Deshaun Watson admits under oath that Ashley Solis cried at the end of the massage

[CSBill]

On 7/14/2022 at 9:20 AM, ytownblofan said:

 

Currently live in Cleveland. I would say the vast majority are now hanging their hats on "Yeah, but what about Kraft and Snyder" and the lack of evidence. I have heard several times "well, if he actually did it, he should get suspended, but there really isn't any evidence against him, so Go Browns". 

 

Initially, the majority was disgusted but I would say since then its been switched and now the majority just want to find out what the punishment will be with most assuming it will be light. 

 

"Denial is a hell of a drug." .... Or a river in Cleveland.

[HappyDays]

 

[GunnerBill]

58 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

 

On the latter of these two updates I have been saying for months on this while Florio has been parrotting his "the league's decision is final" line that this is appealable to federal court. The league has very broad discretion but deflategate established very clearly it has to apply that discretion in a rational way or else it can be held to have acted outside its power. 

 

Now whether ultimately a federal court would hold that a 1 year suspension constitutes an irrational application of its discretion is less certain. But the fact that it IS challengeable beyond the NFL process (not on the punishment in and of itself but on the use of the NFL's power) has really never been beyond doubt. 

[RoyBatty is alive]

44 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

On the latter of these two updates I have been saying for months on this while Florio has been parrotting his "the league's decision is final" line that this is appealable to federal court. The league has very broad discretion but deflategate established very clearly it has to apply that discretion in a rational way or else it can be held to have acted outside its power. 

 

Now whether ultimately a federal court would hold that a 1 year suspension constitutes an irrational application of its discretion is less certain. But the fact that it IS challengeable beyond the NFL process (not on the punishment in and of itself but on the use of the NFL's power) has really never been beyond doubt. 

issue will be if it lands in Federal Court , if the Feds can force the NFL to let Watson lay while the case is in progress.

[BarleyNY]

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

On the latter of these two updates I have been saying for months on this while Florio has been parrotting his "the league's decision is final" line that this is appealable to federal court. The league has very broad discretion but deflategate established very clearly it has to apply that discretion in a rational way or else it can be held to have acted outside its power. 

 

Now whether ultimately a federal court would hold that a 1 year suspension constitutes an irrational application of its discretion is less certain. But the fact that it IS challengeable beyond the NFL process (not on the punishment in and of itself but on the use of the NFL's power) has really never been beyond doubt. 

 

 

The court may not hear it.  If they do, why would they get in the way of arbitrated collectively bargained labor disputes?  Brady won in Federal court, then lost in Circuit court.

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

on a practical level, I don’t love the judge pushing it to the start of camp to possibly provoke a settlement. We are solidly 18 months removed from the initial accusations. Deliberation shouldn’t need to role into the start of another season. Make a decision and let the parties proceed with their next steps.

[BarleyNY]

24 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

on a practical level, I don’t love the judge pushing it to the start of camp to possibly provoke a settlement. We are solidly 18 months removed from the initial accusations. Deliberation shouldn’t need to role into the start of another season. Make a decision and let the parties proceed with their next steps.

It’s not her fault that the case took so long to get to her.  She’s got a ton of work to do and needs to render a decision that can stand up in the federal court system if it is challenged. 

[The Red King]

Watch, after *all* of this Watson will be allowed to play and suffer a career-ending injury Week 1.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The court may not hear it.  If they do, why would they get in the way of arbitrated collectively bargained labor disputes?  Brady won in Federal court, then lost in Circuit court.

 

The court may not hear it. That is certainly true. I suspect they will though. The Watson camp are going to argue that the NFL has applied its personal conduct policy inconsistently and therefore irritationally and so have violated their client's employment rights. It is far from a slam dunk but there is definitely an arguable case there. 

 

Edit: and even more I suspect they like dangling the threat of "look we could get you back into a position where you have a federal court digging into your business" as a way to try and get a negotiated settlement on the discipline. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by GunnerBill

[wjag]

2 hours ago, The Red King said:

Watch, after *all* of this Watson will be allowed to play and suffer a career-ending injury Week 1.

 When tackled by Baker Mayfield playing in the secondary 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The court may not hear it. That is certainly true. I suspect they will though. The Watson camp are going to argue that the NFL has applied its personal conduct policy inconsistently and therefore irritationally and so have violated their client's employment rights. It is far from a slam dunk but there is definitely an arguable case there. 

 

Edit: and even more I suspect they like dangling the threat of "look we could get you back into a position where you have a federal court digging into your business" as a way to try and get a negotiated settlement on the discipline. 

 

 

I think there would be little if any chance such a threat is credible to the NFL legal team--their "business" would not be discoverable for the purposes of settling a labor dispute that was recently (2020) been re-bargained for.  The courts have been loathe to settle these things--the Brady case is evidence of this.  The NFL has not collectively bargained with itself (the owners) to arrive at some sort of punishment schedule for bad owner behavior.  And what is meaningful "suspension" of an owner anyway?

[GunnerBill]

27 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I think there would be little if any chance such a threat is credible to the NFL legal team--their "business" would not be discoverable for the purposes of settling a labor dispute that was recently (2020) been re-bargained for.  The courts have been loathe to settle these things--the Brady case is evidence of this.  The NFL has not collectively bargained with itself (the owners) to arrive at some sort of punishment schedule for bad owner behavior.  And what is meaningful "suspension" of an owner anyway?

 

The courts have been loathe to decide disputes that is absolutely true. But they have been clear with the NFL when it has not applied its own policy rationally. Depending on the outcome the Watson camp clearly believes it could make a credible argument to that effect. I think they could too in some circumstances. It would not be a slam dunk that they'd win the argument, but I think they have a makeable case. 

