desire for revenge for Watson's contract. I don't see a major change in Watson's discipline. Maybe a few more weeks. Maybe forced counseling for Watson. But nothing that would trigger the NFLPA to file suit.
Last edited:
Max
Veteran
Maybe, but I didn't take it that way. To me, her complaint about how the NFL chose to define sexual assault and calling it unfair was based on the fact that they gave it a definition after they knew what Deshaun had done and his guilt was baked in because of this. In other words, if the NFL had given a definition of sexual assault prior to Deshaun's case and it was the same as Texas' definition -- she would have agreed with the two grand juries that no billed him. She's essentially accusing the NFL of creating a kangaroo court that can willy nilly change with the wind and define guilt differently for each case to ensure that they get their verdict. Hard to disagree with her when the CBA doesn't give a definition for literally any of their misconduct parameters.
Her 6 game suspension was a separate criticism of the NFL being reactionary instead of forward thinking. She brought up Ray Rice's case and noted that initially, there was no distinction between violent and non violent behavior. The NFL didn't make this change until public outcry demanded it in the Ray Rice case. She's saying that the NFL to this point has only two categories of behavior -- violent and non violent. Since that's the way they set it up, she's forced to put Deshaun's case in the non violent category and then punish him according to non violent precedent. She essentially punted and said that if you want a new category beyond the existing non violent/violent categories that exist -- you're going to have to be the one to create it. She's stuck with what she had to work with. Hard to argue with her logic.
She was also clear that she wasn't considering 24 cases but only 4. Like it or not, she makes the case that at least in the NFL's eyes, only 4 of the victims were credible because they only brought 4 victim's cases forward to be reviewed. She's punting again to the NFL -- essentially saying that if you want to discipline based on public perception and not the actual cases being considered - that the NFL is going to have to do that on their own.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
Then you shouldn't be as triggered as you are about Robinson's recommended suspension........much less inquiring as to whether "she's a minority"....That insinuation alone speaks to being triggered although you claim you're not..as if her recommendation of "only" 6 games was somehow possibly influenced by her standing as a minority........
I mean, If you're a man of christ that is.
Hervoyel
BUENO!
No, I doubt he cares at all. That's just what he looks like to me. Nobody cares what I think but out of habit I keep stating it. You'd think I'd learn by now wouldn't you? We're all leaving out his real punishment in this entire mess. He has to play in Cleveland.
She did say he lied.
He should get more than 6 games for lying.
Talk about a kangaroo court, Goodell will end up giving him 8 games which is what he wanted all along. I will bet you God'ell and Robinson have already hashed this out. If you lie before a judge usually you get the harshest penalty possible. But not in this case. Wonder why? The fix was in from the beginning. I'm just waiting for karma to strike.
Define triggered .
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Judge Robinson’s dig at the NFL is accurate, but in the Deshaun Watson case it was unavoidable
Posted by Mike Florio on August 2, 2022, 10:44 AM EDT
The 16-page decision from Judge Sue L. Robinson gives the NFL the factual findings necessary to impose, through the appeal process, a much longer suspension on Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson. But the written ruling does not leave the NFL unscathed.
Judge Robinson determined that Watson did what he’s accused of doing, and that he basically lied when he denied it. But she also declined to suspend Watson for a full year, because she concluded that the league’s policy and precedents did not justify something so stringent for a “non-violent sexual assault.”
In the first paragraph of the conclusion to her ruling, Judge Robinson chides the NFL for trying to do something that anyone who pays attention to the league knows that it does — make the rules up as it goes.
“The NFL may be a ‘forward-facing’ organization, but it is not necessarily a forward-looking one,” Judge Robinson wrote. “Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct [committed by former Ravens running back Ray Rice] after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson’s conduct. At least in the former situation, the Policy was changed and applied proactively. Here, the NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to — and consistency of consequence for — those in the NFL subject to the Policy.”
While accurate, this passage ignores reality and defies common sense. The entire Personal Conduct Policy apparatus is about managing, and ideally avoiding, public outcries. The league polices the private lives of players because the public expects the league to do it (and the union has agreed to allow it). And the league prefers to have flexibility to deal with unique situations that may arise.
