QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (4 Viewers)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

But that is my point. Arguing something has been done before - not involving facts where a guy may either be a serial predator or easy target for shake down due to his own stupidity -  is not an easy prediction for me. If I'm the NFL, I find it much easier to defend 6 game decision in the precedents you mention.

I don’t disagree with this. That’s why I highlighted Roethlisburger’s 1 accusation. It’s in start contrast to Watson’s 22 (which was 47)

I very much doubt the NFL will say, “ok, so 6x 22 = 132 game suspension”, though that would be hilariously bad for the Browns. 

 

[GregR]

It’s been discussed several times in this topic.

it’s because that’s the precedent set by the NFL with Ben Roethlisburger (1 accusation of sexual assault, no criminal charges) and EZE (No criminal charges). 

Each got hit with a 6-game suspension, though there was subsequent reduction.

It makes predicting. 6-game suspension pretty easy. Time will tell if it’s accurate, but it would be par for the course. 

But that is my point. Arguing something has been done before - not involving facts where a guy may either be a serial predator or easy target for shake down due to his own stupidity -  is not an easy prediction for me. If I'm the NFL, I find it much easier to defend 6 game decision in the precedents you mention.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Ben had allegations from two women, one filed a civil suit, one filed a criminal complaint and a civil suit. Ben wasn't charged as a result of the criminal complaint, didn't have it sent to a grand jury.

Watson had criminal complaints from 2 women who did not file civil charges, 8 women who filed criminal and civil complaints, and 14 women who filed only civil complaints.  Watson wasn't charged as a result of the 10 criminal complaints after they were sent to a grand jury.

You are invoking a "shake down" as a defense for Watson. Watson has women filing criminal complaints without any civil lawsuits. How does that fit into a shakedown defense? 

Watson has 10 criminal complaints and 22 filed civil lawsuits, to Ben's 1 criminal and 2 civil suits.  Can you elaborate then why Ben's suspension is easier for you to defend than one would be for Watson?  Especially if a "shake down" is your stated reason, when of the two players, Watson is the person who faced criminal complaints without element of financial gain from two accusers.

 

[Soulfly3]

Thanks. Can you elaborate on why you think that?

if they have no course of action by this point, they have no course of action 

I assume they wait until the civil issues are resolved. the guy jas "beaten" 2 separate GJs, so maybe the league has some pause on how to proceed. 

This isnt new. Thia has been going on for a LONG time. And no decision. Maybe they arent interested in making one

 

[BigJim®]

You are invoking a "shake down" as a defense for Watson. Watson has women filing criminal complaints without any civil lawsuits. How does that fit into a shakedown defense? 

I'm not "invoking" anything. The trials have not happened. I'm giving the extreme poles of conceivable outcomes.

 

[Birdie048]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Ben had allegations from two women, one filed a civil suit, one filed a criminal complaint and a civil suit. Ben wasn't charged as a result of the criminal complaint, didn't have it sent to a grand jury.

While I realize I am only responding to a part of your topic, Ben reportedly paid off both women handsomely and had NDA's signed.  Watson tried that avenue already to resolve it, but I believe 2 of them refused to settle, instead requiring it to continue for all, with no regard for the other women still involved.  His only recourse is to claim innocence and fight to clear his name, while time evolves and the women recognize the potential financial settlement could be obtained if he tries again.  

I have to imagine, with more time he has more success settling all 22.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

He rosters Watson.

 

:(  

We can have good discussion on this as trying to get a read on how many games he'll play is super important.  I don't agree, but I want to hear why he thinks what he thinks. 

 

[Obie Wan]

While I realize I am only responding to a part of your topic, Ben reportedly paid off both women handsomely and had NDA's signed.  Watson tried that avenue already to resolve it, but I believe 2 of them refused to settle, instead requiring it to continue for all, with no regard for the other women still involved.  His only recourse is to claim innocence and fight to clear his name, while time evolves and the women recognize the potential financial settlement could be obtained if he tries again.  

