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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
GregR
Footballguy
Ok going to mince words because specifics matter. You said "several of the massage therapists contacted the Texans directly to complain about Watson's inappropriate behavior". Where I think anyone reading it takes "inappropriate behavior" to mean sexual harassment, rubbing his junk on them, etc. And takes "several of the massage therapists" to mean the women suing him.
That article doesn't say that.
It says: "the franchise had fielded complaints from The Houstonian Hotel regarding the number of women visiting Watson in a team-provided suite at the establishment". Not that the team was told about harassment inside the room/during a massage.
It says the owner of the spa they contract with contacted the Texans: "the owner of Genuine Touch, Joni Honn, who allegedly told the franchise the quarterback was seeking out “strangers” for services through Instagram" and "Her stated concern to the Texans was that Watson was putting himself in danger of contracting Covid, or getting himself sued".
Again, that doesn't tell the Texans he was behaving lewdly, just that he was seeking outside massages.
It does cite the owner: "Honn said Watson was conducting himself in a concerning manner during sessions, using a “towel trick” to attempt to sexual sessions, “hump[ing] the table” and leaving “a wet spot” during encounters.
But it doesn't say she told the team that, just that she made that statement. Presumably to Buzbee's team when they investigated, though it's not explicit in the article (I imagine the lawsuit itself is more clear but haven't read it).
Just pointing out, those statements do not equate to, the therapists who were harassed called the Texans and complained. The complaints were, a lot of women using the room, and that he was using outside therapists.
Not that he was assaulting or harassing them. Again, just going by what we've heard so far. I'm not giving the Texans a pass. I'm just saying that choice of words is going to make people think something happened that there's no indication did, at least not yet.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
Actually here's the pdf: https://www.houstonpress.com/media/pdf/new_lawsuit.pdf
Skimmed quickly, but I don't see anything else there that states his behavior in the massages was relayed to the team.
Seems like the bulk of the argument is, upon hearing he was seeking a lot of outside massages they should have investigated. Not that they were informed the actions he was being sued for were happening.
Again, I just want to avoid the choice of wording creating the impressions of evidence that hasn't been brought forth. Might be they should have investigated, we don't know the full details of the conversations and those could be compelling.
Skimmed quickly, but I don't see anything else there that states his behavior in the massages was relayed to the team.
Seems like the bulk of the argument is, upon hearing he was seeking a lot of outside massages they should have investigated. Not that they were informed the actions he was being sued for were happening.
Again, I just want to avoid the choice of wording creating the impressions of evidence that hasn't been brought forth. Might be they should have investigated, we don't know the full details of the conversations and those could be compelling.
why should any of pitchfork mob be concerned with facts at this point?
haven't needed any facts so far
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Here is a different article. LINK
It indicates one of the masseuses notified Gentle Touch, the massage partner of the Texans, and in a text conversation she guessed that the problem was involving Watson. Apparently several people involved in all this had heard about Watson. Who knows what that means and if that constitutes “proof” of anything.
GregR
Footballguy
Ok some tidbits that weren't in the press as I take a few minutes to read deeper. So here is Watson's description of the conversation that led to the NDA:
That's a question whoever decides the case is going to have to decide. That's in the Texans favor.
The actual post that was made, is probably going to be important. The lawsuit characterizes it as threatening to expose him for conduct during massage therapy sessions, and the Texans had a hand in Instagram removing it because it contained the previously mentioned private details. It doesn't make it clear if the post stated what the conduct was, or if the post's motivation was the conduct but doesn't state that conduct to where the Texans would know. The picture of the post in the lawsuit doesn't show enough either way, and it's missing the payment info so it's not the complete post.
And this is where I said earlier, the conversation matters. If that is an accurate depiction, when Watson tells the Texans head of security that, does the head of security think he's providing Watson a means to silence women that he's sexually harassing? Or does he think he's protecting him from someone posting his personal information including his payment details?
