Deshaun Watson admits under oath that Ashley Solis cried at the end of the massage

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, Warcodered said:

Yeah, whoever prepped him and told him to say things like "it wasn't a/my priority," made a terrible decision.

 

How else were they going to prep him? He can't say "yes I cared deeply about how I qualified they are" that is easily disprovable by the fact that many of them were not qualified. So once you take that option out I am not sure what else you prep him to say. I think "that wasn't my priority" is about as far as he can go. 

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

 

Im wondering why the NFL didn’t step in and suspend Watson before he was traded to Cleveland? Players have been suspended before without ever being charged with a crime. So with his large civil case still growing why didn’t the NFL step in like they normally do?

 

Agree. I have been arguing from the start that the NFL should immediately have put him on the commissioner's exempt list when the scale of the accusations became clear last spring. That is essentially a suspension with pay, which I think would have been appropriate while the investigations are ongoing. Then at the conclusion of the processes the NFL could have moved to its disciplinary stage and turned that into a formal suspension without pay.  

 

The mess they got themselves into is saying "he isn't gonna play for Houston anyway so we don't need to do anything." The problem - as I said many times last season - is if as soon as he does move you then try and put him on the exempt list that is awkward legally because his legal team could have argued that is an irrational application of the policy (something either deserves the exempt list, or it doesn't, you can't decide based on whether that player will play or won't you have to decide based on the accusatio or offense). And if they put him on the list now they failed to put him on when criminal charges were a possibility but then do put him on once they are not - again, legally, that could be argued as an irrational application of the Commissioner' discretion. 

 

Therefore the only option the NFL has left themselves with now is the formal discipline and if they want the formal discipline to come before the 2022 season that likely means before any of the civil suits reach a courtroom. Which risks the NFL giving one punishment and then more coming out in court and them looking silly. 

 

They haven't handled this well IMO. Should have gone on the Commissioner's list last April / May and should be there until the legal process has concluded. Then the NFL discipline should kick in and then only after that would he potentially be eligible to return. 

9 hours ago, thenorthremembers said:

Depends on how you look at it.  The intent here by the defense is probably to show by not caring about their skill level it was obvious that this was really never about giving a massage, and more of a consensual hook up.

 

I mean they don't have a lot to work with here.  Its fairly obvious the guy is a pervert. 

 

Agree. Given the scenario he is in it is probably what I'd have advised tbh. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by GunnerBill

[mannc]

8 hours ago, aristocrat said:

At this point it seems he needs to get the perma ban. Browns void the deal for morals. League unwinds the trade. 

How can they unwind it? Houston already used some of the picks they got in the trade.  
 

Cleveland is stuck with this guy.  It’s “buyer beware” and Watson’s problems were hardly a secret at the time of the trade. The Browns made a guy who should have to register as a sex offender the face of their franchise. They own it now.

[mannc]

25 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree. I have been arguing from the start that the NFL should immediately have put him on the commissioner's exempt list when the scale of the accusations became clear last spring. That is essentially a suspension with pay, which I think would have been appropriate while the investigations are ongoing. Then at the conclusion of the processes the NFL could have moved to its disciplinary stage and turned that into a formal suspension without pay.  

 

The mess they got themselves into is saying "he isn't gonna play for Houston anyway so we don't need to do anything." The problem - as I said many times last season - is if as soon as he does move you then try and put him on the exempt list that is awkward legally because his legal team could have argued that is an irrational application of the policy (something either deserves the exempt list, or it doesn't, you can't decide based on whether that player will play or won't you have to decide based on the accusatio or offense). And if they put him on the list now they failed to put him on when criminal charges were a possibility but then do put him on once they are not - again, legally, that could be argued as an irrational application of the Commissioner' discretion. 

 

Therefore the only option the NFL has left themselves with now is the formal discipline and if they want the formal discipline to come before the 2022 season that likely means before any of the civil suits reach a courtroom. Which risks the NFL giving one punishment and then more coming out in court and them looking silly. 

 

They haven't handled this well IMO. Should have gone on the Commissioner's list last April / May and should be there until the legal process has concluded. Then the NFL discipline should kick in and then only after that would he potentially be eligible to return. 

 

Agree. Given the scenario he is in it is probably what I'd have advised tbh. 

Gunner, how would this have played out if Watson were an EPL star instead of an NFL QB?

[GunnerBill]

Just now, mannc said:

Gunner, how would this have played out if Watson were an EPL star instead of an NFL QB?