I have to imagine, with more time he has more success settling all 22.  

he had incentive to settle when failure to do so was blocking all potential trades from Houston.

The Cleveland trade eliminated that incentive, so unlikely Watson will settle anytime soon.

Especially now that the league is looking to wait on suspensions and will not invoke the exempt list.

hell- even if he was suspended, he still gets paid - so he still will likely not settle    

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

:(  

We can have good discussion on this as trying to get a read on how many games he'll play is super important.  I don't agree, but I want to hear why he thinks what he thinks. 

Sorry, was a friendly joke that @Soulfly3 is in on. 

none offense intended.

 

[Team Chaos]

The more I have thought about this case, the more complicated it seems to me. 

I am even torn on my own opinion, let alone what the NFL should do. On the one hand, I am a very big believer in innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, I feel a great deal of sympathy for women who are sexually assaulted or even put into uncomfortable situations of being pressured to give sexual favors in the course of simply trying to do there job, and it is very difficult to believe that all of these women are lying in an attempt to gain financial rewards. 

As far as innocent until proven guilty, yes it seems unlikely that all of these women are lying, but of course it is possible. If they are all lying, Watson has been put into a terrible position. He has already missed one season in his prime and if the NFL decides that he should sit until all of the suits are settled he would miss at least one more season of his prime playing years. He is getting paid, a substantial amount, but that is not everything. You do not get to his level of sports success without having a strong competitive drive and a desire to leave a legacy of having been the best, or one of the best. Those two plus years of prime playing years are important.

If he were to decide that he really wants to get back on the playing field, the only option he may have to speed up the process may be to attempt to settle. With the size of his contract, I don't see the cost of the settlements being the reason to avoid this course of action. The reason to avoid it, is you have then admitted guilt (even if not legally) and if he is innocent, I would think this would be an extremely difficult thing to do.

As far as what the women are going through, assuming that at least some of them are telling the truth (which seems likely), I would think it must be very difficult to see him signing a huge contract and getting back on the field before the cases have been decided. 

In a lot of ways, it is a no win situation for the NFL.

At this point, I believe my stance would be that he should be able to play until the cases are decided, public opinion be damned. However, if found guilty then the hammer should come down hard. I believe the NFL should publicly state that they are going to let the courts run their course and will wait until the cases are concluded before deciding on a suspension and or fines. They should tell Watson privately, that the fact that he was going to so many different massage therapists really makes him look guilty. However,  if he is adamant that he is innocent, they will let him play while fighting the cases. They should then tell him, if you are going to fight this, and drag this out for another year or more, then you had better be innocent, because if you are found guilty at the end of this, you are done in the NFL.

 

[Team Chaos]

While I realize I am only responding to a part of your topic, Ben reportedly paid off both women handsomely and had NDA's signed.  Watson tried that avenue already to resolve it, but I believe 2 of them refused to settle, instead requiring it to continue for all, with no regard for the other women still involved.  His only recourse is to claim innocence and fight to clear his name, while time evolves and the women recognize the potential financial settlement could be obtained if he tries again.  

I have to imagine, with more time he has more success settling all 22.  

You posted this while I was trying to organize and type out my views of this. If he has already tried to settle, that probably changes my conclusion. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

However,  if he is adamant that he is innocent, they will let him play while fighting the cases. They should then tell him, if you are going to fight this, and drag this out for another year or more, then you had better be innocent, because if you are found guilty at the end of this, you are done in the NFL.

at this point he can only be held culpable/responsible for [something] and/or liable for damages. 

This is a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Guilty/not guilty won’t be at the heart of whatever upcoming penalties transpire in the legal system or the NFL 

 

[ghostguy123]

ETA:  Just to play the devil's advocate (ha!).  What should the NFL do if there was a situation of a player being accused of committing a felony -- say selling drugs in a school zone or beating someone to death?  Let him play until his legal matters are over?

That's a bit different than civic cases.

