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!
Since we have no indication other than that those massages were arranged and occurred, maybe we should quell our own biases/imaginations and assume only that 42 massages occurred where no allegation of inappropriate conduct was asserted.
I was just asking. Certainly high-profile professional athletes lead very different lives than the rest of us.
I’ve seen that said, but then wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would be entitled to review evidence that showed that Watson went afoul of the PCP?
If the appeal is from Goodell's ruling on what punishment is appropriate based on the evidence presented before Robinson, that would not (unless there is an unusual rule at play) open the door to other evidence beyond what Robinson found as fact from the presentation to her and Goodell reviewed as the evidentiary record for suspension.
it's hard when facts and the governing docs conflict with one's pre-conceived feelings on what the outcome needs to bemaurile putting on a clinic
In your quest to crucify Watson, its seems you have reversed the importance of the 66 therapists.
I asked a question about it because I didn’t know. That’s called “learning”, not believing in what supports my agenda.
At least once or twice a year, the local TV news will run a story about stolen cars. They always finish up by saying, "35% of the cars weren't even locked!" which of course means 65% WERE locked, but ended up stolen anyways.
Manson never murdered anyone though.
We can see what the NFL thinks, they told us.
The rule was that every team MUST get at least one prime time game.
so after taking a step back and climbing out of the rabbit hole,
It makes perfect sense from the NFL's perspective since they get Cleveland's prime time games out of the way earlier in the season when they figured a suspension would keep Watson off the field.
I understand were you are coming from because I was thinking similar when I studied the Browns schedule for hints.
Lions are interesting with a charismatic coach and some young exciting players to watch. The teams in pre season hard knocks are often those types - interesting in some ways but not seen as a top contender.
I look at that schedule and think that the NFL just doesn’t want to have the Browns in prime time. Maybe they’re not as big a draw ratings-wise. They only had 3 prime time games last year. This seems like a conspiracy theory.
Agreed. I think we lose track of this. Sure, I know there is no "smoking gun" but I don't need one, because I have a brain and common sense. Anyone defending him is speaking as a lawyer and not a human being.
man-
So your argument is that those who have seen the events play out as they have...
putting them in a position where they felt offended/uncomfortable enough to file civil lawsuits against him and he agreed to pay them to be quiet about it and go away.....
One could read this and wonder if you are talking about Watson or the Texans whole organization.
Josina Anderson appears desperate to post literally anything. Because holy crap that’s a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
Why did he pay them? Because he has tons of money.
more like someone who has a lick of common sense and is not heavily invested in a highly hyped, media driven outcome
No matter how many times you say this it still doesn't make it true. Settling with 20 plaintiffs does not mean in any way that he is guilty of anything.
you are right.....what it really means is he totally innocent and didn't do anything wrong (x20).....let's go with that....
That is not correct either. All it means is that factoring in all information from both sides they mutually agreed that was the most beneficial outcome for both of them. It doesn't prove guilt or innocence.
got it...."mutually beneficial".....
Maybe you should take the view that the plaintiffs had something to hide and hurried to settle because they had no chance at winning. I don't believe that but they must have their reasons for settling. Why can't we assume that they were just in it for a money grab and the fact the agreed to this settlement and the NDA associated with it proves that to be true? You are basically making that leap to Watson being guilty just because he agreed to these settlements. Why can't someone else make the leap that these plaintiffs had no case otherwise why would they settle?
