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

[Doc Brown]

17 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Calvin Ridley on injured reserved bets $1500 on a sports betting app on a league that's in partnership with gambling companies.  Gets suspended a year...... 

NFLPA - no problem.

 

DeShaun Watson has 24 civil lawsuits charging sexual misconduct.  

NFLPA- If he gets suspended for a year we will sue you in federal court.

 

You can't tell me that Goodell and JC Tretter aren't negotiating behind the scenes to make both sides come out of this with the least egg on their face as possible.

[corta765]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Calvin Ridley on injured reserved bets $1500 on a sports betting app on a league that's in partnership with gambling companies.  Gets suspended a year...... 

NFLPA - no problem.

 

The thing with Ridley is gambling on the league literally puts the integrity of the game in question. On the general scale of what he did being wrong its a 2 out of 10, but the league had zero option but nuclear as a deterrent for all future players to even think of being caught in this. They have billion dollars in partnerships all over the last thing they need is stuff like that floating. And yea I am sure they know players have people gamble for them, but the last thing they need is actual players name attached to that stuff.

[Mr. WEO]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not saying the NFLPA would succeed. I am saying that they have an arguable case. And the NFL has definitely been claiming since it revamped its disciplinary process that its word is final (essentially that the courts are ousted) and it simply isn't true. 

 

Of course the courts will give a high level of deference to the arbitration decision. They are not simply going to involve themselves because they thing a penalty is too harsh or too leniant. In that situation a court would simply refuse to get involved. You have to get beyond that into questions about whether the decision maker has been procedurally fair - have they followed their own process to the letter and have they done that rationally. 

 

It is a high bar for the NFLPA to prove to a court that the NFL hasn't.... but if they can get into the door and get the court to hear the case even that in itself undermines what the NFL has been claiming. 

 

 

I think the NFL's confidence (or "claim", as you put it) that the court's reach is almost nil is based on its own precedent precedent.  And since those decisions were handed down, a new CBA has been agreed upon that has made the suspension process more deliberative than it was when those cases were in Federal court.   Adding now a jointly agreed upon finder of fact/decider of punishment (Robinson), I really don't know how the NFLPA tells the court that the NFL's own policy and procedure were not followed rationally.  Dropping Kraft's name doesn't seem to get them in that door.

 

But I guess if a case is filed in court, it has to be heard.  NFL's response will be "Ok, whatever".

[DaggersEOD]

15 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The courts have been loathe to decide disputes that is absolutely true. But they have been clear with the NFL when it has not applied its own policy rationally. Depending on the outcome the Watson camp clearly believes it could make a credible argument to that effect. I think they could too in some circumstances. It would not be a slam dunk that they'd win the argument, but I think they have a makeable case. 

 

What I meant about threatening the NFL with courts getting into their business is not so much the courts saying "ooo but look what this owner did and you didn't suspend him" but more it exposes as the fallacy that it always was the narrative that the NFL and its mouth piece Florio have been pushing that it has somehow ousted the courts from jurisdiction over disputes should a party put a matter before them. You can't completely oust the courts simply by having a collectively bargained position. 

Well technically, neither Snyder nor Kraft have played a single snap since their “conduct unbecoming” situations. 
 

I mean if we’re comparing apples to apples on the punishment side. 😁

Edited July 19, 2022 by DaggersEOD
Autocorrect

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, The Wiz said:

That's Clevelands fault for not doing an actual investigation on him prior to making the deal. 

 

wrong.

 

 

He was already under investigation by the NFL, he was being sued by 22 women...the DOLPHINS had already passed on him.

 

Here's what they said after all that:

 

“spent a tremendous amount of time exploring and investigating the opportunity to trade for Deshaun Watson.” They add that the franchise had “done extensive investigative, legal and reference work over the past several months to provide us with the appropriate information needed to make an informed decision about pursuing him and moving forward with him as our quarterback.” The statement also says Watson was “humble, sincere, and candid” in their conversations.

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

[The Wiz]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

wrong.

 

 

He was already under investigation by the NFL, he was being sued by 22 women...the DOLPHINS had already passed on him.

 

Here's what they said after all that:

 

“spent a tremendous amount of time exploring and investigating the opportunity to trade for Deshaun Watson.” They add that the franchise had “done extensive investigative, legal and reference work over the past several months to provide us with the appropriate information needed to make an informed decision about pursuing him and moving forward with him as our quarterback.” The statement also says Watson was “humble, sincere, and candid” in their conversations.

 

 

So Cleveland did their own investigation and never asked "so it's just the 22 women, right?  There shouldn't be any more that come up?"

 

And anything they say is just plain old PR spin to make it sound like they did the right things prior to signing him. 

[BarleyNY]

34 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

Sue Robinson’s determination of the relevancy of the owner’s clause is of enormous importance in this case.  That and the NFL’s blatant disregard for keeping their own house clean. 

[eball]

1 minute ago, BarleyNY said:

Sue Robinson’s determination of the relevancy of the owner’s clause is of enormous importance in this case.  That and the NFL’s blatant disregard for keeping their own house clean. 