 

[Soulfly3]

watson was pretty adament in his presser that he will NOT settle with any of the women.

maybe that was the plan early on, when maybe the #s were much lower and he just wanted the issue over with when it wasnt a "big deal"... as the # of accusers got higher, and now post grand jury... maybe he's at a point where he wants to clear himself completely.

i can respect that. again, yes we ALL (I think) agree he was inapproriate to some level. But I dont think Id settle, for millions I earned, for being inappropriate either. and IF that's all he was, then good on him (not good on him for being inappropriate, obviously)

 

[Faust]

Deshaun Watson Could Be Suspended For Only Four Games; “No Market” For Baker Mayfield

Excerpt:

We recently heard that new Browns QB Deshaun Watsonwould not end up on the Commissioner’s Exempt list since he will not be criminally charged in connection with the sexual assault allegations for which he is still facing 22 civil suits. And, as Mary Kay Cabot of Cleveland.com writes, the absence of criminal charges may also help Watson avoid a lengthy suspension.

Per Cabot, league investigators will view the grand jury non-indictments as “mitigating factors” when it comes to doling out punishment to the embattled passer. A suspension may not be put in place until the civil matter is resolved — and Cleveland will not pressure Watson to settle the suits — but when the NFL’s investigation concludes and a decision is made, Cabot hears that Watson could be hit with a six-game ban that gets reduced to four games.

That would obviously count as a huge victory for the Browns, who gave up a bounty of draft capital and a market-altering contract to acquire Watson in a move that many pundits have classified as desperate. Winning, though, has a way of rewriting history, and if Watson escapes all of his legal troubles with only a four-game suspension (at least as far as on-field ramifications are concerned), Cleveland will have a very good chance of winning in 2022 and beyond.

 

[Godsbrother]

That's a bit different than civic cases.

Yes it is but if the NFL takes the position of not suspending players until their legal issues have been resolved then you can see how things could get messy from a PR standpoint 

 

[Godsbrother]

Deshaun Watson Could Be Suspended For Only Four Games; “No Market” For Baker Mayfield

Excerpt:

Isn’t Cabot the one that said the Steelers would pounce on Mayfield?

Hey she may be right that Watson only gets 4 games but she’s guessing just like the rest of us.

 

[Team Chaos]

at this point he can only be held culpable/responsible for [something] and/or liable for damages. 

This is a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Guilty/not guilty won’t be at the heart of whatever upcoming penalties transpire in the legal system or the NFL 

Yeh, not sure on terminology for the different types of cases. I’m an old carpenter, not a lawyer. My point being, we’ll let this play out, but if you decide to drag this out, in order to clear yourself, and you are not cleared, then you are done. We’ll take the extra heat for the next year or so, and if you are completely cleared, all is well. If we deal with the extra embarrassment of letting you play, and you are not cleared, you’ll have to find a new career. 
 

Just my thoughts.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yes it is but if the NFL takes the position of not suspending players until their legal issues have been resolved then you can see how things could get messy from a PR standpoint 

Its gonna be messy no matter what happens or when it happens.......and will blow over quick like the rest of them

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yeh, not sure on terminology for the different types of cases. I’m an old carpenter, not a lawyer. My point being, we’ll let this play out, but if you decide to drag this out, in order to clear yourself, and you are not cleared, then you are done. We’ll take the extra heat for the next year or so, and if you are completely cleared, all is well. If we deal with the extra embarrassment of letting you play, and you are not cleared, you’ll have to find a new career. 
 

Just my thoughts.

I get it, but that's at the crux of the "to suspend, or not suspend" argument. 

But then, that's been at the crux of that argument with any other player who was not indicted criminally, but still faced civil suits/league suspension. 

There will always be those who want to absolve Watson from consequences because he was not charged criminally. The challenge there is that in a system that clearly favors those with means/resources/platform to fight, sometimes guilty people aren't charged criminally.  

The civil suits provide another avenue of recourse for the plaintiffs. 

The NFL PCP also has it's place in evaluating the situation & handing down punishment, if they deem it warranted. 

