TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Does it matter as it relates to the fallout the NFL might be subject to? These people are influencers…they’ll influence.
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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Yes, it all matters. Logic always matters. And “influencers” get called out on it all the time. If they’re being illogical, & trafficking in fallacies to make their points, they won’t be as influential.
The dude you put up has ~11k. That’s not exactly a stratospheric audience count.
And, in fact, some responses that “influencer” is getting on that very tweet are calling him out on the false equivalence.
Here’s the 1st:
”'i’m confused at why we're comparing solicitation to sexual misconduct/assault”
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
We don’t forget about the 20 cases. But was the existence of the settlement part of the NFL’s case?
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Let’s realize that one of the cases he likely settled was thrown out by Robinson because it was based off nothing but a media report.
Why would Watson settle THAT case? And if you ask yourself the question why would Watson settle any of the cases…is that an admission of guilt?
Or perhaps it’s because his life no longer is in Texas. It’s. It not a matter of jumping in a car, driving 30 minutes to take part in these trials once they made it to court. It’s having to travel now to a place you no longer have ties to…upending your life 20+ times, interrupting workouts, season prep, general life experience over the next 2-3 years at least and incurring the cost to do so. Would it even make sense to move from Houston? Why would he stay in Houston if he no longer plays for the Texans?
There are LOTS of reasons for Watson to want to move on and settle. Particularly since he faces no criminal charges now. In his opinion, the criminal justice system has already cleared his name.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
That may be from your POV, but someone else might say, why are we comparing someone who a grand jury didn’t even move forward with charges, to someone who pled guilty?Yes, it all matters. Logic always matters. And “influencers” get called out on it all the time. If they’re being illogical, & trafficking in fallacies to make their points, they won’t be as influential.
The dude you put up has ~11k. That’s not exactly a stratospheric audience count.
And, in fact, some responses that “influencer” is getting on that very tweet are calling him out on the false equivalence.
Here’s the 1st:
”'i’m confused at why we're comparing solicitation to sexual misconduct/assault”
I’m struggling to understand why that’s not logical either? Maybe both POV’s have threads of logic. But does that
speak for all mankind.If you want to point out that comment, I can point out other comments in support of the message/tweet. Like…
‘they will always criticize black men with money tho. It sucks’
OR
’Agree. The implicit biases in this country are so obvious’.
to the bolded....IMO.....yeah....not just yeah.... but #### yeah it is....(just IMO, but I think the vast majority agree)...
if he "didn't do anything wrong"....those cases would be so flimsy the top of the line lawyers that a multi million dollar QB could hire would be able to win those pretty easily no...?...
sorry but the travel stuff or whatever is BS.....I would put up with some "inconvenience" if it meant clearing my name for some pretty creepy #### that I have been pounding my chest about saying I didn't do.....the "inconvenience" would be worth clearing my name, especially in the court of public opinion....I mean no sponsor is going to touch this guy now....if he clears his name and becomes "marketable" again, that could be worth more millions then what it would cost him in legal fees....
all the "criminal justice system" did was say there wasn't enough evidence to bring criminal charges....that is a long way away from clearing your name....
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Because false equivalence is always illogical, and no, there are not “both sides” to it.I’m struggling to understand why that’s not logical either? Maybe both POV’s have threads of logic. But does that
that’s a second, related fallacy called “whataboutism”
You seem to traffic in these frequently, so it’s not surprising that you’re struggling.
This might help:
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/logical-fallacies?mna=5&aceid=&gbraid=0AAAAADgc-H6AQS2y6JR07dJ3YMnAbQEWE&gclid=CjwKCAjwt7SWBhAnEiwAx8ZLaqfTbqscrSDHoBwQPi5NDVmkA9wIfJNYGtRjNZzsB_N05CGsKY1d0hoC-zgQAvD_BwE
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Soulfly3 said:
Seems like the NFL maybe presented a weak "case" on purpose . . . .
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Interesting that you'll call out my 'perceived' false equivalence...but when it comes to another POV that agrees with yours
From your link: The bandwagon argument: Incorrectly assumes that if a majority of people believe in an idea, it must automatically be true.
So do you use this link every time your argument starts to crumble?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
No, I’ve never used this link before now, and my argument (whatever argument you’re alleging I’m making) is not crumbling.
i have no idea what “bandwagon” you’re alleging I’m a part of, but you are and have absolutely been engaging in false equivalence, trying to make the Kraft & Watson cases the same to forward your preposterous assertion that this is about race. They’re not, and it isn’t.