That's a question whoever decides the case is going to have to decide. That's in the Texans favor.
The actual post that was made, is probably going to be important. The lawsuit characterizes it as threatening to expose him for conduct during massage therapy sessions, and the Texans had a hand in Instagram removing it because it contained the previously mentioned private details. It doesn't make it clear if the post stated what the conduct was, or if the post's motivation was the conduct but doesn't state that conduct to where the Texans would know. The picture of the post in the lawsuit doesn't show enough either way, and it's missing the payment info so it's not the complete post.
GregR
Footballguy
I've known Anarchy99 for... what is it GB, probably 15-20 years now. I would not call him a pitchfork mob by any means. I just want to make sure that choice of wording isn't creating the impression of evidence that isn't there (yet).
Birdie048
Footballguy
Does the fact a Complaints to Texans Front Office @ Watson was taking massages from "outside services" and had repeatedly engaged in sexual acts with the In-House service.... and then he provided an NDA provided by the Texans Org for further massages? I think this makes Texans more liable and culpable in the whole mess.
GregR
Footballguy
Right, they contacted Gentle Touch. It doesn't say they contacted the Texans. It doesn't say Gentle Touch relayed it to the Texans. if the Texans knew, or should have known, seems like the pertinent part of the case, and a therapist telling another therapist who never tells the team, isn't evidence they knew.
If Honn gets on the stand or is deposed and says, "I told the Texans trainer about Deshaun's conduct in our sessions, including the tiny towel and dry humping the table, and that we received outside complaints as well", then Texans deserve to get bent over this. It might come out, but let's just be clear what was said to who and whether it was the actual team.
GregR
Footballguy
See this is what I'm talking about, and trying to avoid. Inventing evidence in a discussion board. The article, quoting the lawsuit, states they complained to the team he was taking outside services.
It does NOT state they complained to the team he was engaging in sexual acts. It only says that the owner has since made a statement such went on. It does not say the owner told the team that went on.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t there a legal argument to be made that when a company designates a “partner,” that the first organization assumes liability for the actions of their partners?
For example, if I bought stuff through Home Depot, and their outside / third party installation company mucks it up, then both companies are liable.
The point being, if the outside company the Texans contracted for massages was notified, wouldn’t that indemnify the Texans (whether certain people n the Texans training department were aware or not)?
See this is what I'm talking about, and trying to avoid. Inventing evidence in a discussion board. The article, quoting the lawsuit, states they complained to the team he was taking outside services.
It does NOT state they complained to the team he was engaging in sexual acts. It only says that the owner has since made a statement such went on. It does not say the owner told the team that went on.
.....lol....thanks for fighting the fight and saying things much better than I tried to do... 
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
Watson has to be just plain stupid. With his money their are escorts services that would gladly let him do whatever he wants for a set amount of money. Any time he wants without anyone knowing.
TLEF316
Footballguy
Someone posted something to this effect earlier....but it seems like he's just watched one too many fantasy massage videos. Paying for it would defeat the purpose. He got off on using his charm/power/status/whatever to get a "normal girl" to do what he wanted when they thought they were just there for a normal massage.
So his people are stupid. If they knew that is what he wanted why didn't they arrange for the paid escort to give him that experience without his knowledge?
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
Gopher State
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
Not a lawyer either, and this seems pretty complicated for us to work through.
In your case there are business contracts between yourself, Home Depot and their outside partner. In our situation, the Texans and Gentle Touch have a business contract. But neither are connected to the other massage therapists by any contracts or business relationships.
The only way that there is involvement between the plaintiff(s) and the Texans/Gentle TOuch, is the 2 (or however many) massages happened at the room the Texans pay for, and one on their massage table. And the NDA. Though, having seen the deposition around the NDA, I'd imagine most people would think giving a player an NDA when someone had posted his phone number and banking info online, would be a very appropriate thing to do and not a sign of neglect worth damages in a lawsuit.