Yes, the NFL tends to be far more reactive than proactive. But it’s one thing to fail to implement a proper procedure for ensuring that officials won’t fail to miss pass interference in a key moment of a playoff game (which is entirely foreseeable) and it’s quite another to not have a rule on the books for imposing proper discipline on a player who used his status as a pretext for setting up private massage that he actively tried to engineer into sexual encounters against the wishes of those providing the massages. As the league said in the hearing before Judge Robinson, the requested punishment is unprecedented because the conduct is unprecedented.
Judge Robinson, a lawyer and a former judge, treated this case too much like a lawyer. She accepted the effective and persuasive arguments of NFLPA counsel Jeffrey Kessler without taking a step back and applying common sense.
Again, she concluded that Watson was guilty. But she allowed herself to get bogged down by the fact that the league hadn’t, in her view, fairly warned Watson that his habit/fetish of hiring massage therapists and making unwelcome sexual advances toward them could get him suspended for a full year.
“The NFL argues that consistency is not possible, because there are no similarly-situated players,” Judge Robinson writes at page 13 of her decision. And the NFL is right. He’s the first person to have done this. What could or should the league have done differently in the crafting and application of its policies to provide fair notice to Watson that he could be suspended for a full season if he did that which Judge Robinsons concluded he had done?
As Chris Simms pointed out on PFT Live, the average player would assume that doing the things Watson did would get them suspended for a year, if not kicked out of the game for good. This issue of whether policies and precedent technically puts players on notice of the potential punishment for such misconduct assumes that they’re not oblivious to these niceties and technicalities. Most employees of any business are.
But employees have common sense. Watson not only committed the acts (as Judge Robinson concluded) but he also lied about doing so via his categorical denial of misconduct — and his broad and not credible claim that he never had an erection during a massage, even though some of the women who vouched for him admitted to NFL investigators that he did. What should someone who engages in that kind of behavior fairly expect by way of punishment?
It’s not clear from the ruling how or why Judge Robinson decided on a six-game suspension for Watson. She points out that the most commonly-imposed discipline for “violence and sexual acts” is six games, and that the most severe punishment for “non-violent sexual assault” was three games. Watson’s suspension was based on four victims. Was he suspended 1.5 games per accuser? And how does Jameis Winston (the player who was suspended three games for “non-violent sexual assault,” we’re told) engaging in one incident of spontaneous “non-violent sexual assault” with an Uber driver relate to Watson’s deliberate and extensive habit of using his name and his fame to arrange private massages that he tried to make into sexual encounters, even if the massage therapists weren’t interested in that?
There’s another problem with Judge Robinson’s decision, as it relates to her assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors. Although the league chose to present evidence of only four accusers, the fact that Watson was sued by 24 people should have at least been relevant when deciding whether to increase or decrease the punishment.
“With respect to what the appropriate discipline should be, I note that there are aggravating factors applicable to Mr. Watson, that is, his lack of expressed remorse and his tardy notice to the NFL of the first-filed lawsuit,” Judge Robinson wrote at page 14. “As to mitigating factors, he is a first-offender and had an excellent reputation in his community prior to these events. He cooperated in the investigation and has paid restitution.”
How is he a “first-offender” when there are 24 alleged offenses? How is he a “first-offender” when the New York Times has reported that he hired at least 66 women for private massages in a 17-month period? And how doe his “excellent reputation” prior to the four accusations that became the focal point of the hearing mesh with the existence of 24 lawsuits — or with the fact that he had managed to engage in this habit/fetish in secret for months if not years? While that evidence may not have been relevant to the question of whether he violated the policy, that evidence should have been considered as to the issue of aggravation and/or mitigation.
Before getting access to Judge Robinson’s ruling, I said that there was no way to know how she arrived at six games without reviewing the decision in full detail. Now that I have, I still don’t know how she arrived at six games. She doesn’t adequately explain it. And her effort to do so is woefully incomplete.
