-OZ-
Footballguy
If he was truly committed to clearing his name he wouldn’t have paid anything, or settled. Settling was almost certainly the right move, but he isn’t clearing his name by doing so.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
daveR
Footballguy
There is a fair chance that this comment, like many, should be ignored, but this question arose in my mind...
I wonder if licensed massage therapists are prohibited from all sexual contact with their clients. So, like I'm the LMT, and my female client suggests I "do more" for her. Could I lose my license if I comply and people find out?
I wonder if licensed massage therapists are prohibited from all sexual contact with their clients. So, like I'm the LMT, and my female client suggests I "do more" for her. Could I lose my license if I comply and people find out?
DropKick
Footballguy
I hope you're asking for a friend.
ETA: While prostitutes have operated under the guise of massage parlors, there should be an easy distinction between legitimate and sleazy operations. But, it is interesting that you ask the question - because you likely wouldn't of most other professions. There is some inherent "intimacy" in body work. While I see the potential for confusion on boundaries from some clientele, the vast majority of MTs are just trying to make an honest living.
Last edited by a moderator:
daveR
Footballguy
No, it probably would never occur to anyone to codify something of this nature for an electrician.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Clearly you haven’t watched enough pron.
”hi, I’m here to lay some conduit”
(ok, plumber would be a better example, but you left me a poor set-up)
-OZ-
Footballguy
Maybe not for some professions, but for those with a higher risk and fiduciary standards, have rules. Model rule 1.08
(J) A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
It's not prostitution if he isn't paid.
The cost of the massage doesn't count.
However, I don't know the answer to the original question
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
It’s generally assumed that there will be a customary gratuity if “extra” services are rendered.
uh, I’ve heard.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Additional Florio Commentary...
Really, this is coming down to whether trying to steer massages into sexual encounters puts the integrity of the NFL at risk.
Evidence wise, in terms of what the NFL supposedly presented, sexual assault was off the table. If that's off the table, I don't see how he gets suspended. Especially after Kraft barely got a reprimand. The racism the NFL would be accused of would be off the charts.
Really, this is coming down to whether trying to steer massages into sexual encounters puts the integrity of the NFL at risk.
Evidence wise, in terms of what the NFL supposedly presented, sexual assault was off the table. If that's off the table, I don't see how he gets suspended. Especially after Kraft barely got a reprimand. The racism the NFL would be accused of would be off the charts.
Last edited by a moderator:
DropKick
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
racism? Wut?
The whataboutism is fun and all, but Kraft paid a hooker in a consensual transaction.
Watson allegedly, at the very least, got super creepy by putting his junk on a bunch of women, and at worst, ejaculated on one, some, or dozens of women non-consensually.
these are not remotely the same thing, nor should one be used a precedent for league punishment for the other.
It’s patently absurd to suggest otherwise.
Is the assertion you’re making that all of Watson’s alleged victims are prostitutes? I’m trying to follow your logic here and struggling to make sense of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
facook
Footballguy
Pretty sure that's not HIS logic, it's Florio's. Which all you need to know about Florio at this point.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Kraft - Rolling Stone...
Certainly this is according to Florio, but if the NFL’s case focused on five people and the evidence included no proof of violence or threats or any type of physical conduct that would constitute actual assault, then what are we talking about here? Creepy behavior? A lot of people would say going into a massage parlor to get jacked off is creepy behavior too.
So...for Kraft, his 'creepy behavior' got swept under the rug. Did it not? Kraft's case wasn't even reviewed by the NFL.
In both Kraft's and Watson's case, both have been absolved of criminal wrongdoing. Based on the 'evidence' of the NFL if Florio is clued in...they've centered this on 5 women. What's known about Kraft is that he got 2 HJ's in a 'pay-for-play' which is illegal.
I don't dispute that at the very least, what Watson did was super creepy. But old man going to strip mall massage parlor isn't? Is the NFL legislating creepiness with its PCP now?
The NFL 'looking the other way' when it involved one of 32 owners who are also supposed to be subject to the NFL's PCP as well that was collectively bargained but coming down on a young black QB with a 1+ year suspension would certainly catch the attention of the African-American community and it's respective organizations that look to point out issues where justice isn't 'apples for apples'?