It also might raise a question whether, if Gentle Touch was aware of this stuff and didn't inform the team, are they liable? I mean, I'd hope my company would have language in their contracts that we be notified about such things. Of course, maybe it gets left out because they don't want to know. I don't know, this is all speculation. If Gentle Touch is liable for not sharing the info, a lawsuit between the two of them might have to happen to resolve it.
Last edited by a moderator:
TLEF316
Footballguy
Seems logical to me. It really is pretty insane that anyone let it get to this point. You would think when you have a 9 figure asset, there'd be an adult in the room making sure everyone was on the same page in protecting the asset (and, if at all humanly possible, making sure that asset doesn't harm any 3rd parties with his weird desires)
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
While you’re correct, I’d suggest it’s a reasonable assumption that the massage place likely hit up the Texans to say, come and get your boy, he’s getting fresh with the ladies”.
but as with everything here, it’s all about what can be proved in court. At this point, that is TBD.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
Right. They'll have discovery and they'll be able to ask those questions.
Incidentally, the lawsuit has some details on Solis and one of the Gentle Touch therapists talking about Watson. They have text messages they exchanged. This was the thing where the GT therapist reached out to Solis after hearing she'd had issues with a Texan, and the GT therapist asked if by chance it was Deshaun Watson.
The lawsuit just has the texts, as the therapist (Magen Weisheit) pled the 5th when she was deposed. I'm guessing she was one of the women at GT that was having sex with him then, and wanted to avoid potential prosecution for it. But that means she's not answered whether she ever told the team about Solis' accusations.
Though you'd think that would have been covered by asking those on the team she might have spoken to, who wouldn't have a reason for pleading the 5th. If she had told them, then being asked whether they'd heard about his harassment, they would have had to answer.
-OZ-
Footballguy
lawyer but not my expertise.
It depends. It seems really doubtful that any of this was within the scope of their agreement or part of a conspiracy.
without that, you’re probably arguing for vicarious liability (like when an employer is liable for acts of its employees). Which basically comes back to knowledge, known or should have known. Way too many unknowns here to even give a halfway decent analysis.
Last edited by a moderator:
for every therapist that heard about Watson's harassment thru the grapevine,
their case is based on quicksand, as they contribute to the result by ignoring the risk.
Apple Juice
Footballguy
Agreed. Just set a precedent and banish the dude. Goodell will come out of the last decade of vile filth smelling like roses. The NFL would be praised and become a leader for good.
Oh wait, forgot that somehow Watson is making them tons of money? Or something?
facook
Footballguy
For life? Based on complaints, and no criminal charges even being filed? I'm convinced he's done the things he's accused of but a lifetime expulsion is way over the top based on how much gray there is to all of this in my opinion. A year feels about right. I'll be disappointed but not shocked if and when it gets knocked down to 8 games.
I'm no fan of De Smith, but if it's his idea to argue Watson should be treated the same as team owners when it comes to punishment he's a genius. Dan Snyder was "suspended" (HA!) for a year and paid a $10 million fine. And he's been in charge of 2 DECADES of crap that is at least in the same ballpark of what Watson is being accused of.
Apple Juice
Footballguy
Of course Snyder should be banished as well but I've abandoned any hope of a billionaire seeing justice. Just can't happen.
At least Watson is getting raked over the coals. I'm just so tired of the absolutely horrible things people get away with that everyone is more or less okay with. I don't care about anyone in the past. I want to start seeing these guys go down now and in the future.
Also I don't think a ban is over the top. Again, I don't care about past precedents. The NFL is a public entertainment business supposedly for all audiences. This #### with Watson is so beyond the pale to me. Epitome of entitled abusive behavior that needs to be shamed and not accepted.
nirad3
Footballguy
Yeah, they were talking about this on NFL Radio earlier... 8 sounds right because there's no way the NFL would want the exposure of him on MNF/national TV against the Bengals on Halloween.