It’s almost as if she knows that the NFL will exercise its prerogative to appeal her decision to the Commissioner, and that he’ll ultimately pick whichever number he wants, and that she therefore decided not to bother with applying the elbow grease necessary to make her reasoning in the selection of six games as clear as it needs to be. Her reasoning doesn’t matter.
Once she found that, factually, he did it, she may as well have pulled the number of games out of a hat. Ultimately, Goodell will do whatever he wants to do. And based on the findings made by Judge Robinson, why wouldn’t Goodell still want the full-season suspension that he instructed his employees to request from Judge Robinson?
Posted by Mike Florio on August 2, 2022, 10:44 AM EDT
The 16-page decision from Judge Sue L. Robinson gives the NFL the factual findings necessary to impose, through the appeal process, a much longer suspension on Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson. But the written ruling does not leave the NFL unscathed.
Judge Robinson determined that Watson did what he’s accused of doing, and that he basically lied when he denied it. But she also declined to suspend Watson for a full year, because she concluded that the league’s policy and precedents did not justify something so stringent for a “non-violent sexual assault.”
In the first paragraph of the conclusion to her ruling, Judge Robinson chides the NFL for trying to do something that anyone who pays attention to the league knows that it does — make the rules up as it goes.
“The NFL may be a ‘forward-facing’ organization, but it is not necessarily a forward-looking one,” Judge Robinson wrote. “Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct [committed by former Ravens running back Ray Rice] after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson’s conduct. At least in the former situation, the Policy was changed and applied proactively. Here, the NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to — and consistency of consequence for — those in the NFL subject to the Policy.”
While accurate, this passage ignores reality and defies common sense. The entire Personal Conduct Policy apparatus is about managing, and ideally avoiding, public outcries. The league polices the private lives of players because the public expects the league to do it (and the union has agreed to allow it). And the league prefers to have flexibility to deal with unique situations that may arise.
Yes, the NFL tends to be far more reactive than proactive. But it’s one thing to fail to implement a proper procedure for ensuring that officials won’t fail to miss pass interference in a key moment of a playoff game (which is entirely foreseeable) and it’s quite another to not have a rule on the books for imposing proper discipline on a player who used his status as a pretext for setting up private massage that he actively tried to engineer into sexual encounters against the wishes of those providing the massages. As the league said in the hearing before Judge Robinson, the requested punishment is unprecedented because the conduct is unprecedented.
Judge Robinson, a lawyer and a former judge, treated this case too much like a lawyer. She accepted the effective and persuasive arguments of NFLPA counsel Jeffrey Kessler without taking a step back and applying common sense.
Again, she concluded that Watson was guilty. But she allowed herself to get bogged down by the fact that the league hadn’t, in her view, fairly warned Watson that his habit/fetish of hiring massage therapists and making unwelcome sexual advances toward them could get him suspended for a full year.
“The NFL argues that consistency is not possible, because there are no similarly-situated players,” Judge Robinson writes at page 13 of her decision. And the NFL is right. He’s the first person to have done this. What could or should the league have done differently in the crafting and application of its policies to provide fair notice to Watson that he could be suspended for a full season if he did that which Judge Robinsons concluded he had done?
As Chris Simms pointed out on PFT Live, the average player would assume that doing the things Watson did would get them suspended for a year, if not kicked out of the game for good. This issue of whether policies and precedent technically puts players on notice of the potential punishment for such misconduct assumes that they’re not oblivious to these niceties and technicalities. Most employees of any business are.
But employees have common sense. Watson not only committed the acts (as Judge Robinson concluded) but he also lied about doing so via his categorical denial of misconduct — and his broad and not credible claim that he never had an erection during a massage, even though some of the women who vouched for him admitted to NFL investigators that he did. What should someone who engages in that kind of behavior fairly expect by way of punishment?
It’s not clear from the ruling how or why Judge Robinson decided on a six-game suspension for Watson. She points out that the most commonly-imposed discipline for “violence and sexual acts” is six games, and that the most severe punishment for “non-violent sexual assault” was three games. Watson’s suspension was based on four victims. Was he suspended 1.5 games per accuser? And how does Jameis Winston (the player who was suspended three games for “non-violent sexual assault,” we’re told) engaging in one incident of spontaneous “non-violent sexual assault” with an Uber driver relate to Watson’s deliberate and extensive habit of using his name and his fame to arrange private massages that he tried to make into sexual encounters, even if the massage therapists weren’t interested in that?