And all 3 should be handled independently, in my opinion. If the NFL knows he violated the PCP, the suspension should be immediate, and commensurate with the severity of the offense(s). 

If he loses the civil suits, that's another matter altogether. 

 

[Team Chaos]

I get it, but that's at the crux of the "to suspend, or not suspend" argument. 

But then, that's been at the crux of that argument with any other player who was not indicted criminally, but still faced civil suits/league suspension. 

There will always be those who want to absolve Watson from consequences because he was not charged criminally. The challenge there is that in a system that clearly favors those with means/resources/platform to fight, sometimes guilty people aren't charged criminally.  

The civil suits provide another avenue of recourse for the plaintiffs. 

The NFL PCP also has it's place in evaluating the situation & handing down punishment, if they deem it warranted. 

And all 3 should be handled independently, in my opinion. If the NFL knows he violated the PCP, the suspension should be immediate, and commensurate with the severity of the offense(s). 

If he loses the civil suits, that's another matter altogether. 

Fair enough. I honestly don’t know what the answer is, and you make some good points here. 
 

I am really glad it’s not my job to figure this stuff out. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Fair enough. I honestly don’t know what the answer is, and you make some good points here. 
 

I am really glad it’s not my job to figure this stuff out. 

A-men. 

 

[GregR]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33680511/cleveland-browns-deshaun-watson-address-massage-therapists-judge-rules

HOUSTON -- Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson must say whether he had sex with 18 massage therapists who supported him last year following criminal complaints from 22 other women, a judge in Texas ruled Tuesday.

USA Today reported that Watson has 30 days to comply. He previously would not address his past with the therapists. Watson also has to provide other information about his massage history since 2019, including any language in his contract with the Texans about massages.

 

[Soulfly3]

what a disaster. 

is people's sex life really anyone's business? i mean this from a non-criminal perspective (of which he is not being charged).

why is him having (consensual) sex relevent to a civil case whereas he didn't have to respond to it criminally? these women supported/backed him, and now he's obligated to say whether or not he had sex with them? what relevence does that have, whatsoever, and why drag these women's sex life into the spotlight? it's absolutely NO ONE'S business. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

what a disaster. 

is people's sex life really anyone's business? i mean this from a non-criminal perspective (of which he is not being charged).

why is him having (consensual) sex relevent to a civil case whereas he didn't have to respond to it criminally? these women supported/backed him, and now he's obligated to say whether or not he had sex with them? what relevence does that have, whatsoever, and why drag these women's sex life into the spotlight? it's absolutely NO ONE'S business. 

It would have been no one’s business, but they came forward as character witnesses.

If he had sex with them, their witness testimony is potentially tainted. 

Good rant, but misguided. Their history with Watson is totally relevant. 

 

[GregR]

why is him having (consensual) sex relevent to a civil case whereas he didn't have to respond to it criminally?

He didn't have to respond to it in a criminal case because he wasn't charged with the criminal case. There was no trial. He has to respond to it in a civil lawsuit because he is being sued in 22 civil lawsuits and there are trials.

these women supported/backed him, and now he's obligated to say whether or not he had sex with them? what relevence does that have, whatsoever, and why drag these women's sex life into the spotlight? it's absolutely NO ONE'S business. 

https://www.yahoo.com/video/as-deshaun-watson-litigation-reaches-21-civil-suits-his-attorney-counters-with-18-masseuses-claiming-routine-interactions-184732316.html

HOUSTON — As the 20th and 21st civil suits against Deshaun Watson became public on Wednesday, the attorney representing the Houston Texans quarterback countered with a lengthy release of on-the-record statements from 18 female masseuses who claim they had only positive business interactions with Watson.

...

Hardin’s release on Wednesday appears aimed at offering a counter narrative to Buzbee’s 21 pieces of litigation, which allege a sliding scale of sexualized incidents between the different cases, ranging from inappropriate pressure to sexual harassment to, in a handful of cases, allegations of sexual assault.

Seems like a pretty relevant question to witnesses who have volunteered their business interaction with him, whether they encountered the same kind of behavior that is being sued over.