 

The most obvious current case to compare to is Mason Greenwood, who is one of the shining young lights at Manchester United and was on the fringes of the England squad. Late last year he was accused of DV and raping his girlfriend and he was immediately suspended on full pay by Manchester United pending the policy investigation. He is currently out on bail and a decision on whether to charge him is expected shortly. 

 

There are two key differences:

1. There is video footage of one of the incidents where Greenwood's girlfriend can be hear saying she doesn't want sex and he continues to force himself on her telling her he doesn't case and she should shut up; and

2. The Premier League and the FA as the governing bodies don't have jurisdiction in the same way that the NFL does. His employer is Manchester United, we don't have a franchise model so the decision on discipline for non-football related matters is left with the club.

 

If he is charged and goes to trial my suspicion is he will stay suspended by Manchester United pending that trial. If he is found guilty in a criminal court his football career is over even if he gets out of prison while still physically capable of playing. If, however, he is found not guilty he will continue his career. The question is whether that is at Manchester United or a lower level and that might depend how damaging what comes out at the trial is. We have a recent example of a prominent player in the second tier who was accused, tried and originally convicted of rape, but who later had his conviction quashed on appeal who is still playing though he did end up playing a level below his true ability because of the reputational damage for bigger clubs who rely on sponsorship deals from national brands etc. 

 

We also have Yves Bissouma who was arrested just before Christmas and accused of sexual assault who is also currently on bail. He plays for Brighton in the Premier League, but where there is no smoking gun video evidence he continued to play for Brighton while investigations are ongoing. A charging decision on his case was due this week but I haven't seen anything yet either way. 

[aristocrat]

29 minutes ago, mannc said:

How can they unwind it? Houston already used some of the picks they got in the trade.  
 

Cleveland is stuck with this guy.  It’s “buyer beware” and Watson’s problems were hardly a secret at the time of the trade. The Browns made a guy who should have to register as a sex offender the face of their franchise. They own it now.

 

If the Texans didn't disclose the NDA and other things they may have known about the Browns could make this ugly. There are still 23, 24 firsts and some other picks so send those back to the Browns and ban Watson from the league. Story over. Texans still make out with the picks they had this year. 

[mannc]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The most obvious current case to compare to is Mason Greenwood, who is one of the shining young lights at Manchester United and was on the fringes of the England squad. Late last year he was accused of DV and raping his girlfriend and he was immediately suspended on full pay by Manchester United pending the policy investigation. He is currently out on bail and a decision on whether to charge him is expected shortly. 

 

There are two key differences:

1. There is video footage of one of the incidents where Greenwood's girlfriend can be hear saying she doesn't want sex and he continues to force himself on her telling her he doesn't case and she should shut up; and

2. The Premier League and the FA as the governing bodies don't have jurisdiction in the same way that the NFL does. His employer is Manchester United, we don't have a franchise model so the decision on discipline for non-football related matters is left with the club.

 

If he is charged and goes to trial my suspicion is he will stay suspended by Manchester United pending that trial. If he is found guilty in a criminal court his football career is over even if he gets out of prison while still physically capable of playing. If, however, he is found not guilty he will continue his career. The question is whether that is at Manchester United or a lower level and that might depend how damaging what comes out at the trial is. We have a recent example of a prominent player in the second tier who was accused, tried and originally convicted of rape, but who later had his conviction quashed on appeal who is still playing though he did end up playing a level below his true ability because of the reputational damage for bigger clubs who rely on sponsorship deals from national brands etc. 

 

We also have Yves Bissouma who was arrested just before Christmas and accused of sexual assault who is also currently on bail. He plays for Brighton in the Premier League, but where there is no smoking gun video evidence he continued to play for Brighton while investigations are ongoing. A charging decision on his case was due this week but I haven't seen anything yet either way. 

So it seems like there is no governing body like the NFL commissioner’s office that can step in? All up to the team?

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

If the Texans didn't disclose the NDA and other things they may have known about the Browns could make this ugly. There are still 23, 24 firsts and some other picks so send those back to the Browns and ban Watson from the league. Story over. Texans still make out with the picks they had this year. 

I don’t think that’s the way it works.  When a team trades for a player, I don’t think there are any “reps and warranties” from the player’s old team, other than perhaps regarding the player’s medical condition.
 

In this case, there were so many bad facts that were publicly known, it would be impossible for the Browns to convince anyone that they got scammed. Plus, the Browns knew that the league had yet to weigh in, so they ran the risk of trading for a guy who potentially wasn’t going to be available…they had plenty of opportunity to vet the situation and they utterly failed.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Anyone remember Darren Sharper? Was accused of rape by multiple women but the cases were dismissed? He continued to rape multiple women for 3 more years.