There’s another problem with Judge Robinson’s decision, as it relates to her assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors. Although the league chose to present evidence of only four accusers, the fact that Watson was sued by 24 people should have at least been relevant when deciding whether to increase or decrease the punishment.
“With respect to what the appropriate discipline should be, I note that there are aggravating factors applicable to Mr. Watson, that is, his lack of expressed remorse and his tardy notice to the NFL of the first-filed lawsuit,” Judge Robinson wrote at page 14. “As to mitigating factors, he is a first-offender and had an excellent reputation in his community prior to these events. He cooperated in the investigation and has paid restitution.”
How is he a “first-offender” when there are 24 alleged offenses? How is he a “first-offender” when the New York Times has reported that he hired at least 66 women for private massages in a 17-month period? And how doe his “excellent reputation” prior to the four accusations that became the focal point of the hearing mesh with the existence of 24 lawsuits — or with the fact that he had managed to engage in this habit/fetish in secret for months if not years? While that evidence may not have been relevant to the question of whether he violated the policy, that evidence should have been considered as to the issue of aggravation and/or mitigation.
Before getting access to Judge Robinson’s ruling, I said that there was no way to know how she arrived at six games without reviewing the decision in full detail. Now that I have, I still don’t know how she arrived at six games. She doesn’t adequately explain it. And her effort to do so is woefully incomplete.
It’s almost as if she knows that the NFL will exercise its prerogative to appeal her decision to the Commissioner, and that he’ll ultimately pick whichever number he wants, and that she therefore decided not to bother with applying the elbow grease necessary to make her reasoning in the selection of six games as clear as it needs to be. Her reasoning doesn’t matter.
Once she found that, factually, he did it, she may as well have pulled the number of games out of a hat. Ultimately, Goodell will do whatever he wants to do. And based on the findings made by Judge Robinson, why wouldn’t Goodell still want the full-season suspension that he instructed his employees to request from Judge Robinson?
Max
Veteran
True, but rather than punishing him for lying, I think the best move for the NFL is to have a Ray Rice moment and take a stand against repeated sexual misconduct. The judge is giving the NFL a giant softball for them to hit out of the park the way that she positioned her argument. I see her ruling as egging the NFL on to make a change.
Texansballer74
The Marine
Spot on
True for most of things, but we all know how much importance the NFL front office puts on public perception as it relates to impacting their revenue streams.
And in this case, the "court of public perception" is certainly going to play a part in the NFL's final ruling. The more social media kicks up a dust storm about it, the more likely that storm will influence Goodell's decision making process.
At the end of the day, it's not about "right" or "wrong". It's all about that money-making shield.
Please tell me more about this "karma" that everyone keeps talking about.
Is it the Hindu version that impacts life after reincarnation? Or, is it the hippy-dippy Unicorn and pixie dust version that westerners babble about because they lack any deeper belief system beyond their material world?
I'm just not following evil actions getting some kind of cosmic balancing reckoning, simply because I don't see it in the real world on a consistent enough basis to believe in any of it.
I wish it were true. But Watson has 230 million reasons to call it B.S., regardless of how the NFL handles his ultimate punishment.
Carr Bombed
Hall of Fame
Carr Bombed
Hall of Fame
Yeah and for someone who ridiculed posters for still posting in this thread pages ago. (as others who did the same)... He's (they're) still posting in this thread. Here's a idea..don't click on the thread. Going around ridiculing and criticizing others who participate and share their opinions on this subject just makes you look like an ass.