So just planning to go full on Josh Gordon again then, are ya?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Math is hard. :(  

 

[GregR]

Also wait - there were 47 women initially. 22 of those pursued it criminally & civilly. And there are 18 more who stood up for Watson? 

So….65 total masseuses? 

65 seems like….a lot. 

The numbers I'm aware of it's 43 women we know of he had massages with based on their coming forward in some form, whether against his behavior or supporting him.

23 women who filed civil lawsuits, 1 since withdrawn. 2 women who filed criminal complaints but no civil suit.  18 character witnesses Watson put forward. So 25 with some level of complaint made at some point, 18 character witnesses = 43 total.

That isn't all inclusive, he could have had massages with other women. Just they haven't become publicly known yet.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The numbers I'm aware of it's 43 women we know of he had massages with based on their coming forward in some form, whether against his behavior or supporting him.

23 women who filed civil lawsuits, 1 since withdrawn. 2 women who filed criminal complaints but no civil suit.  18 character witnesses Watson put forward. So 25 with some level of complaint made at some point, 18 character witnesses = 43 total.

Oh, ok - thanks. 43 is still a lot, but the 18 here are included in that 43 - gotcha. Appreciate the clarification. 

 

[habsfan]

Also wait - there were 47 women initially. 22 of those pursued it criminally & civilly. And there are 18 more who stood up for Watson? 

So….65 total masseuses? 

65 seems like….a lot. 

My thoughts as well as I'm reading that article. What's a high / median / low number of massages for an NFL player? 

 

[Soulfly3]

It would have been no one’s business, but they came forward as character witnesses.

If he had sex with them, their witness testimony is potentially tainted. 

Good rant, but misguided. Their history with Watson is totally relevant. 

Having sex with someone in the past taints their testimony? Why? How? 

That's like 1800s thinking. 

Is he dating them? Are they somehow indebted to him? They plowed in the past, so what? Not only that, they had sex and STILL defended him. 

I don't understand the logic of had sex = tainted testimony. 

 

[Soulfly3]

So let me get this straight...

Had sex and support//back Deshaun = not acceptable for the courts

Had "inappropriate encounters" = take their word 100% and support criminal+civil actions?

 

[GregR]

My thoughts as well as I'm reading that article. What's a high / median / low number of massages for an NFL player? 

Went looking and some of this was new to me. Referring to an SI article which it links to, but this summarizes it. Long snippet provided, see full article yourself.  At least 2 more masseuses included who it seems are not part of the 25 who came forward in some degree or 18 character witnesses.  One of them who indicates he did stuff with her, another who claims he doesn't do that, but then had texts to the other that he does it all the time, which SI saw.  See the red.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10003368-deshaun-watsons-alleged-misconduct-with-massage-therapists-detailed-in-new-si-report#:~:text=The Texans work with Genuine,to find their own therapists.

The SI piece explores Watson's practice of contacting women on Instagram and setting up massage appointments. While many of those who contacted were licensed massage therapists, others weren't.

SI also reported that Watson had a reputation among massage therapists in the Houston area:

"Warnings about Watson had been percolating in the Houston massage therapy community for some time. Some were mundane—he was a last-minute booker, do not expect a tip. Others were far more troubling. Two LMTs told SI they were warned last year by others in their profession about Watson’s inappropriate conduct, including his making sexually explicit motions on the table or insisting on using a small towel that would inadequately cover his genital area, rather than the standard massage draping."

Watson's attorney, Rusty Hardin, estimated that Watson receives between 120 and 150 massages per year, which isn't necessarily out of the ordinary for an NFL player.

The Texans work with Genuine Touch Massage Therapy, which can arrange for therapists to work with players even while away from the team facility, although some players opt to find their own therapists.

An anonymous person with ties to the Texans said a member of the team's medical staff was concerned about Watson getting injured due to seeking out massage therapists on Instagram.