Last edited by a moderator:
facook
Footballguy
@RobMaaddi
More: I'm also told the NFL, despite insisting on indefinite suspension, wants to avoid the appeals process - source said "a terrible situation for everyone involved" - so league is more likely to abide by Sue Robinson's ruling IF she came back with 6-8 games.
Agree 100% counseling and treatment should be required. I stand by the opinion that the behavior he's been accused of would indicate addictive behavior. His drug of choice might have changed away from the massage fetish, but unless he's already in treatment and has maintained sobriety he needs to start it. It should be required from a career standpoint, but more importantly he needs it for his own health and the good of those around him.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
6-8, still. and not wishful thinking, I honestly dont even care all that much anymore... I just cant see the league wanting an appeal and this going on even longer while dealing w other, BIGGER fish to fry.
im used to my team being lame. watson can and should turn it around for us on the field, but like most moments of happiness, i dont count on it to last w this team. i own 1 stock of watson in 1 dynasty league, and have 3 other starting QBs.. so not a fantasy thing either.
i believe watson's saving grace will be the lack of criminal charges. he'll be mandated to counselling, accept it, and carry on...
im used to my team being lame. watson can and should turn it around for us on the field, but like most moments of happiness, i dont count on it to last w this team. i own 1 stock of watson in 1 dynasty league, and have 3 other starting QBs.. so not a fantasy thing either.
i believe watson's saving grace will be the lack of criminal charges. he'll be mandated to counselling, accept it, and carry on...
So, he will only get 6 to 8 because the league wants to spend the bulk of it's time on bigger fish? Well, I guess if you are gonna be a serial pervert, may as well be when an owner is getting busted.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
technically the league doesnt even choose the penalty. hence, i think 6-8 will be what's handed out. league fighting for a year, player's side for 0... a meet in the middle (due to no criminal charges going forward), w no appeals etc
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Technically, the disciplinary officer determines whether she recommends a suspension and a number of games. At that point, either side can appeal to Goodell. He can choose to listen to the appeal or pick someone else. But they are not bound to side with what the disciplinary officer came up with. Bottom line, as long as Robinson says Watson should be suspended, Goodell could still pick a suspension as he sees fit.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
One key difference comes from the fact that the findings made by Judge Sue L. Robinson “will be binding” on the parties during the appeal process. If Judge Robinson crafts her written findings and conclusions in a certain way, it could be very difficult for Goodell to simply thank her for her service and implement the punishment that the league office (controlled by Goodell) wanted in the first place.
Thus, while Tuesday night’s leak of a supposed willingness by the league to not appeal the decision if it lands within the range of a six- or eight-game suspension could be aimed at nudging Judge Robinson from making an unappealable decision that no discipline should be imposed, it’s also possible the league realizes that overturning her decision to impose six or eight games without a good reason for doing so amounts to jumping with both feet into a bear trap of litigation.
- Florio (from Faust's post)
.... so it seems the 6/8 is the "agreement" in place from both sides? without, you know... making an agreement.
Thus, while Tuesday night’s leak of a supposed willingness by the league to not appeal the decision if it lands within the range of a six- or eight-game suspension could be aimed at nudging Judge Robinson from making an unappealable decision that no discipline should be imposed, it’s also possible the league realizes that overturning her decision to impose six or eight games without a good reason for doing so amounts to jumping with both feet into a bear trap of litigation.
- Florio (from Faust's post)
.... so it seems the 6/8 is the "agreement" in place from both sides? without, you know... making an agreement.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Florio has been all over the place on this. Here's what he had to say last month . . .
As discussed earlier, it's not really in Watson's best interest financially to take this to court. He will make $1 million this year in salary and $46 million next year in salary. The chances of him winning in court are slim. Like when Brady went to court, the CBA states that the commissioner and the league can impose discipline as they see fit.
Watson might be able to play the entire season this year by going to court and appealing. But at some point he most likely will have to serve whatever suspension he was given in its entirety . . . just next year. Would he rather lose $1 million in salary or $46 million in salary (if he is suspended for an entire season)?
