Last edited by a moderator:
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 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
This is not correct.
If the league appeals Robinson's decision to Goodell, Goodell must accept Robinson's findings of fact as definitive and complete. There is no appeal with respect to any factual matter. The only subject for appeal is the punishment based on the facts as found by Robinson. So if Robinson makes no factual findings about the claims not presented at the hearing (which, obviously, she will not), then Goodell may not consider any of those claims on appeal.
Last edited by a moderator:
It has been suggested that the NFL did not present Judge Robinson with "all the facts". It has also been suggested that Roger Goodell, as commissioner of the NFL, wants to protect the brand and prefers a lengthy suspension. If Goodell and the NFL want a lengthy suspension, why would they not present "all the facts" to Judge Robinson?
The NFL would have presented the most damning facts it had.
It may not have had all the facts because many of the women may have refused to cooperate with the league's investigation (fearing that doing so could harm their civil cases against Watson).
Also, some of the facts may detract from the credibility of the accusations rather than bolstering it, so the league wouldn't have presented those facts.
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
-OZ-
Footballguy
Even if he could, why the hell would he? He might raise the suspension (assuming there is one) but they have an out, a neutral judge considered all the facts and thought whatever was fair. If that means Watson gets back on the field soon, the on field product is better and they have an easy out for any PR backlash. He blows it up, he hurts the on field product and gives Watson more incentive to complain and racial theorists ammunition. I’m starting to think he truly wants a short suspension which includes the ability to say the process was followed, fairness to the “accused” matters, and whether we like him or not, we cannot deny that Watson makes browns games more entertaining.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
The NFL certainly has demonstrated that they can make things that could be bad for them disappear, that’s for sure. The report on Snyder hasn’t leaked a bit. The report on Jerry Jones gonzo. Spygate tapes and evidence destroyed and nothing has seen the light of day.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
with all due respect......do you know with 100% certainty that all the bolded is true....and if so please post where you see this documented somewhere...
Last edited by a moderator:
you don't know this....because you don't know what it is that they know....
they may have some information from the 20 cases that were settled that they didn't present....because maybe they wouldn't knowing Robinson could not factor it in....it doesn't mean the NFL doesn't know about it...and can't factor it in to there final decision if choosing to up the suspension...
Last edited by a moderator:
Article 46, Section 1(e) of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
"(ii) The Disciplinary Officer will be responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings (pursuant to the procedures of Section 2 below), issuing binding findings of fact and determining the discipline that should be imposed, if any, in accordance with the Personal Conduct Policy....
(v) The Disciplinary Officer’s disciplinary determination will be final and binding subject only to the right of either party to appeal to the Commissioner. The appeal shall be in writing within three business days of the Disciplinary Officer’s decision, and any response to the appeal shall be filed in writing within two business days thereafter. The appeal shall be limited to arguments why, based on the evidentiary record below, the amount of discipline, if any, should be modified. The Commissioner or his designee will issue a written decision that will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute and will be binding upon the player(s), Club(s) and the parties to this Agreement."
Last edited by a moderator:
When the league is seeking to discipline a player, it's the league's job to present the strongest case it can to the Disciplinary Officer, just like it's the DA's job to present the strongest case it can to the grand jury. I know some people have an unconventional belief that the DA was in cahoots with Watson's lawyers, and maybe some people think the league is involved in the conspiracy to go easy on Watson as well, but that belief is frankly pretty out there.
Robinson would have considered any admissible evidence that the league presented, including evidence from the cases that settled. (What makes you think she wouldn't?) The settlements all occurred after the league had conducted the bulk of its investigation, so there's no reason to think that the investigation automatically excluded those cases. (How would the league have known ahead of time which cases would later settle?)
The Commissioner cannot consider information that wasn't presented at the hearing because that information is not part of the evidentiary record below (see previous post).
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
That’s an interesting point. 24 women had filed suits, 20 settled, 5 cases were brought to Robinson with 1 tossed, she’s considering 4. The math lined up but do we know which 4 cases were considered?
Soulfly3
Footballguy
what's even more interesting in that, is that the case that was tossed by the judge has a very good likelihood of being a case that was settled by watson (83% chance, statistically speaking)
Last edited by a moderator:
That's like the Cowboys front office worker that was accused of following cheerleaders into the locker room and possibly filming them in the process. Breaking news one day, on to the next topic as soon as possible.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
People have that belief because the investigating detective made that accusation, and said plainly that there was enough evidence for an indictment.
Thats not a conspiracy theory. It’s an actual accusation by the detective who investigated the criminal complaint against Watson.
Disregarding the straw man tossed in at the end about the league somehow being involved, how is that “pretty out there”?
Seems like a reasonable claim to make by the detective who’d gathered/seen the evidence.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Watson’s legal team had serious issues with this detective’s testimony, noting that she admitted to believing the women at the outset, creating an unfair presumption of guilt for Watson. Watson’s lead counsel, Rusty Hardin, also got Baker to admit it was possible the prosecutor had considerably more evidence at her disposal than Baker did.
How do you know the investigative detective's accusation is not a conspiracy theory? Perhaps he has an agenda. There is not much sense in indicting a "ham sandwich" if there is a very minimal chance of a successful prosecution. We have not heard from the investigative detective what that evidence was.