An anonymous NFC defensive back said, “I don’t know guys who use 22 different masseuses," in reference to the number of lawsuits filed against Watson.

SI also spoke to a veteran massage therapist who referred Watson to other massage therapists. She spoke under the condition of anonymity but was referred to as Susan in the article.

Another massage therapist, who had previously spoken to SI but has not filed a lawsuit, said she massaged Watson in the fall of 2019 after Watson was referred to her by Susan. The woman, referred to as Mary, said during the session he "purposely removed the towel covering him, told her she could touch and move his exposed penis and began thrusting his pelvis into the air after developing an erection."

Susan told SI Mary was the only massage therapist who reported an issue with Watson to her, but Mary produced a text conversation with Susan in which Susan wrote "whether the creepy stuff is his intention or not, he does it every time." Susan also wrote to Mary that "only 1 therapist hasn’t complained."

It was confirmed that the texts came from Susan's phone number, and Susan later told SI she was trying to be supportive of Mary in the text conversation and was referring to Watson requesting to use a small towel or washcloth to cover himself rather than a full-sheet draping.

Mary said Watson reached out to her again on Instagram after their session, but when she insisted he use a full-sheet draping before booking him again, he decided against booking.

The NFL players who spoke to SI anonymously all said they always have full-sheet drapings during their massage sessions and go out of their way to avoid exposing their genitals.

 

[That one guy]

I believe the having sex while on the job/during the course of business is the key part and how that sort of interaction came to be.  This is NOT a pivot toward the whole sexworker angle in the least, just a possible when/where being relevant input

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

So let me get this straight...

Had sex and support//back Deshaun = not acceptable for the courts

Had "inappropriate encounters" = take their word 100% and support criminal+civil actions?

Narrator: he did not, in fact, have this straight. 

massage therapists accused Watson of inappropriate contact.

Other massage therapists came forward as character witnesses. 

If those character witnesses had a sexual relationship with Watson, it discredits them as character witnesses due to their obvious bias.

Cant explain it any more clearly than that. 

 

[Soulfly3]

I hate sounding like Im excusing the guy's behavior, cuz Im not. At all. 

I just dont see why every single thing has to be against him. If 18 women, regardless of if they had sex with him, want to defend him, why shouldn't that be allowed/supported?

On one hand we're preaching that we HAVE to take all these accusers' words at face value, while in the same breath calling 18 women's positive testimony as "tainted"

There's NO way ppl don't see the hypocrisy in this...

 

[Soulfly3]

If those character witnesses had a sexual relationship with Watson, it discredits them as character witnesses due to their obvious bias

See my post directly above

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Having sex with someone in the past taints their testimony? Why? How? 

That's like 1800s thinking. 

Is he dating them? Are they somehow indebted to him? They plowed in the past, so what? Not only that, they had sex and STILL defended him. 

I don't understand the logic of had sex = tainted testimony. 

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding this.

It is not “1800s thinking”. It’s called “discrediting a character witness”, or in this case, 18 of them.

Their intimate relationships with Watson are entirely relevant. Full stop. 

 

[GregR]

I hate sounding like Im excusing the guy's behavior, cuz Im not. At all. 

I just dont see why every single thing has to be against him. If 18 women, regardless of if they had sex with him, want to defend him, why shouldn't that be allowed/supported?

On one hand we're preaching that we HAVE to take all these accusers' words at face value, while in the same breath calling 18 women's positive testimony as "tainted"

There's NO way ppl don't see the hypocrisy in this...

So you are saying, one side should be able to present evidence for a trial.  But the other side isn't allowed to question it.

Narrator: he did not, in fact, have this straight. 

 

[ghostguy123]

What's with the sheets and towels.  Wear a pair of shorts to the massage.  Or at least some boxers.  Who gets naked anyway for that.............if you just want a massage that is

 

[Soulfly3]

If you both are completely ok with 18 women's testimony being trash but 22 women having to be taken at 100% face value. That's cool. 