You don't think?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
No. Consensual (though illegal/illicit) behavior with 1 person is an apple.
non-consensual (allegedly super creepy sexual) behavior with dozens of women is an orange.
These things are not the same, though mile high one could say they’re both creepy. Using that mile-high broad brush to say they’re the same is false equivalence.
Kraft’s incident has absolutely nothing to do with Watson’s and should not be considered at all when meting out Watson’s punishment. They’re not only not apples to apples, they’re hardly even both fruit.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Again...if the NFL's case focused on 5 women and again if their case included no proof of violence or threats or any type of physical conduct that would constitute actual assault...then the 'dozens' you refer to is irrelevant to the situation. A snippet from the Florio review...
Absent evidence of an actual sexual assault, the league’s case rests on two catch-all provisions at the bottom of a list of bullet points in the policy: (1) “conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person”; and (2) “conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.” The argument would be that Watson’s habit of trying to steer massages toward sexual encounters falls within either or both of these prohibitions.
So an illegal sexual behavior - white owner. NFL
?A creepy sexual behavior - black QB. NFL
?This goes unnoticed by the African-American community? Where the catch-all provision caught Watson but not Kraft?
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Need to stop w the 20+. It's 5. 5 are being focused on by the nfl/arbitrator and that's all that can be focused on.
Anyways, I post because I've been told a decision should be coming in the next 24-36hrs. Usually reliable when it comes to the browns, but not hanging my hat on it.
Anyways, I post because I've been told a decision should be coming in the next 24-36hrs. Usually reliable when it comes to the browns, but not hanging my hat on it.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
It’s false equivalence.Again...if the NFL's case focused on 5 women and again if their case included no proof of violence or threats or any type of physical conduct that would constitute actual assault...then the 'dozens' you refer to is irrelevant to the situation. A snippet from the Florio review...
Absent evidence of an actual sexual assault, the league’s case rests on two catch-all provisions at the bottom of a list of bullet points in the policy: (1) “conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person”; and (2) “conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.” The argument would be that Watson’s habit of trying to steer massages toward sexual encounters falls within either or both of these prohibitions.
So an illegal sexual behavior - white owner. NFL
A creepy sexual behavior - black QB. NFL
This goes unnoticed by the African-American community? Where the catch-all provision caught Watson but not Kraft?
if I had the funds I would pay for everyone in America to take a logic class so they could learn about logical fallacies. Of course this would put Florio & Fox News out of business, i’d consider that a bonus.
These are not remotely the same thing, and the color of Watson’s skin has nothing to do with this. It is totally irrelevant.
It 100% boils down to consensual contact vs non-consensual contact. I spelled it out extremely clearly above. I can’t explain it any better than that, so I’m moving on.
Suffice to say I wholly disagree with you (& Florio, if indeed that is his position) and I find it offensive to make apologies for Watson’s alleged non-consensual contact by attempting to deflect to his race.
His alleged victims were not prostitutes, so far as we know. It’s a constant and hypocritical theme in this topic that folks want Watson to be considered innocent until proved guilty, yet his alleged victims are all 100% hookers in the eyes of many. They deserve the benefit of the doubt as well. More so, since they are the accusers, and not the accused.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
right. Because he settled with the other ~20. That doesn’t mean he didn’t allegedly assault 20+ women. It means ~20 of them accepted settlements.
so it is still extremely accurate to state that he was accused by 20+ women of non-consensual assault.
Stop trying to minimize it as if settling = never happened.
Lol - you’ve now posted approximately 1,372 times since saying you would wait for the decision to come down.
ETA: link? I’ve googled it and can’t find anything that indicates a decision in 24-36 hours. Everything says ~July 11th at the earliest.
Last edited by a moderator:
facook
Footballguy
right. Because he settled with the other ~20. That doesn’t mean he didn’t allegedly assault 20+ women. It means ~20 of them accepted settlements.
so it is still extremely accurate to state that he was accused by 20+ women of non-consensual assault.
Stop trying to minimize it as if settling = never happened.
Lol - you’ve now posted approximately 1,372 times since saying you would wait for the decision to come down.
ETA: link? I’ve googled it and can’t find anything that indicates a decision in 24-36 hours. Everything says ~July 11th at the earliest.