Soulfly3
Footballguy
if the league really did leak the fact it won't appeal a 6/8 game suspension, that's basically as good as the league saying "give him 6/8 and let's put it to bed"... no?
do they want more? honestly, probably not... do they feel like they have to promenade the fact they want to give him more? absolutely yes.
it's a money printing operation... they want the best product on the field. they know things like this disappear quickly, it always has. right or wrong. the league is full of scumbags... always has been, always will be.
do they want more? honestly, probably not... do they feel like they have to promenade the fact they want to give him more? absolutely yes.
it's a money printing operation... they want the best product on the field. they know things like this disappear quickly, it always has. right or wrong. the league is full of scumbags... always has been, always will be.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
If the league were willing to accept 6-8 games, things would never have gotten this far. And if Watson wanted 6-8 games, it would never have gotten this far. They had weeks to negotiate a mutually agreeable suspension and that went nowhere. The league wanted an indefinite suspension of at least one year (and reapplication to get back in good standing). Watson wanted 0 games. If it was as simple as 6-8 games, that would have already come up.
IMO, I think the leak of 6-8 games came out because the league wanted to get a read on how the fan base would react if that ended up as the outcome. I can't say that I explored much on that front, but the few comments that I have seen has been "WAYYYY to light."
The two sides still have the ability to reach a settlement and not wait to hear from the disciplinary officer. If 6-8 games is something the league would actually agree to, there's no time like the present. MAYBE the league could live with that, but I would guess they would demand that ALL outstanding cases by settled for them to even consider that.
What they are requesting in court is not the same thing each side requested in preliminary talks. From what I read earlier, NFL was holding firm on a cut and dry year and willing to remove the indefinite part, Watson's team would have likely jumped at chance to agree for a 6-8 game type suspension.Anarchy99 said:
Just heard something on the Dan Patrick show that I hadn't heard before: As has been stated, either side can appeal the judge's ruling, but if she recommends no suspension then the NFL cannot appeal. I was distracted briefly during the explanation for actual reason for this, but it was something to do with the combination of the grand jury not going forward and this judge's ruling. Basically saying if 2 entities said no punishment it removes NFL ability to appeal.
Patrick typically has very reliable sources, but I had not heard this scenario before. I would guess there is a very small chance this plays out, but it did make me think "what if" and what the public fall out would be if this occurs.
Patrick typically has very reliable sources, but I had not heard this scenario before. I would guess there is a very small chance this plays out, but it did make me think "what if" and what the public fall out would be if this occurs.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The "recommended no suspension" angle and inability for the league to do anything about it has been mentioned multiple times in this thread.
Catbird
Footballguy
I think the league would be all right with 6-8 games. I don't think they are, at the core, as overwhelmed by the provable behavior as a lot of people who are less involved in dealing with the behaviors of 1,500 other 20 to 30 year olds who make their livings bashing their opponents' brains out. I don't think at all, though, that they can SAY they are willing to accept a 6-8 week ban. That makes them complicit in 'letting Watson off easy.' If they can say the arbitrator did it, we wanted a lot more, they look like fighters for justice.
I'm anti-suspension because I want the best product on the field. Unless you do something extremely heinous I really don't care and Watson has not reached that level.
But that's me.
The NFL is a money printing operation but what makes me believe they'd like to bring the hammer down on Watson is 40% of NFL viewers are now women. People are going to watch football no matter who is playing, not alienating that female fan base(and based on some comments in this thread apparently a bunch of dudes as well) is something I think means more to the NFL then a team having to play without their starting QB for a year.
The game and product is just a lot bigger then Watson, like I said people are going to watch anyway and we are talking about one prime time game for the Browns that Watson even really possibly plays. Teams are getting sold for over $4 billion, many valued a lot more. If you are the NFL the easiest way to protect the golden goose IMO is to come down hard on Watson.