I think it's absolutely ridiculous and basically telling 18 women they're full of crap

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I hate sounding like Im excusing the guy's behavior, cuz Im not. At all. 

weird, because you totally sound like you’re excusing the guy’s behavior more and more with every post. 

I just dont see why every single thing has to be against him. If 18 women, regardless of if they had sex with him, want to defend him, why shouldn't that be allowed/supported?

character witnesses must themselves be credible. Having an intimate relationship with the person they’re defending destroys their credibility, and I can’t believe I actually have to type that. C’mon. 

On one hand we're preaching that we HAVE to take all these accusers' words at face value, while in the same breath calling 18 women's positive testimony as "tainted"

There's NO way ppl don't see the hypocrisy in this...

There is zero hypocrisy. No one is saying we “HAVE to take the accuser’s words at face value” - this is a misleading premise fallacy.

On it’s face, the courts will evaluate the character witnesses credibility. If they had intimate relationships with Watson, it harms their credibility and taints their testimony as character witnesses. This is simply the way things work.

If you are accused of robbing a bank, and 18 of your friends come forward to defend your honor, would it be relevant to know that they are all also accomplices in your bank robbery? Would they still be quality witnesses to your good character? 

 

[GregR]

If you both are completely ok with 18 women's testimony being trash but 22 women having to be taken at 100% face value. That's cool. 

I think it's absolutely ridiculous and basically telling 18 women they're full of crap

Stop it. No one is saying the 22 women have to be taken at 100% face value. They are also getting deposed by Watson's lawyers, and having to answer questions. And if they refuse, the judge can come back and say they have to, same as he's done with Watson on this particular point.

You are creating positions and attributing them to others that have not been expressed.

Please stop doing this, you are starting to run this into the ground the same as you did Josh Gordon. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

What's with the sheets and towels.  Wear a pair of shorts to the massage.  Or at least some boxers.  Who gets naked anyway for that.............if you just want a massage that is

When I had my jacked up disc (L5. Do not recommend. 0 stars) I had deep tissue massage. The buttocks has many, many muscle groups, and oil on underpants would be weird and gross. Naked is SOP. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I hate sounding like Im excusing the guy's behavior, cuz Im not. At all. 

I just dont see why every single thing has to be against him. If 18 women, regardless of if they had sex with him, want to defend him, why shouldn't that be allowed/supported?

On one hand we're preaching that we HAVE to take all these accusers' words at face value, while in the same breath calling 18 women's positive testimony as "tainted"

There's NO way ppl don't see the hypocrisy in this...

if they had sex with him....basically they lose the tag of "massage therapist" and any type of business relationship with him...and become....how do I say this politely...."girlfriends"....or hook ups....so their testimony cannot be taken as supporting him from a professional business interaction point of view being a "massage therapist" saying "everything was cool with me when I massaged him"........

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If you both are completely ok with 18 women's testimony being trash but 22 women having to be taken at 100% face value. That's cool. 

again with the misleading premise, and now a false conclusion. 

I am not “ok with 18 women’s testimony being trash” - I am ok with the discovery process, where it will be revealed whether or not Watson’s character witnesses are credible. Period.

Maybe they’ll prove to be credible, maybe they won’t. But if they had sex with Watson, they’re not credible. This ain’t rocket science. 

i think it's absolutely ridiculous and basically telling 18 women they're full of crap

And that’s why this is another logical fallacy - a straw man, specifically. No one is “telling 18 women they’re full of crap”. 

But when 18 women come forward as character witnesses, their credibility will be established by a very standard process. Determining if they had intimidate relations with Watson is part of that.

You're basing all of this defensive response merely on the question - we don’t actually know the answer, but you feel the question is inappropriate?

Severely misguided, and completely illogical. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

if they had sex with him....basically they lose the tag of "massage therapist" and any type of business relationship with him...and become....how do I say this politely...."girlfriends"....or hook ups....so their testimony cannot be taken as supporting him from a business interaction point of view being a "massage therapist" saying "everything was cool with me when I massaged him"........

Can’t say it any better than that. 