You may be right, that evidence was squelched, but you don't know that. At this point it is one man's hearsay or possibly the investigative detective considered plaintiff's hearsay evidence.
You may be right, that evidence was squelched, but you don't know that. At this point it is one man's hearsay or possibly the investigative detective considered plaintiff's hearsay evidence.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
The number 66 proves Watson is guilty in the world of public opinion, but using 66 different masseuses is not criminal.
That's not what I said and you know that. Did Deshaun or his team argue that the number 66 was inflated?
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
It’s exactly what you said…I quoted what you said.
Considering the 66 number came out in the Vrentas piece June 7 and the GJ’s didn’t bring indictments back in March…I would say that number didn’t come out at all.
But you keep on sharpening your pitchfork.
You didn't quote me at all - I never said he faced 66 chargesIt’s exactly what you said…I quoted what you said.
Considering the 66 number came out in the Vrentas piece June 7 and the GJ’s didn’t bring indictments back in March…I would say that number didn’t come out at all.
But you keep on sharpening your pitchfork.
Any man who engages with 66 different masseuses over a 17 month period is a sexual deviant. No exceptions. Deshaun is sick in the head. I have already said, when it comes to FF, I have no morals. I will roster murderers and rapists, if they help me win. Was Charles Manson known as a murderer, or just sick in the head?
apalmer
Footballguy
So if the league wants to ensure its punishment has the best chance of not being challenged in court, it imposes a 10 game suspension. Watson can then choose whether to lose 10/17 of $1 million ($588,000) or file a lawsuit, get an injunction to let him play this year, and, if he wins probably get a shorter suspension next year. If he only gets 4 games, then he'll lose 4/17 of $46 million ($10.8 million) . Even if he gets it shortened to 1 game, it's over twice as much as he'd lose serving the 10 game suspension this year. Of course, he could also lose the appeal and end up serving the suspension next year, which would cost him $27 million. Unless he's one of those "it's the principle of the thing" guys, there's no upside in going to court in that scenario.
If Robinson suspends Watson for 10 games, I think Watson would appeal to the Commissioner, but win or lose there, would not file a lawsuit. I think he'd file a lawsuit only if he's suspended for a full season.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
I could care less about the number 24, or 4, or any other number than 66. Is the number 66 in question by either side? It's a simple yes or no answer.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
Another quoted passage you’ll now deny…why would Deshaun and team deny 66 if the number of complaints was one-third of that.
The simple yes/no answer. No.
These pitchforks are comedy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the number 66 in question by either side? It's a simple yes or no answer.Another quoted passage you’ll now deny…why would Deshaun and team deny 66 if the number of complaints was one-third on that.
The simple yes/no answer. No.
These pitchforks are comedy.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
How do you think the law works?
Why would either side comment on appointments booked?
There were/are 24 civil complaints and 10 criminal ones, the criminal ones overlapping with 24. 66 is a journalists number, not a legal one.
I believe appointment logs confirm the use of 66 different masseuses. So what. That merely confirms that Watson choose to use many therapist. That is perhaps odd, but again what does that prove. It has helped you form an opinion, which is your right, but it is hardly criminal.How do you think the law works?
Why would either side comment on appointments booked?
There were/are 24 civil complaints and 10 criminal ones, the criminal ones overlapping with 24. 66 is a journalists number, not a legal one.
Oops, wrong quote.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think Watson got massages from 66 women in a 17-month period? Yes or no?How do you think the law works?
Why would either side comment on appointments booked?
There were/are 24 civil complaints and 10 criminal ones, the criminal ones overlapping with 24. 66 is a journalists number, not a legal one.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
It is a free country. We can use as many massage therapists as we want. It most certainly suggests Watson is odd and most likely perverted, but it proves nothing criminally.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I believe when the rubber hits the road, team Watson will accept any suspension handed down that doesn’t extend into 2023 when there’s real money to be lost.
If they opt to pursue a lawsuit against the mighty NFL & thus extend this ####show, risking double-digit millions + discovery (where IIRC, the NFL would gain access to all of the evidence in every allegation from the criminal investigation) along with all the terrible press that comes along with it, then they either truly believe in the innocence of Watson (hard to believe since they settled so many cases) or they are fools.
There are about 500 ways for a lawsuit to go badly. The smart play is to accept any suspension up to a year, IMHO.
Last edited by a moderator:
None of that would be relevant to his lawsuit, and it would not be discoverable IMO.
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
Whenever I notice someone saying "it's a free country" it is usually followed up with some very stupid words or actions.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
If the claim is that he did nothing wrong, surely any evidence to the contrary would be discoverable, no?
I’ve seen differing opinions on this online, many from chrckmark attorneys, so I’m honestly not sure what to believe.
it's a free country, but of course there are consequences to ones actions. There should be no consequences for using 66 different massage therapists. There should be consequences for abusing any of those therapists, but that is very separate from the actual hiring of 66 massage therapists.
daveR
Footballguy
The question of whether Watson did anything wrong is entirely irrelevant to any lawsuit he might file, so information about that topic should not be discoverable. (Sue Robinson's findings of fact on that point will be binding and will not be relitigated by any court.)
The only basis for a lawsuit by Watson would be that Goodell acted outside the scope of his authority under the CBA.
Last edited by a moderator:
