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

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

I agree. Just in time for whatever the ruling is to be drowned out by the opening of training camps.

 

Nothing will drown this out. The idea of the "weekend bad news dump" is a thing of the past. The media machine never turns off anymore and Watson is by far the biggest story of the offseason. I don't think the NFL is strategically trying to place the date of the suspension announcement. I think they have intentionally dragged their feet in the hopes that all of the cases would be settled out of court before the disciplinary hearing. But now they've run out of time. The Browns need to know what their QB situation will look like by the start of training camp.

[BarleyNY]

9 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Nothing will drown this out. The idea of the "weekend bad news dump" is a thing of the past. The media machine never turns off anymore and Watson is by far the biggest story of the offseason. I don't think the NFL is strategically trying to place the date of the suspension announcement. I think they have intentionally dragged their feet in the hopes that all of the cases would be settled out of court before the disciplinary hearing. But now they've run out of time. The Browns need to know what their QB situation will look like by the start of training camp.

That’s true about the NFL hoping the cases would all be settled.  I think that they also expected Watson to negotiate a suspension with them.  And they did run out of time.

 

But I don’t think it will be as big of a story once the decision has been made and any suspension finalized.  Lots of intrigue and uncertainty now to go along with salacious details to keep people interested.  But that’s going to be over soon and there will be a lot of competing NFL storylines.  Right now there’s nothing else NFL related to talk about.  

[The Wiz]

21 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Nothing will drown this out. The idea of the "weekend bad news dump" is a thing of the past. The media machine never turns off anymore and Watson is by far the biggest story of the offseason. I don't think the NFL is strategically trying to place the date of the suspension announcement. I think they have intentionally dragged their feet in the hopes that all of the cases would be settled out of court before the disciplinary hearing. But now they've run out of time. The Browns need to know what their QB situation will look like by the start of training camp.

I think they have known for awhile now.

 

[Saxum]

On 7/1/2022 at 12:07 PM, The Wiz said:

I think they have known for awhile now.

 

 

Brissett should hold out for a raise and a fully guaranteed contract due to "uncertain" position he was put in and possible damage to his reputation playing for a team trying to keep Watson from financially punished by Browns.

[CSBill]

On 7/1/2022 at 11:33 AM, BarleyNY said:

I agree. Just in time for whatever the ruling is to be drowned out by the opening of training camps.

If I’m the NFL, I wait until about a week (or less) before the season starts, to screw over the Browns management just a little more. 🤪

[Augie]

21 minutes ago, CSBill said:

If I’m the NFL, I wait until about a week (or less) before the season starts, to screw over the Browns management just a little more. 🤪

 

I might wait until an hour before kickoff, then send the StayPuft Marshmallow Man to take them all out! 

 

 

[maddenboy]

"Indefininte Suspension" is a non-starter for Watson.

 

It means "until all the cases are final.  Just in case."  And it is lazy by the NFL.  Because Watson will ask "what would make it Definite?"

 

Watson's problem is that as soon as its "Indefinite Suspension" then the remaining plaintiffs' leverage goes through the roof.  And the NFL must know this. 

 

The arbiter (retired Federal Judge) knows this too, and how unfair that would be to Watson. 

 

The real question for me is:  If any arbitration is appealed to Goodell, will he be able to change her decison to "Indefinite?"  Because if so, then Goodell has leverage over watson.  Goodell says "You had better make a deal with me for Any number, as long as its a finite number"

 

[Fan in Chicago]

On 7/1/2022 at 10:45 AM, HappyDays said:

The Browns need to know what their QB situation will look like by the start of training camp.

They should know by now that their situation is going to be a total mess. They can choose to molly coddle Mayfield into playing well or get a Plan C in place . Their upcoming season is going to be a disaster unless Mayfield takes the high road and plays well enough to keep the Browns from being the worst team in the NFL

Edited July 3, 2022 by Fan in Chicago

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, maddenboy said:

"Indefininte Suspension" is a non-starter for Watson.

 

It means "until all the cases are final.  Just in case."  And it is lazy by the NFL.  Because Watson will ask "what would make it Definite?"

 

Watson's problem is that as soon as its "Indefinite Suspension" then the remaining plaintiffs' leverage goes through the roof.  And the NFL must know this. 

 

The arbiter (retired Federal Judge) knows this too, and how unfair that would be to Watson. 

 

The real question for me is:  If any arbitration is appealed to Goodell, will he be able to change her decison to "Indefinite?"  Because if so, then Goodell has leverage over watson.  Goodell says "You had better make a deal with me for Any number, as long as its a finite number"

 

Yes.  Roger Goodell could put Watson on an indefinite suspension only if the arbiter finds him guilty of violating the personal conduct policy.  If she doesn't then he gets no suspension and there's nothing the NFL can do about it.  If he is found guilty, Goodell could reduce or increase the number of suspended games that the arbiter sentences Watson too based off an appeal either by the NFL or Watson.  However, since this is the first test of the real process I highly doubt he'll overrule Robinson's decision unless she suspends him an excessively high number of games (or seasons).

[maddenboy]

a thought occurs

 

If she finds he violated the policy, does she have options besides suspension and/or a fine?  She could find him "guilty" and impose the same "penalty" that Robert Kraft got.  Or some other non-appealable "penalty."

 

in other words:  What other un-appealable penalties can she impose?   I havent read the CBA and dont care to, but does she have a loophole out of this?   Like the equivalent of a suspended sentence perhaps. 

 

"I sentence you to 2 years supension.  But if, after 6 games of that suspension (with you not playing and not being paid) you have not re-offended (committed a new offense after today's date, and not counting past conduct), you will be automatically eligible to resume your career as normal.  And if you ever re-offend, the remaining balance of my suspension becomes effective immediately" or similar.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by maddenboy

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, maddenboy said:

a thought occurs

 

If she finds he violated the policy, does she have options besides suspension and/or a fine?  She could find him "guilty" and impose the same "penalty" that Robert Kraft got.  Or some other non-appealable "penalty."

 

in other words:  What other un-appealable penalties can she impose?   I havent read the CBA and dont care to, but does she have a loophole out of this?   Like the equivalent of a suspended sentence perhaps. 

 

"I sentence you to 2 years supension.  But if, after 6 games of that suspension (with you not playing and not being paid) you have not re-offended (committed a new offense after today's date, and not counting past conduct), you will be automatically eligible to resume your career as normal.  And if you ever re-offend, the remaining balance of my suspension becomes effective immediately" or similar.

 

 

 

Kraft received no penalty, so.....probably not.  And 6 games suspension doesn't sound like non-suspension option.

 

Any penalty she hands down can be appealed by either side.....to Goodell.

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Kraft received no penalty, so.....probably not.  And 6 games suspension doesn't sound like non-suspension option.

 

Any penalty she hands down can be appealed by either side.....to Goodell.

 

The problem with the Kraft situation is that the league didn’t even pursue charging him with a violation of the PCP.

[julian]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Yes.  Roger Goodell could put Watson on an indefinite suspension only if the arbiter finds him guilty of violating the personal conduct policy.  If she doesn't then he gets no suspension and there's nothing the NFL can do about it.  If he is found guilty, Goodell could reduce or increase the number of suspended games that the arbiter sentences Watson too based off an appeal either by the NFL or Watson.  However, since this is the first test of the real process I highly doubt he'll overrule Robinson's decision unless she suspends him an excessively high number of games (or seasons).

Or if she goes with too soft with not long enough of a suspension.

[maddenboy]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Kraft received no penalty, so.....probably not.  And 6 games suspension doesn't sound like non-suspension option.

 

maybe i articulated it wrong

 

in my scneario it is a 2 year suspension.  with all of it except the first 6 games becoming 'suspended' after the first six games of the 2 year suspsension have been served.

 

my point was whether the judge could find a 'workaround' or loophole.  You flatly stated there isnt one.  It would be helpful if one of our brethrem who has read the relevant portions of the current CBA can add something here.

 

Here, Goodell can say "eff it.  its a 2 year suspension so my women customers are placated" and probably after some market research.  So the NFL wont 'appeal.'  And Watson can say "eff it.  6 games I can live with.  Eff it.  lets get on with it."

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by maddenboy

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

 

The problem with the Kraft situation is that the league didn’t even pursue charging him with a violation of the PCP.

I thought that was because the video evidence (which is all the NFL had to go on) was found inadmissible in court.  No civil lawsuits were filed against him either as these workers went in with the expectation of giving him a "happy ending."  A lot different than independent masseuse workers who thought they were just giving a professional masseuse before being surprised by Watson who wanted sexual favors from them.  

 

Having said that, the NFL should revisit the Kraft situation and take away first round picks from them.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, maddenboy said:

maybe i articulated it wrong

 

in my scneario it is a 2 year suspension.  with all of it except the first 6 games becoming 'suspended' after the first six games of the 2 year suspsension have been served.