 

It likely IS irrelevant, since I'm unaware of any owner being sued by more than two dozen women for sexual assault.  There is no precedent.

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, The Wiz said:

So Cleveland did their own investigation and never asked "so it's just the 22 women, right?  There shouldn't be any more that come up?"

 

And anything they say is just plain old PR spin to make it sound like they did the right things prior to signing him. 

 

 

you said they didn't do a real investigation.  they say they did.  I think they just didn't care about what they found out.  They were going to sign him as long as he wasn't arrested.  I bet he didn't tell New Orleans or Indy about the 23rd and 24th either.

39 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Sue Robinson’s determination of the relevancy of the owner’s clause is of enormous importance in this case.  That and the NFL’s blatant disregard for keeping their own house clean. 

 

 

I don't think it is, for reasons I've mentioned upstream re: Kraft and Snyder.

[BarleyNY]

5 hours ago, eball said:

 

It likely IS irrelevant, since I'm unaware of any owner being sued by more than two dozen women for sexual assault.  There is no precedent.

 

I’m not a lawyer so it’s just an interesting question to me.  I’ll just wait and see what the federal judge says.

 

Edited to add: Snyder was accused by 40 or so women employees of sexual harassment, hostile working conditions, etc.  One facet of that was him trying to prostitute cheerleaders out to his big customers.  The NFL fined him $10M and he also briefly put the team in his wife’s name.  That certainly could be a precedent in the NFL’s favor.  Kraft and Jones, not so much however. 
 

Also it’s worth nothing that in Watson’s case the NFL didn’t bring  up 26 women.  They came in with 5 and one got thrown out. The judge will only consider the 4 in front of her.

Edited July 19, 2022 by BarleyNY

[K D]

i think they are hoping the longer this plays out the more the media/fans lose interest in the story and put away their pitchforks.  people have moved on to other stories like racist Sesame Street characters.  it seemed unfathomable a month ago that Watson would play for the Browns this season.  now it seems more likely that he will get a slap on the wrist and be back after their bye week.  what a world we live in

[ALF]

Browns quietly brace for eight-game Deshaun Watson suspension
Posted by Mike Florio on July 19, 2022

 

The next question becomes whether they’d fully entrust the starting job to Jacoby Brissett for those eight games, or whether they’ll try to acquire someone else.

 

There’s apparently some chatter about the possibility of the Browns adding Cam Newton, in the event that Watson isn’t available for the full season. Would Newton be an option for half of the season? Would he be the backup to Brissett or the starter?

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/07/19/browns-quietly-brace-for-eight-game-deshaun-watson-suspension/

[YoloinOhio]

If he’s out 8 games he might as well be out the whole season. Brissett is not a starter. Their other QB: Josh dobbs. They will be out of the team playoff picture in a tough division and loaded AFC, then they might win just enough games to drop their top draft pick in 2023 even further without a 1st round pick. Why they are waiting this long though is ridiculous, they start TC in a week.

1 hour ago, ALF said:

Browns quietly brace for eight-game Deshaun Watson suspension
Posted by Mike Florio on July 19, 2022

 

The next question becomes whether they’d fully entrust the starting job to Jacoby Brissett for those eight games, or whether they’ll try to acquire someone else.

 

There’s apparently some chatter about the possibility of the Browns adding Cam Newton, in the event that Watson isn’t available for the full season. Would Newton be an option for half of the season? Would he be the backup to Brissett or the starter?

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/07/19/browns-quietly-brace-for-eight-game-deshaun-watson-suspension/

Adding Cam would just add to the sideshow up there. Pointless imo.

[BillsShredder83]

On 7/19/2022 at 6:01 AM, Doc Brown said:

Calvin Ridley on injured reserved bets $1500 on a sports betting app on a league that's in partnership with gambling companies.  Gets suspended a year...... 

NFLPA - no problem.

 

DeShaun Watson has 24 civil lawsuits charging sexual misconduct.  

NFLPA- If he gets suspended for a year we will sue you in federal court.

 

You can't tell me that Goodell and JC Tretter aren't negotiating behind the scenes to make both sides come out of this with the least egg on their face as possible.

Apples and oranges. Ridley deserves a year! Especially for being a dumb***, and BECAUSE they're partnered with gambling. A $1500 bet could undo a multi million sponsor, and under mine integrity of game, slippery slope.

 

Watson also deserves atleast a year or more. But comparing them is weak. 

[cle23]

24 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

If he’s out 8 games he might as well be out the whole season. Brissett is not a starter. Their other QB: Josh dobbs. They will be out of the team playoff picture in a tough division and loaded AFC, then they might win just enough games to drop their top draft pick in 2023 even further without a 1st round pick. Why they are waiting this long though is ridiculous, they start TC in a week.

Adding Cam would just add to the sideshow up there. Pointless imo.