To be fair, 5 is supposedly all the judge is considering, not the 21 that settled. So you are speaking more court of pubic opinion (where I agree with you) vs. the actual judge making the decision. Whether we convict him or exonerate him based on what we think/know matters not ultimately.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
I think you're talking about 'feelings'...that's not what I'm talking about. Or Florio for that matter.
As far as 'false equivalence'...Watsons' legal team doesn't seem to think so. Why wasn't Kraft's conduct reviewed? Shouldn't it have been? Under the guise of what is stated in CBA PCP?
No one is apologizing for Watson either. But even in your statement above, you use the term 'alleged'. Bob Kraft didn't 'allegedly' get a HJ at a strip mall massage parlor by a paid sex worker. He DID get 2 of them.
So the NFL or Robinson can't even say 'yes, this non-consensual contact 100% happened'. In Kraft's case, they can absolutely unequivocally say he did. Tape says so.
Much as I empathize with your stance...in the context of a collectively bargained agreement that is designed to hold both players and owners accountable for their conduct, in which an arbitrator...a former Federal judge who has lived inside the law her entire career is tasked with determining whether Watson in this case violated the PCP based on 'alleged' actions as you put it, is a judge going to uphold the NFL's way of seeing things to the tune of a 1+ year suspension? When an owner was caught on video tape paying for an illegal sexual act...if this contrast has been presented to Robinson and the NFL took no action with regard to Kraft whose transgressions occurred in 2019 under the same CBA?
-OZ-
Footballguy
You’re right.
But that’s not going to stop some in the media from playing up that angle.
-OZ-
Footballguy
Do you really think these are the same?
i suppose others can disagree but I don’t care, at all, about adult CONSENSUAL activities of this sort not involving me or my wife.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Allegedly vs caught on tape aren't the same either.
What behavior was non-consensual? It's already been determined it wasn't sexual assault, by both grand juries and evidently the NFL. So what is it then?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
That’s a false conclusion.
The GJ didn’t “determine it wasn’t sexual assault”
The GJ determined, based on what they were shown, that there wasn’t enough to indict.
Theres a massive difference, and an obvious one at that.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
no, I’m very specifically speaking about consent Vs non-consent. I’ve made that abundantly clear.
You continue to deliberately ignore that, so I will bow out from engaging you as this sort of disingenuous exchange isn’t enjoyable or productive.
have a nice day.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
-OZ-
Footballguy
I genuinely appreciate your perspective, as many others draw the same incorrect assumptions.
Contrary to the witch hunt being conducted by the media and Twitter mob,
Seems the story line being exposed behind the closed doors of the NFL and the Grand Juries may be throwing the Watson case into the same 100% consensual category as Kraft's actions.
if so, likely no suspension
media will start to spin the time served angle
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Lol - you’ve now posted approximately 1,372 times since saying you would wait for the decision to come down.
two. and this is the third.
and im minimizing nothing, im talking about what the nfl presented to Sue Robinson. 5 cases. That's all the decision will be based on. I know there are 20+... there's probably 40+... maybe more... doesnt matter to this case, though. Sue sees 5, and decides on 5.
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
Consent was never a question with Kraft. Watson appears to find the risk of his behavior being found otherwise to be sufficient to make settling a good option.
It’s entirely possible the judge here agrees with you. We’ll see.
Literally zero chance of this. The briefs are due next Monday. Nobody ever submits a brief before it's due. No decision-maker will render a decision before reading (or at least receiving) the briefs.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I was just having a laugh - I know it’s only 2, but it’s funny you keep justifying why.two. and this is the third.
and im minimizing nothing, im talking about what the nfl presented to Sue Robinson. 5 cases. That's all the decision will be based on. I know there are 20+... there's probably 40+... maybe more... doesnt matter to this case, though. Sue sees 5, and decides on 5.
Speaking of, where exactly did you hear / read / see that a decision was coming in 24-48 hours? I’m skeptical that happens.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
I personally know abolutely nothing, like I said... I was, however, told by someone who usually gives me pretty good information when it comes to the browns (a friend who may/may not work w the org)... if (s)he's wrong, well then I know not to take much else w any conviction... i expected the 11th myself.
The grand juries did not determine that Watson didn't commit a crime. They determined, based on the evidence they received, that there isn't probable cause to try Watson for a crime.