Last edited:
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
I'm still gagging on the "first-time offender" reasoning of Robinson. You can pull iinto the argument the past violation and punishment of Winston. But you can't take into account the past 30-66 potential violations for determining suspensions. Winston was indeed a one-time offender. Trying to make Watson a first-time offender, and grouping all of his known and documented highly suspected violations into one act, is unconcsionable.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
I've posted in this thread when there's is/has been NEW news...not when you guys are in here doing which is rehashing the same old tired talking points about "karmic" justice being dolled out or massive injustices if it doesn't go the way you think it should....or posting every.... single..... twitter social justice warrior's take on the matter. Further, i may as well post in here considering the sewage from this thread winding up leaking over into the other football related threads.
1 big circle jerk inside of an echo chamber around here these days.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
It's not over until it's over.
maverick512000
Hall of Fame
Oh don't misunderstand I'm not saying at ALL that he cares about any of his clients nor do I think he would care if their name got dragged through the mud EXCEPT that it would hurt his case and could make the women back out of the suit. So yes in that sense he does care if it went to court and they got dragged through the mud.
Karma has always bitten me in the butt when I've done the wrong things.True for most of things, but we all know how much importance the NFL front office puts on public perception as it relates to impacting their revenue streams.
And in this case, the "court of public perception" is certainly going to play a part in the NFL's final ruling. The more social media kicks up a dust storm about it, the more likely that storm will influence Goodell's decision making process.
At the end of the day, it's not about "right" or "wrong". It's all about that money-making shield.
Please tell me more about this "karma" that everyone keeps talking about.
Is it the Hindu version that impacts life after reincarnation? Or, is it the hippy-dippy Unicorn and pixie dust version that westerners babble about because they lack any deeper belief system beyond their material world?
I'm just not following evil actions getting some kind of cosmic balancing reckoning, simply because I don't see it in the real world on a consistent enough basis to believe in any of it.
I wish it were true. But Watson has 230 million reasons to call it B.S., regardless of how the NFL handles his ultimate punishment.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
And that my friends is the bigger pic that alot around here don't wanna acknowledge.
maverick512000
Hall of Fame
Which is pretty much what she did looking at it from what we know. She looked at previous punishments that had been handed out and then said "This is worst" so she upped the number but then she said it couldn't go higher because of those previous punishments. So the previous punishments were both the driving force and the thing holding her judgment back? Seems like circular reasoning, I have to do this because of X but I also can't do this because of X. So I'm not really sure what logic she used to arrive at 6 games, it almost seems like it was just an arbitrary number hence why the conspiracy theories because 6-8 games was what the players union was rumored to be looking to get it to.
Fair enough. We each have our individual perception of things.
I've just experienced too many thieves, liars, swindlers, and cheats in the business world and rarely (if ever) do they ever get what they "deserve".
Heck, I know firsthand about the business dealings of one of our illustrious team owners here in Houston and he only continues to benefit and find success without any sort of cosmic justice coming his way.
maverick512000
Hall of Fame
No I do understand that and you seem to forget I'm the one that said the NFL is happy with this ruling and I don't believe they will seriously appeal or add much if anything to the sentence. My point is that if we are to believe that this new third party is fair and unbiased with their judgments then her ruling as far as the amount of games doesn't make sense. Its what is driving the conspiracy theories about all this because many people have said that 6-8 games was the range all parties would be happy with which is exactly what happened. Personally I don't care because I knew he wasn't going to jail and if he really did do something then my believes say a higher power will judge him in due time. I just find the process itself interesting and for me its fun to find the man behind the curtain.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
Someone pointed it out in a post in 1 of these damn threads, but basically she put in the NFL's hands...... basically saying if you wanted more for him in this situation, you should've been more detailed and explicit in how you define things in your policy......& they should've done more due dilligence. Only 14 of these women were interviewed by the NFL and they should've interviewed all 20 something of them. They should've brought her evidence from more than 4 to look at as well. They didn't. So his "lite" recommendation is on them, not her.
For the NFL's part, they likely didn't want to be more specific in their PCP b/c at that point THEY the owners are exposed. The PCP policy is likely intentionally vague to give Goodell the lattitude to again do as he pleases. Just another example of how the owners want to try to keep their foot on the necks of the players while, looking the other way at their own group's indescretions....Like Jim Irsay getting caught with an 8-ball of coke and high out of his mind...Snyder....Gruden and that whole fiasco....The Texans and all their drama over the last 2 years.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
do tell...private messaging of course so as not to "derail" the thread lol
Max
Veteran
Question for y'all: where do you place the public outrage of Watson's misdeeds in relation to Ray Rice or Michael Vick?