Your response is clearly deflection after getting called out on engaging in false equivalence.
I’ve tried to help you with your logical fallacy problem, but you’re clearly beyond help/unwilling to be helped.
As such I’m putting you on ignore now. Don’t bother replying to this, or tagging me in future posts, thanks.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Pretty sure he was talking to me. It doesn’t matter. He’s just spouting nonsense at this point. I’m well convinced he’s just trolling this topic at this point.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Also...this is tea leaves too...but I think Watson might see this hearing AS his civil suit/day in court. Bottomline is that even before his $230M fully guaranteed contract, he was worth 8 figs, probably mid 8 figs. So he'll be worth 9 figs at some point. The settlement money is likely in the disposable range to him. Even if those cases were of the flimsiest variety, he still would have had to stand trial. 20+ times. I'd call that more than some 'inconvenience' And if they are of the flimsiest variety, then the notion of spending as much time in a courtroom as he would have had to would have been more galling to him. Particularly since he faced no criminal charges. And let's be frank...if a criminal justice system that didn't proceed with even filing charges isn't enough for people to say he cleared his name like evidently you have...public opinion ain't going to change if he's found not guilty 20+ times. Why would a civil courts finding change public opinion but not a criminal court...whose primary role is to do just that?
What matters to Watson is playing football. He's been resolute in that. The judge/jury/executioner he cares about is the NFL. His case was heard before a former Federal judge. And what punishment does or does not get handed down from this process is the one that IMO matters to him.
like many.....my name/word/reputation is all I got....I'm not rich or powerful enough not to care about it.....some people are...
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
I think that's hysterical you think that. In this thread I've sited:
- Texas sexual conduct law and the level of severity what Watson's been accused of rises to.
- Precedent on previous NFL suspensions
- Compared the situations of Watson/Kraft, much like Watson's legal team has
- A healthcare paper/article explaining the physiology of unsolicited release.
- In bringing race into the topic, sited actual POV's that support the notion that maybe there's some smoke there in the minds of the African-American community.
...and you've posted a link from a job board explaining false equivalency.
-OZ-
Footballguy
Presumably you’re just talking court of public opinion, but no. Settling a civil case is emphatically NOT an admission of guilt. I mean, I guess it could be, if part of the settlement is to publicly admit guilt. But that’s rare. Like very.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
So why then, if 2 GJ's found no reason to move forward with charges and the NFL out of 20+ incidents saw fit to only include 5 in their case which took a year to put together...then had a judge throw one of the (top) 5 out because it was solely based on a media report, do you still have your pitchfork out?
The POV you have today on the matter hasn't changed one bit?
....yeah as I have indicated several times in this thread, it is not "technically" an admission of guilt, but is often perceived in that way....and I think that applies here big time due to the sheer volume and consistency of the accusations.....plenty of one off situations where settling or taking a plea is the route to go.....but when you basically say I did nothing wrong even with all the volume here, and then try to spin it that settling is not admitting guilt and was "easier/better" for me to do instead of trying to actually clear my name....IMO that is very telling.....
after criminal charges were off the table....Watson flipped so easily from pounding his chest and saying I didn't do anything wrong and I am not going to settle any of these.....to "where do I send the check or would you rather I Venmo you" .....as soon as he did, he sealed the deal on ever "clearing" his name....it either doesn't really mean that much to him.....or he really is guilty....probably a combination of both...
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I still am not connecting the dots with Kraft here. There were a ton of issues in the sting operation that ended up snagging Kraft. IIRC, the DA and/or sheriff were up for reelection and were trying to make names for themselves. There was no evidence of sex trafficking at that location, but the only way they could get a warrant to install cameras was to assert that from a judge. From what I remember, they overstated what was going on in the massage parlor (and would not have gotten permission to install cameras just for prostitution). None of the women complained about Kraft's behavior, nor did anyone file a civil complaint or demand money. The police also demanded identification from Kraft (as a passenger) in a vehicle that got pulled over without probable cause. They stopped him just to get his name and contact information, only to then learn who it was.
The legal case against him was a mess, the league waited it out, and the case got tossed. How many games do people think would be reasonable for Kraft to miss? He's not a player, so it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Kraft has also donated tens of millions of dollars to charities and has done a ton of community service on his own over the years (including nearly $2 million to DV and sex exploitation organizations). I don't see the Kraft and Watson situations as being similar at all.