Kraft and Watson are both legally innocent of the crimes they've been accused of. That doesn't mean that they are factually innocent. Kraft is factually guilty if the tape don't lie. Watson's factual guilt is in dispute. Maybe he committed a crime, maybe he didn't. All we know is that he won't be tried for it.
The accusations against Watson mean nothing. What matters, for the NFL's purposes, is the evidence presented against him at the hearing. Accusations are not evidence.
We don't know what evidence was presented against him. Florio cites unnamed sources saying that the NFL presented no evidence of violence, threats, coercion, duress, etc. Florio usually has decent sources in the NFLPA, but I'm skeptical in this case. By "no violence," he might mean that Watson initiated unwanted physical contact, but it wasn't the kind of rough contact that would cause a physical injury. That's fair enough under the common English-language definition of "violence," but it's not all that relevant to a claim of sexual assault. If he physically touched people with his genitals without obtaining consent, it doesn't matter if it was rough enough to cause physical injury. That's going to count as sexual assault, I believe, and the NFL may well have presented evidence of that. We don't know.
In any case, the bottom line is that I wouldn't put much stock into Florio's rumors, and I also wouldn't put much stock into Buzbee's tweets. We have to wait until the Disciplinary Officer releases her findings. Until then, we're largely in the dark.
Kraft and Watson are both legally innocent of the crimes they've been accused of. That doesn't mean that they are factually innocent. Kraft is factually guilty if the tape don't lie. Watson's factual guilt is in dispute. Maybe he committed a crime, maybe he didn't. All we know is that he won't be tried for it.
The accusations against Watson mean nothing. What matters, for the NFL's purposes, is the evidence presented against him at the hearing. Accusations are not evidence.
We don't know what evidence was presented against him. Florio cites unnamed sources saying that the NFL presented no evidence of violence, threats, coercion, duress, etc. Florio usually has decent sources in the NFLPA, but I'm skeptical in this case. By "no violence," he might mean that Watson initiated unwanted physical contact, but it wasn't the kind of rough contact that would cause a physical injury. That's fair enough under the common English-language definition of "violence," but it's not all that relevant to a claim of sexual assault. If he physically touched people with his genitals without obtaining consent, it doesn't matter if it was rough enough to cause physical injury. That's going to count as sexual assault, I believe, and the NFL may well have presented evidence of that. We don't know.
In any case, the bottom line is that I wouldn't put much stock into Florio's rumors, and I also wouldn't put much stock into Buzbee's tweets. We have to wait until the Disciplinary Officer releases her findings. Until then, we're largely in the dark.
Last edited by a moderator:
It won't be the 11th either. It will take a while to review the briefs and draft a decision containing findings of fact. Probably between the 18th and 25th is realistic.
JoeKappBudGrant
Footballguy
I don't know where Florio is getting his information. I believe it is being leaked from the Watson camp, not the NFL. If there are 66 witnesses, but a large portion of them had consensual sexual contact with Watson, the NFL is only going to want the least impeachable witnesses to testify. The five witnesses called could have all consistently testified that they have given hundreds to thousands of massages with no sexual issues prior to the Watson massage. They could have also testified that there was no physical force or direct sexual contact with Watson. Spitting in the face of a person is a battery. Climaxing on a person who did not consent to it is a sexual battery. There was no physical force or direct sexual contact, but it is still a sexual battery. The contact is deemed indirect, but it is still a crime. If the five witnesses all testified that Watson climaxed on them without their consent, Watson has violated the NFL policy. The comparison to Kraft is a red herring. It appears to be similar because of the massages, but the real question is consent. Watson's lawyers should have made a comparison to Daniel Synder, but I don't think they did.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Perfectly stated.Maurile Tremblay said:
daveR
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Soulfly3
Footballguy
daveR
Footballguy
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Steve Keim/Cardinals GM - pled guilty and convicted of DUI. 5 game PCP suspension.
DUI's can lead to death.
DUI's can lead to death.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Sure will be interesting to see the NFL stenciling 'End Racism' in their end zones if they bring the hammer on a 1+ year suspension for Watson while Kraft's case wasn't even reviewed and Keim got 5 games for DUI with a BAC of .193.