My gut tells me that it isn't close to either.
Seems clear that how the NFL perceives that outrage will determine how far they're willing to stick their neck out in adding to the 6 games.
My gut tells me that it isn't close to either.
Seems clear that how the NFL perceives that outrage will determine how far they're willing to stick their neck out in adding to the 6 games.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Judge Robinson calls Watson a "sexual predator," but doesn't see fit to mandate psychologic testing, let alone psychologic conseling or approporiate community service. 
What woman is really thinking about the nfl player conduct policy when considering bringing sexual assault charges against someone?
maverick512000
Hall of Fame
I'm not sure you can compare the three. With Rice there was video of him punching his wife, with Vick there were videos and pictures of the mangled and dead dogs. With Watson its a he said vs she and she and she and she and she and she and she etc. etc. said. There is no one that is not clinically insane that can say Rice and Vick didn't commit their crimes but with Watson, well playing devils's advocate you could make an argument. Now the interesting part of that is that the NFL has already been raked over the coals for ignoring the situation so long and their viewer base has a larger percentage of women than ever before, think its like 48% now, so the real question is when they look at the numbers how badly do they think Watson playing will hurt them. I'm guessing they, understandably so, believe people have short memories.
badboy
Hall of Fame
Yet Lebron went there
maverick512000
Hall of Fame
The women don't care what punishment he got. They got a settlement so while they may have wanted him to receive further punishment as revenge at the end of the day they got what Buzzbee promised them. What has been set back is the NFL "We now care about protecting women and stopping the bad behavior of our players" narrative but we all knew that was a false narrative anyway.
maverick512000
Hall of Fame
Cavaliers are a different story than the Browns. Cleveland has always been were QB careers go to die, while Chicago is where they are never born, and I hope that holds true for Watson is for no other reason than it makes those other 2 picks better.
Also Lebron played in Cleveland but pretty sure he stayed living in LA.
We've had folks on this Board who have speculated every step of the way about this whole mess so why stop now, and what say you about what appears to be what will be Buzzbutts latest attempt at grandstanding this Thursday ?
BTW I'm sure he will mention that Watsons penalty should have been much more severe than what the judge imposed.
All I can say I'm glad it's not our problem anymore and on with Texans' Training Camp !
Hervoyel
BUENO!
Yeah he did. Didn't he get drafted originally by them? 7 years in Cleveland gave him Stockholm Syndrome or something akin to it. He had to get out to win anything and then he went back to what? Try to prove that he could turn them around? Save them from being Cleveland?
Yeah he did. Didn't he get drafted originally by them? 7 years in Cleveland gave him Stockholm Syndrome or something akin to it. He had to get out to win anything and then he went back to what? Try to prove that he could turn them around? Save them from being Cleveland?
He's born and raised in Akron, which for reference is essentially Conroe to Houston..
He was born there, drafted there as the savior, left to win, then came back to finish his guilt-ridden savior-ship..
badboy
Hall of Fame
Cleveland as in city was post i quoted.
badboy
Hall of Fame
Surely you do not believe the women do not care about DWs punishment. That would assume it was cash grab. They can take $ and continue to want him to be punished.
TexansBull
Hall of Fame
Still ain’t as good as Jordan.
She said she thought Derrick lied to her. That in it self is reason for more than a 6 game suspension. She thinks he did this to those women and still recommended a light punishment.
Why do you care about management so much. Who cares if irsay had coke. I normally don't care what players do on their own time. But even I draw the line at murder/sexual predator.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
preaching about “protecting the shield”….”integrity” and other corporate responsibility catch phrases and words rings hollow to the “underlings” and/or partners (b/c that’s actually what the players are) when “management” isnt even practcing what they preach.
i cant lecture someone about being a good father and then go out and beat the **** outta my kids every night.
it’s hypocritical and you cant be taken serious in any realm of business or personal situations.