The legal case against him was a mess, the league waited it out, and the case got tossed. How many games do people think would be reasonable for Kraft to miss? He's not a player, so it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Kraft has also donated tens of millions of dollars to charities and has done a ton of community service on his own over the years (including nearly $2 million to DV and sex exploitation organizations). I don't see the Kraft and Watson situations as being similar at all.
all the GJ did was say not enough for "criminal charges"...I can't speak to why the NFL only presented 5 instead of 6 or 16....or 20+....nobody can....so reading anything into that number is pretty difficult....they definitely had a lot to choose from though...no...?
as far as the bolded.....no it hasn't....in my mind I'm even more convinced he is somebody I would prefer to never see a football field I am watching again...as soon as he settled the 20 that's all I needed to see...game over....if he would have actually fought them and stood by his adamant convictions I would have had more respect for him....he bought his way out and in doing so admitted guilt IMO....some may not feel that way but I do...
some people can look in the mirror or lay their head on their pillow and sleep just fine thinking in their mind (like you said Watson did) that they have cleared their name....but there was most definitely fire behind the smoke here....I'm not gonna bury my head in the sand no matter the outcome....because by settling Watson confirmed what I think....his a creepy POS that took advantage of his money/power/standing to creep on women....and now is doubling down by buying his way out and settling....he has done nothing to me to indicate he is anything more than a man with money who will try to buy his way out of everything.....I hope he gets roasted in his further court proceedings although he will probably end up settling those too...
walks like a duck....quacks like a duck....it's a creepy perv who thinks it's ok to violate women because of who you are.....
Last edited by a moderator:
MTskibum
Footballguy
I am hoping for only an 6-8 week suspension because in the end this is not going to impact the amount of money this guy has. No way they can get a 3-4 year suspension for him.
I am not understanding why anyone defends him. I think people should be forgiven and given second chances, but in this thread there seems to be people defending him more than they should be.
I am not understanding why anyone defends him. I think people should be forgiven and given second chances, but in this thread there seems to be people defending him more than they should be.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
When you consider he will be helpful to the success of their magical foozeball teams (or the Browns) if he receives a light, or no suspension, it makes a lot more sense.
For some, that’s truly all that matters here, and folks will grasp on to any available talking point to help them do the mental gymnastics required to excuse his allegedly abhorrent behavior in order to benefit their RL or dynasty team (or both)
We’ve seen it before. We’ll see it again.
Sad, but true.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
So a few things:
1) If the cases against Watson got tossed by a criminal justice system, just like they did against Kraft, why is Watson facing consequences from the NFL PCP which is supposed to cover EVERYONE employed by the NFL, but Kraft - meh, carry on? Not for nothing, but if the legal case against Watson included a suit brought about by an accuser based on a media report, as was revealed earlier, that feels suspect, no? That what the NFL brought to bear out of 22 wound up being 4?
2) Suspending an owner isn't unprecedented in the NFL; Jim Irsay got 6 games awhile back. It can happen. They're not immune.
3) Why did you not include Watson's charitable endeavors and his foundation? All you got to do is google it and you'd see that at least prior to all this, he was quite active in this regard.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
In New England, there are articles pretty regularly on Kraft, his foundations, and the Patriots doing all sorts of charitable work, subsidizing programs, cutting checks, etc. I had no knowledge one way or another what Watson did or didn't do on the community service front. His PR team should have tried to humanize him more if that was the case, and if he had dropped a big donation for a women's support group at the start of all this, that would have helped his image. None of that would make him anymore guilty or innocent had things gone to court, but it would have influenced the court of public opinion.So a few things:
1) If the cases against Watson got tossed by a criminal justice system, just like they did against Kraft, why is Watson facing consequences from the NFL PCP which is supposed to cover EVERYONE employed by the NFL, but Kraft - meh, carry on? Not for nothing, but if the legal case against Watson included a suit brought about by an accuser based on a media report, as was revealed earlier, that feels suspect, no? That what the NFL brought to bear out of 22 wound up being 4?
2) Suspending an owner isn't unprecedented in the NFL; Jim Irsay got 6 games awhile back. It can happen. They're not immune.
3) Why did you not include Watson's charitable endeavors and his foundation? All you got to do is google it and you'd see that at least prior to all this, he was quite active in this regard.