 

Yeah, I want nothing to do with Cam Newton.  That would be pointless as he isn't a good QB anymore, and he comes with extra drama.  If Watson gets 6 games or less, I think they stick with Brissett.  The Browns' schedule is pretty weak the 1st 4 weeks, and I could see them going 3-1 or even 4-0 depending on Pittsburgh QB situation.  The schedule gets a lot tougher after that though.  

 

If Watson gets 8 games or more, I could see them trying to add a QB, even possibly Garappolo.  He can win with a good run game and defense, which Cleveland should have.  Garappolo will depend on how desperate SF is to get rid of him.  Cleveland has the cap space.  I wouldn't give up a high draft choice for him.

[BarleyNY]

31 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Yeah, I want nothing to do with Cam Newton.  That would be pointless as he isn't a good QB anymore, and he comes with extra drama.  If Watson gets 6 games or less, I think they stick with Brissett.  The Browns' schedule is pretty weak the 1st 4 weeks, and I could see them going 3-1 or even 4-0 depending on Pittsburgh QB situation.  The schedule gets a lot tougher after that though.  

 

If Watson gets 8 games or more, I could see them trying to add a QB, even possibly Garappolo.  He can win with a good run game and defense, which Cleveland should have.  Garappolo will depend on how desperate SF is to get rid of him.  Cleveland has the cap space.  I wouldn't give up a high draft choice for him.

Jimmy G is really the only available  QB that would make sense for Cleveland.  I don’t know what his preference would be if released though.  SF either has to release/trade him or start him.  He can’t be on the team if they go with Trey Lance.  The only other sensible destination for him is Seattle, who plays in the same division.  I don’t know if they are in full tank mode or if they’d sign him if he got released.  If I’m SF I keep him until cut down day unless I get something of value for him.  That way Lance has to earn the job, he’s there in case Lance gets hurt and he can’t help Seattle.  If I’m Berry on the Browns, he’s only a trade option if Watson is out for an extended suspension.  12+ games.  I don’t think I do it for 8.  Now if he’s released and Seattle doesn’t bite, then maybe he comes cheap for the opportunity to start for part of a season.

[Mango]

21 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Jimmy G is really the only available  QB that would make sense for Cleveland.  I don’t know what his preference would be if released though.  SF either has to release/trade him or start him.  He can’t be on the team if they go with Trey Lance.  The only other sensible destination for him is Seattle, who plays in the same division.  I don’t know if they are in full tank mode or if they’d sign him if he got released.  If I’m SF I keep him until cut down day unless I get something of value for him.  That way Lance has to earn the job, he’s there in case Lance gets hurt and he can’t help Seattle.  If I’m Berry on the Browns, he’s only a trade option if Watson is out for an extended suspension.  12+ games.  I don’t think I do it for 8.  Now if he’s released and Seattle doesn’t bite, then maybe he comes cheap for the opportunity to start for part of a season.

 

I don't think the Browns trade for him. I would have to refer to one of our capologists, but I believe his 2023 contract make him an easy cut, but difficult trade unless the 49'ers give up an additional pick to take his salary. But cutting him only costs the team $1.4M so why give up an additional pick. You would basically be giving up a pick for a $25M one year rental. I think they roll with Jacoby. 

 

....If he plays well, you have an issue with Watson coming back after two years off and possibly being worse for nearly double the price in 2024.

 

But if I am JG, I might run from the Browns at the moment, so maybe they would have to trade for his rights just to get him in the building? 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, BillsShredder83 said:

Apples and oranges. Ridley deserves a year! Especially for being a dumb***, and BECAUSE they're partnered with gambling. A $1500 bet could undo a multi million sponsor, and under mine integrity of game, slippery slope.

 

Watson also deserves atleast a year or more. But comparing them is weak. 

 

It's not weak.  This whole code of conduct/suspension apparatus exists only to deal with potential stains on the NFL brand---not to  punish players or change their behavior.

 

Which is a bigger stain on the league?  A serial predator being in the league or having a guy who was currently not active on a roster doing a legal activity that is openly encouraged by the NFL (and partially owned by its owners, who promote it for profit)?

 

 

[BillsShredder83]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It's not weak.  This whole code of conduct/suspension apparatus exists only to deal with potential stains on the NFL brand---not to  punish players or change their behavior.

 

Which is a bigger stain on the league?  A serial predator being in the league or having a guy who was currently not active on a roster doing a legal activity that is openly encouraged by the NFL (and partially owned by its owners, who promote it for profit)?

 

 

When it comes to $$, and the single most important thing for Goodell and owners, player gambling is a worse stain.

We're talking billions of dollars in money for the foreseeable future. Watson will be gone in 15years tops, gambling will provide revenue till we all die.

Just now, BillsShredder83 said:

When it comes to $$, and the single most important thing for Goodell and owners, player gambling is a worse stain.

We're talking billions of dollars in money for the foreseeable future. Watson will be gone in 15years tops, gambling will provide revenue till we all die.

Also, you don't think Ridleys suspension was an effort to change player behavior. Dude got a death sentence for shoplifting, they're absolutely trying to nip this before it starts