 

my point was whether the judge could find a 'workaround' or loophole.  You flatly stated there isnt one.  It would be helpful if one of our brethrem who has read the relevant portions of the current CBA can add something here.

 

Here, Goodell can say "eff it.  its a 2 year suspension so my women customers are placated" and probably after some market research.  So the NFL wont 'appeal.'  And Watson can say "eff it.  6 games I can live with.  Eff it.  lets get on with it."

 

I didn’t say there wasn’t a loophole.  I said a 6 game suspension is a 6 game suspension, not a “suspended sentence”. 
 

You said a loophole would include “nonsuspension”.   
 

it would make no sense to have a conditional suspension.  He will be suspended based on what he has done up to this point.  If he commits further acts he will be suspended again.  

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I thought that was because the video evidence (which is all the NFL had to go on) was found inadmissible in court.  No civil lawsuits were filed against him either as these workers went in with the expectation of giving him a "happy ending."  A lot different than independent masseuse workers who thought they were just giving a professional masseuse before being surprised by Watson who wanted sexual favors from them.  

 

Having said that, the NFL should revisit the Kraft situation and take away first round picks from them.

NE 1st rounds picks all suck, no?  
 

mo punishment there

[Saxum]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I thought that was because the video evidence (which is all the NFL had to go on) was found inadmissible in court.  No civil lawsuits were filed against him either as these workers went in with the expectation of giving him a "happy ending."  A lot different than independent masseuse workers who thought they were just giving a professional masseuse before being surprised by Watson who wanted sexual favors from them.  

 

Having said that, the NFL should revisit the Kraft situation and take away first round picks from them.

 

Of the three situations Krafty one is least damaging.  He was not preventing anyone from keeping their job and people were not employed by NFL as were those in Dallas and Fixboro. In some communities is has been decriminalized like MJ - not legal but not prosecuted either.

[BarleyNY]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I thought that was because the video evidence (which is all the NFL had to go on) was found inadmissible in court.  No civil lawsuits were filed against him either as these workers went in with the expectation of giving him a "happy ending."  A lot different than independent masseuse workers who thought they were just giving a professional masseuse before being surprised by Watson who wanted sexual favors from them.  

 

Having said that, the NFL should revisit the Kraft situation and take away first round picks from them.

Kraft was charged with solicitation of prostitution.  The video evidence of him doing so (more than once) was found to be inadmissible, so those criminal charges were dropped.  But the video proof was certainly something the NFL could use and should have resulted in him being found in violation of the PCP.  But the NFL chose to sweep it under the rug.  Snyder has done far worse.  

 

Watson’s lawyers have stressed that Watson was not charged with a crime - by two grand juries - and they contend that the civil suits were nuisances.  Anyone can file a civil suit against anyone else, so what matters (or should matter) to the NFL is the evidence that is brought to light by such cases.  The NFL did not submit any evidence of violence, threats of violence or coercion.  So that leaves us with Watson trying to talk women who were giving him massages into having sex with him as potential violations.  I can’t imagine that would stick, but if the arbiter thinks that is enough to suspend Watson then that’s what she will do.

 

The other issue is the clause written into the policy:

 

“Ownership and club or league management have traditionally been held to a higher standard and will be subject to more significant discipline when violations of the Personal Conduct Policy occur.”

 

Watson’s lawyers have argued that the league’s inaction with Kraft, Snyder and Jones would warrant dismissal based on that clause.  If the arbiter takes those as precedent, then that will likely be what happens.  But it’s not a given that will be the case.

 

Originally I expected a suspension of 6-8 games for Watson, but after hearing info from the case I think there’s a real chance it will be dismissed.  The NFL really looks like they screwed it up by ignoring the violations by owners and half-assing their side of the case.  I know they are pissed that Watson didn’t negotiate a suspension and has maintained his innocence.  If the arbiter finds that Watson is in violation of the PCP and issues a light or moderate suspension, I can see Goodell overruling it and dropping the hammer.  That might lead to more issues, but I’m not sure cool heads would prevail. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

Kraft was charged with solicitation of prostitution.  The video evidence of him doing so (more than once) was found to be inadmissible, so those criminal charges were dropped.  But the video proof was certainly something the NFL could use and should have resulted in him being found in violation of the PCP.  But the NFL chose to sweep it under the rug.  

 

 

The NFL had no such video, so, no.