Similarly, if he admitted he had some sort of issue that he was now getting counseling and treatment for, this entire thing may have gone away and the league might not have even pursued anything if he settled the cases before they went public. If it only came out that there were 4 women filing civil suits and he was taking care of things, there would not have been an outrage (24 women! 66 massage therapists! Uber pervert!) Now people and the league are pot committed, so people want a pound of flesh.
IMO, Watson could have handled things a lot better.
So a few things:
1) If the cases against Watson got tossed by a criminal justice system, just like they did against Kraft, why is Watson facing consequences from the NFL PCP which is supposed to cover EVERYONE employed by the NFL, but Kraft - meh, carry on? Not for nothing, but if the legal case against Watson included a suit brought about by an accuser based on a media report, as was revealed earlier, that feels suspect, no? That what the NFL brought to bear out of 22 wound up being 4?
2) Suspending an owner isn't unprecedented in the NFL; Jim Irsay got 6 games awhile back. It can happen. They're not immune.
3) Why did you not include Watson's charitable endeavors and his foundation? All you got to do is google it and you'd see that at least prior to all this, he was quite active in this regard.
slightly off topic, but with regards to #3.....TBH I hate when this becomes part of the conversation...pretty much any star athlete or owner or whatever usually donates some money to charity or has a cause or foundation....and TBH they also usually have a marketing team that does 99% of the work and all they do is write checks and make a few appearances....you don't get any extra cookies in your lunch box for that....that minimizes some of what some of the true rock stars do when it comes to this stuff, but you get the point....it's not like any of these guys are humping it everyday for their charitable endeavors....however maybe Watson is different in that regard under these particular circumstances so no pun intended with the humping comment....
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Perfectly stated.
And as you subtly implied, doing charitable deeds doesn’t excuse one’s (allegedly) abhorrent behavior.
Bringing up Watson’s alleged charity work (many/most pro athletes have foundations as a tax dodge, so I’m often skeptical of motivation) is as irrelevant as the color of his skin.
”I heard Jeffery Dahmer often helped little old ladies across the street - why does no one ever talk about THAT when his name comes up?”
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I get it, charitable foundations and donations could be borderline corrupt and a diversion to what is really going on. I forget who it was, but I remember a while ago there was a QB that essentially created a bogus foundation that was only staffed with relatives. The player got a big write off and his family all got paychecks to essentially not do any work.Perfectly stated.
And as you subtly implied, doing charitable deeds doesn’t excuse one’s (allegedly) abhorrent behavior.
Bringing up Watson’s alleged charity work (many/most pro athletes have foundations as a tax dodge, so I’m often skeptical of motivation) is as irrelevant as the color of his skin.
”I heard Jeffery Dahmer often helped little old ladies across the street - why does no one ever talk about THAT when his name comes up?”
In Watson's case, people would be less inclined to hang him if he had done some better PR and put a different spin on things. That would not change his 66 massage therapists and his freaky predilections, but that probably would have prevented a witch hunt and tribunal.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Wait a second...bring up Kraft's charitable work is OK. But bringing up Watson's is irrelevant?Perfectly stated.
And as you subtly implied, doing charitable deeds doesn’t excuse one’s (allegedly) abhorrent behavior.
Bringing up Watson’s alleged charity work (many/most pro athletes have foundations as a tax dodge, so I’m often skeptical of motivation) is as irrelevant as the color of his skin.
”I heard Jeffery Dahmer often helped little old ladies across the street - why does no one ever talk about THAT when his name comes up?”
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I didn’t say that, at all. Your quote of me didn’t have that in it. Kindly don’t put words in my mouth.Wait a second...bring up Kraft's charitable work is OK. But bringing up Watson's is irrelevant?
This is a straw man & yet more whataboutism and false equivalence, but I’m reasonably sure you know that. You’d have to be obtuse to not.
The fact is that Kraft’s charitable work is *also* irrelevant in considering his offense, which *again*, is not remotely like or related to Watson’s alleged offenses.
That is the last post I’ll unhide from you. Goodbye.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Then the Miami Dolphins, in your eyes, are guilty of racial discrimination? Because they tried to settle with Flores?
plenty of one off situations where settling or taking a plea is the route to go.....but when you basically say I did nothing wrong even with all the volume here, and then try to spin it that settling is not admitting guilt and was "easier/better" for me to do instead of trying to actually clear my name....IMO that is very telling.....
after criminal charges were off the table....Watson flipped so easily from pounding his chest and saying I didn't do anything wrong and I am not going to settle any of these.....to "where do I send the check or would you rather I Venmo you" .....as soon as he did, he sealed the deal on ever "clearing" his name....it either doesn't really mean that much to him.....or he really is guilty....probably a combination of both...