 

[Gally]

Narrator: he did not, in fact, have this straight. 

massage therapists accused Watson of inappropriate contact.

Other massage therapists came forward as character witnesses. 

If those character witnesses had a sexual relationship with Watson, it discredits them as character witnesses due to their obvious bias.

Cant explain it any more clearly than that. 

I think this goes to the idea that both sides honestly think they are in the right (I don't want to argue whether it is or isn't right.......just the frame of mind of both sides and how they both think they are in the right with two drastically different views).  

I have said this before, I think there is a world where Watson thinks he was flirting trying to get consensual sex and at times he has gotten it by doing this (as attested by the witnesses on his side).  There are women who don't mind this approach and are willing to participate consensually.  Nothing wrong with this.  There are also women who feel violated by this type of approach and don't partake but feel violated in the end.   So they believe they have been abused where Watson thinks its not a big deal because they can say no at anytime and he eventually stops before going over what he believes to be the line.  

We all have our different comfort levels and I am not trying to pass judgement or define that line.  I am only posing a situation where both sides really do think they are in the right and did nothing wrong (again I am not trying to define this line.....only stating that the perception of the individuals can vary greatly where they think the line is).  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think this goes to the idea that both sides honestly think they are in the right (I don't want to argue whether it is or isn't right.......just the frame of mind of both sides and how they both think they are in the right with two drastically different views).  

I have said this before, I think there is a world where Watson thinks he was flirting trying to get consensual sex and at times he has gotten it by doing this (as attested by the witnesses on his side).  There are women who don't mind this approach and are willing to participate consensually.  Nothing wrong with this.  There are also women who feel violated by this type of approach and don't partake but feel violated in the end.   So they believe they have been abused where Watson thinks its not a big deal because they can say no at anytime and he eventually stops before going over what he believes to be the line.  

We all have our different comfort levels and I am not trying to pass judgement or define that line.  I am only posing a situation where both sides really do think they are in the right and did nothing wrong (again I am not trying to define this line.....only stating that the perception of the individuals can vary greatly where they think the line is).  

bolded....doesn't this then really become prostitution disguised as massage therapy....

 

[Gally]

As far as innocent until proven guilty, yes it seems unlikely that all of these women are lying, but of course it is possible. If they are all lying, Watson has been put into a terrible position. He has already missed one season in his prime and if the NFL decides that he should sit until all of the suits are settled he would miss at least one more season of his prime playing years. He is getting paid, a substantial amount, but that is not everything. You do not get to his level of sports success without having a strong competitive drive and a desire to leave a legacy of having been the best, or one of the best. Those two plus years of prime playing years are important.

Could it be that both sides truly believe there side?  Could Watson really believe he was just flirting and that the women could say no and that he wouldn't cross a "line" that he deemed inappropriate.  That he used this approach before to women that weren't offended by it and some that actually liked it and so he believes it is fine as long as he doesn't physically force them to have sex.  That he believes he is just flirting.   Where there are also women who believe what he did was over the line and they feel abused and really hurt by the actions.  So both sides really believe they are telling the truth.

Where does asking, insinuating, pushing cross the line to inappropriate?  I am sure this is very different to different people.  It makes that line very blurry because what is harmless to some is very damaging to others.  To top it off there are people who also see this as a chance to make money (not saying in this case but that it is proven to happen in others) that it blurs the line even further.  It is why false accusations are so damaging to the cause of legit cases.  He said/she said is very messy and I don't know the right answer.  

 

[GregR]

Where does asking, insinuating, pushing cross the line to inappropriate?  I am sure this is very different to different people.  It makes that line very blurry because what is harmless to some is very damaging to others.  To top it off there are people who also see this as a chance to make money (not saying in this case but that it is proven to happen in others) that it blurs the line even further.  It is why false accusations are so damaging to the cause of legit cases.  He said/she said is very messy and I don't know the right answer.  

We have laws that aim to delineate these lines.  And when both sides disagree, there is a legal system which can be employed to come to a decision. Which is what's going on now.