I bet Watson is still doing it today. Maybe just using prostitutes but there’s no way he’d be able to stop his addiction without serious help.

 

 

[aristocrat]

6 minutes ago, mannc said:

I don’t think that’s the way it works.  When a team trades for a player, I don’t think there are any “reps and warranties” from the player’s old team, other than perhaps regarding the player’s medical condition.
 

In this case, there were so many bad facts that were publicly known, it would be impossible for the Browns to convince anyone that they got scammed. Plus, the Browns knew that the league had yet to weigh in, so they ran the risk of trading for a guy who potentially wasn’t going to be available…they had plenty of opportunity to vet the situation and they utterly failed.

 

This is certainly a pretty unique situaton and the league can do whatever it wants.  Now, I don't know what the Browns knew and what the Texans told them so I'm just making some assumptions.  But, if there is an understanding that the only cases were the orginal 22 or so and now more came out the Browns could have a case. The league would want to just have a board meeting to protect the shield as they say and just get beyond this.  Is this likely? Probably not

[Buffalo_Stampede]

11 minutes ago, mannc said:

So it seems like there is no governing body like the NFL commissioner’s office that can step in? All up to the team?

I’m wondering if they were worried about the lack of punishment for Robert Kraft coming back up. 

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I’m wondering if they were worried about the lack of punishment for Robert Kraft coming back up. 

Totally different situation.  As gross as it was, I don’t think Kraft’s conduct was ever alleged to be anything but consensual.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

Totally different situation.  As gross as it was, I don’t think Kraft’s conduct was ever alleged to be anything but consensual.

It was illegal prostitution but the videos of him paying for sex acts were thrown out and destroyed by a judge. No evidence remained.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by different? Both allegedly committed crimes. In Krafts case he was caught on video.

[mannc]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

It was illegal prostitution but the videos of him paying for sex acts were thrown out and destroyed by a judge. No evidence remained.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by different? Both allegedly committed crimes. In Krafts case he was caught on video.

You don’t see the difference between consensual sex acts between adults and (alleged) sexual assault?

[aristocrat]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

It was illegal prostitution but the videos of him paying for sex acts were thrown out and destroyed by a judge. No evidence remained.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by different? Both allegedly committed crimes. In Krafts case he was caught on video.

 

Krafts video was destroyed I believe based on the way the cops collected it. The woman was a willing participant in the situation. Kraft should have gotten a conviction out of it  but it wasn't rape. What watson is doing is non consensual. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

7 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Krafts video was destroyed I believe based on the way the cops collected it. The woman was a willing participant in the situation. Kraft should have gotten a conviction out of it  but it wasn't rape. What watson is doing is non consensual. 

Rape and illegal prostitution are crimes. I’m not saying they’re the same crime. I’m saying both committed crimes, Kraft was caught on video.

 

The NFL decided not to punish Kraft for illegal prostitution because the video was destroyed.

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, mannc said:

You don’t see the difference between consensual sex acts between adults and (alleged) sexual assault?

It was prostitution. A crime. I’m not talking about rape vs prostitution.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[aristocrat]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Rape and illegal prostitution are crimes. I’m not saying they’re the same crime. I’m saying both committed crimes, Kraft was caught on video.

 

The NFL decided not to punish Kraft for illegal prostitution because the video was destroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

Homicide and speeding are also crimes. They should not be considered equal though. What Kraft did was maybe a fine from the league and an apology.  What Watson has been doing is perma ban from the league stuff. 

[GunnerBill]

56 minutes ago, mannc said:

So it seems like there is no governing body like the NFL commissioner’s office that can step in? All up to the team?

 

Correct. The FA and Premier League do not have jurisdiction over conduct outside of football. The players are not ultimately contracted to the league in the same way as the NFL. It is not a franchise model. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

6 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Homicide and speeding are also crimes. They should not be considered equal though. What Kraft did was maybe a fine from the league and an apology.  What Watson has been doing is perma ban from the league stuff. 

A traffic violation shouldn’t get you arrested unless you’re committing a crime.

 

So no you’re not correct. The only reason Kraft escaped punishment from the league is because the video wasn’t allowed as evidence. 
 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Buffalo_Stampede

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, aristocrat said:

 

If the Texans didn't disclose the NDA and other things they may have known about the Browns could make this ugly. There are still 23, 24 firsts and some other picks so send those back to the Browns and ban Watson from the league. Story over. Texans still make out with the picks they had this year. 

 

Where is the duty on the Texans to disclose those things? Unless there is something I am not aware of in the NFL rulebook there is no requirement on them to do so.