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Two years after being released from prison, Mike Vick, after serving two years in Leavenworth for a RICO dog-fighting ring re-signed with NIke. There are people who still haven't forgiven him 15 years later...that's their choice. Most have though...doesn't take away from the fact he murdered dogs.
Being able to put legal incidents in the rear view and getting a chance to move on with your life is a pretty big carrot.
With no settlement, this drags on for Watson. As long as it drags on for Watson, he's associated with it; fair or not. You might think it's fair...he thinks it's unfair since he's been staunch and adamant about his innocence. But that hasn't helped to date. And if faced with the prospect of probably giving up less than 2% of his massive net worth to put this in the rear view and not having to spend the next 2-3 years defending 20+ civil suits individually while this stays in the news, that's the reality of his situation. This path would take away from workout time, family time, prepping for the upcoming season time, focusing on getting better time, $ making opportunity time (...if Nike resigned Vick)...all at the cost of trying to appease every single persons variable and in some cases unattainable versions of what guilt/innocence is even though he wasn't charged and in the NFL's eyes, 80%+ of the cases lodged didn't make it into their 'case'.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
I really don't see anyone defending Watson in here, not sure why that keeps being brought up. Maybe one guy, but i think he's just polarizing the other extreme views in here.
Just because some of us see some issue with what's happening, isnt necessarily defending him. I think most agree his actions were offputting at the lightest.
Just because some of us see some issue with what's happening, isnt necessarily defending him. I think most agree his actions were offputting at the lightest.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
You’ve been pretty consistently and openly either playing devil’s advocate or calling for a minimum suspension.
There have been more than a few folks claiming Watson was exonerated, or “found innocent” by the GJ, which simply isn’t true. And still others have parroted the Rusty line of “didn’t rape, commit violence against, etc” list of things he didn’t do while avoiding/evading the thing he allegedly did do, the “non-consensual contact”.
So indeed, there have been many here defending Watson, even if they’re not coming out and saying they are. Merely adopting those talking points is a clear demonstration.
greenmountaingoat
Footballguy
I think the main gist of the thread:
The arbitrator is making a decision based on rules in the personal conduct policy. Leeway exists. Get over it.
Goodell is constrained in some ways by whatever the arbitrator recommends for a suspension or not. But if there's any suspension, he can increase or decrease it. Again, he has leeway.
Goodell's history suggests he's going to lean heavily into a "what the other owners want him to do" (ahem, deflategate). And be within his rights, technically, to do so. Public Relations agendas also figure prominently in the thinking, but loop us back to point 1. What the other owners want him to do.
Following the issuance of the suspension, three camps will emerge.
1. Not enough, ban this sicko for life!!!- they wouldn't have ever been satisfied but will move on to another movement du-jour pretty quickly. .
2. They had no evidence, no crime, it's a racial issue , bla bla bla- Yes we know how you feel, thank you for the novella/diatribe of unreadable posts.
Most of the talking will happen in groups 1 and 2, however most folks will be in group 3. Ready to move on with an 8 gamer and hope for the sake of all that's holy that anything we say doesn't further engage groups 1 and 2.
I drafted David Bell at pick 15 in my rookie draft but I also have the '23 first of the team with Watson and an otherwise stacked team. So I'm leaning toward hoping for a full season
The arbitrator is making a decision based on rules in the personal conduct policy. Leeway exists. Get over it.
Goodell is constrained in some ways by whatever the arbitrator recommends for a suspension or not. But if there's any suspension, he can increase or decrease it. Again, he has leeway.
Goodell's history suggests he's going to lean heavily into a "what the other owners want him to do" (ahem, deflategate). And be within his rights, technically, to do so. Public Relations agendas also figure prominently in the thinking, but loop us back to point 1. What the other owners want him to do.
Following the issuance of the suspension, three camps will emerge.
1. Not enough, ban this sicko for life!!!- they wouldn't have ever been satisfied but will move on to another movement du-jour pretty quickly. .
2. They had no evidence, no crime, it's a racial issue , bla bla bla- Yes we know how you feel, thank you for the novella/diatribe of unreadable posts.
Most of the talking will happen in groups 1 and 2, however most folks will be in group 3. Ready to move on with an 8 gamer and hope for the sake of all that's holy that anything we say doesn't further engage groups 1 and 2.
I drafted David Bell at pick 15 in my rookie draft but I also have the '23 first of the team with Watson and an otherwise stacked team. So I'm leaning toward hoping for a full season
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
So if anyone has read anything on grand juries:
1) The grand jury process is prosecutor-friendly in that grand jurors see and hear only what prosecutors put before them. There is no defense that chops away at those findings.
2) The rate of return for an indictment nationwide is 90% because of this. What I don't know is were these cases considered as a group or individually? But 0 for 22?
3) Prosecutors often prefer grand juries because the proceedings are secret, whereas preliminary hearings are open to the public. The rule on secrecy is meant to provide several benefits. For the accused, it protects their reputation should no charges be issued (obviously not the case for Watson). For witnesses, it's meant to allow them to testify more freely and truthfully. And for the prosecution, it provides control of information. So this should have been an even greater advantage to securing indictments. No cross-examination.
There used to be a pretty hallowed concept in this country - 'innocent until proven guilty'. What the pitchforks in here though want though is blood despite a legal system that was already slanted toward Watson having to defend himself in a court of law not to mention a significantly decreased amount of viable cases the NFL could put in front of a former Federal judge as it related to his professional fate.
Yet, apparently that isn't enough checkboxes for the 'guilty until proven innocent in civil court' crew here, even though the next BS defense on that would be 'he was found 'not guilty'...he wasn't found innocent'...who just happened to be a young black guy.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
I see the logical argument of both sides of the fence and fall pretty in the middle. Deserves a few games, nothing more.
Unless factual info comes out to the contrary about violence/force/coercion.... Then of course it should be longer.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I don’t need to see that. because that’s all a red herring since he has not been accused of any of that.
All I need to know is that the NFL found concrete evidence of non-consensual contact.
and the more instances of that, the longer the suspension should be.
I am assuming the NFL is focusing on four or five incidents because they have more evidence of that in those four or five incidents.
nothing else matters except evidence of non-consensual contact. That would be clear violation of the PCP, and would absolutely warrant suspension.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
What evidence are you referring to? Two weeks ago, I'm sure you were citing 22 pieces of evidence. 82% of your evidence was not presented. In fact, you were still presenting 22 pieces as of last week. Even though the NFL wasn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am in the camp of....
so far there have been 20 cases of evidence.... due to him agreeing to settle and pay financial compensation for his uhhhh....."transgressions"......
if people want to bury their head in the sand and say things like "that is just 20 examples of him not wanting to be "inconvenienced" while trying to clear his name....so be it....
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Also evidence can be as simple as corroborating text messages, emails, PM/DMs, etc.
Also corroborating testimony from the alleged victims. This, of course, is why Rusty worked so hard to discredit them in the public eye.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
What's the difference between non-consentual contact and force/coercion
honest question
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
So, he refused to settle when each of the 22 cases carried with it a maximum penalty of 180 days in jail. So a maximum sentence of 11 years. Refused it to such a degree that he thanked Stephen Ross for his interest in trading for him, but declined to leave the Texans at that juncture in time, an organization he despised. When his very personal freedom was at stake.
But because he now threw pocket change (to him) to be done with the situation, your pitchfork stays sharpened?
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
The NFL needed enough evidence to have a finding that Watson violated the PCP and have the arbitrator recommend a suspension. Then Goodell and the league can appeal and inflate the penalty as they see fit (ie, the punishment the owners want imposed). I suspect they will factor in that there were so many court filings. They won't say that, of course. They will just report that Watson had multiple incidents and multiple violations of the PCP, which to them warrants a suspension of X games (or an indefinite suspension if that's what they really want). I would be surprised if the league simply accepts whatever the discipline officer recommends (unless she assigns the suspension they want in the first place).
As I posted already, financially it doesn't make much sense for Watson to appeal through the court system (if it's a lengthy suspension), as Watson would only lose $61K per game suspended on the first year of his contract vs. $2.7M per game if he had to miss games on the second year of his contract. If he played all this season but sat out all next season, it would cost him $45M.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
As I understand it:
Force = held them down against their will, pulled out his junk & did things.
Coercion = attempted to solicit with bribes and/or intimidation. “I will pay you to let me pull out my junk” or “I’ll tell everyone you’re a hooker & ruin your license / practice if you don’t let me pull out my junk”
Non-consensual = he just went ahead and pulled out his junk / ejaculated on them.
It’s a pretty big difference.