 

What I meant about threatening the NFL with courts getting into their business is not so much the courts saying "ooo but look what this owner did and you didn't suspend him" but more it exposes as the fallacy that it always was the narrative that the NFL and its mouth piece Florio have been pushing that it has somehow ousted the courts from jurisdiction over disputes should a party put a matter before them. You can't completely oust the courts simply by having a collectively bargained position. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by GunnerBill

[NoSaint]

4 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

It’s not her fault that the case took so long to get to her.  She’s got a ton of work to do and needs to render a decision that can stand up in the federal court system if it is challenged. 

if the opinion shared is accurate that she is holding her decision hoping the pressure of camp approaching will force a settlement then what you wrote may go out the window completely though. 
 

also, depending on her decision, federal court may be a moot issue.

Edited July 18, 2022 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The courts have been loathe to decide disputes that is absolutely true. But they have been clear with the NFL when it has not applied its own policy rationally. Depending on the outcome the Watson camp clearly believes it could make a credible argument to that effect. I think they could too in some circumstances. It would not be a slam dunk that they'd win the argument, but I think they have a makeable case. 

 

What I meant about threatening the NFL with courts getting into their business is not so much the courts saying "ooo but look what this owner did and you didn't suspend him" but more it exposes as the fallacy that it always was the narrative that the NFL and its mouth piece Florio have been pushing that it has somehow ousted the courts from jurisdiction over disputes should a party put a matter before them. You can't completely oust the courts simply by having a collectively bargained position. 

 

The NFL and Florio haven't ousted the courts, so far the courts have ousted themselves and said you people have system to adjudicate this. 

 

In the Brady case, the second highest court in the land overturned a District Court ruling in favor of overturning his 4 game suspension.  As it was reported at the time:

 

"Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker says that labor law means that a federal court has to be "highly deferential" to the decisions made during arbitration.

What's more, the collective bargaining agreement between the League and the players gives Goodell broad authority, the court writes. So, while the court agreed that, indeed, Goodell didn't allow Brady to confront the case against him, that right was not guaranteed by the collective bargaining agreement.

"Had the parties wished to allow for more expansive discovery, they could have bargained for that right," the court wrote. "They did not,  and there is simply no fundamental unfairness in affording the parties precisely what they agreed on."

 

What will the NFLPA serve up "irrational" application of its policy?  Kraft?  Obviously the NFL will counter with the fact that Kraft alway maintained his innocence (he claims he got the tug without asking---and in fact that they called him later that evening offering him the "early bird special"--$15 off--the next day) and charges were dropped by the local DA.   Did he commit a crime?  He says he didn't;t and the DA didn't prosecute (his own bungling prevented this). 

 

The NFL could also point out that, in their latest CBA, the have decided to not disallow (by testing and suspension) marijuana use by the players, even though purchase and possession of marijuana is a federal crime.

 

Snyder?  I don't think the NFL is done with him and his problems yet. 

[BarleyNY]

38 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

if the opinion shared is accurate that she is holding her decision hoping the pressure of camp approaching will force a settlement then what you wrote may go out the window completely though. 
 

also, depending on her decision, federal court may be a moot issue.

Sure, but that’s just speculation.  This seems like a very reasonable timeline for a decision though.  She didn’t get the legal briefs until last Tuesday.  She’s got three days of testimony to review, precedents to review and her judgment to make and document.

 

As far as a negotiated suspension goes, that’s the cleanest option for all parties and would set a clear and final direction.  I just don’t think that’ll happen unless one side or the other moves off their current position dramatically.  I don’t see how the NFL can do that at this point and save face.  They aren’t going to agree to 4 or 6 games.  I think they’d rather say they went down swinging and blame it in the arbiter/process.  I do not think Watson would accept a half season or more either.  Public opinion might be against him, but it doesn’t look like the NFL made much of a case.  “Disrepute” isn’t likely to equate to a big suspension and possibly nothing at all.  

[GunnerBill]

6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The NFL and Florio haven't ousted the courts, so far the courts have ousted themselves and said you people have system to adjudicate this. 

 

In the Brady case, the second highest court in the land overturned a District Court ruling in favor of overturning his 4 game suspension.  As it was reported at the time:

 

"Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker says that labor law means that a federal court has to be "highly deferential" to the decisions made during arbitration.

What's more, the collective bargaining agreement between the League and the players gives Goodell broad authority, the court writes. So, while the court agreed that, indeed, Goodell didn't allow Brady to confront the case against him, that right was not guaranteed by the collective bargaining agreement.

"Had the parties wished to allow for more expansive discovery, they could have bargained for that right," the court wrote. "They did not,  and there is simply no fundamental unfairness in affording the parties precisely what they agreed on."

 

What will the NFLPA serve up "irrational" application of its policy?  Kraft?  Obviously the NFL will counter with the fact that Kraft alway maintained his innocence (he claims he got the tug without asking---and in fact that they called him later that evening offering him the "early bird special"--$15 off--the next day) and charges were dropped by the local DA.   Did he commit a crime?  He says he didn't;t and the DA didn't prosecute (his own bungling prevented this). 

 

The NFL could also point out that, in their latest CBA, the have decided to not disallow (by testing and suspension) marijuana use by the players, even though purchase and possession of marijuana is a federal crime.

 

Snyder?  I don't think the NFL is done with him and his problems yet. 

 

I am not saying the NFLPA would succeed. I am saying that they have an arguable case. And the NFL has definitely been claiming since it revamped its disciplinary process that its word is final (essentially that the courts are ousted) and it simply isn't true. 

 

Of course the courts will give a high level of deference to the arbitration decision. They are not simply going to involve themselves because they thing a penalty is too harsh or too leniant. In that situation a court would simply refuse to get involved. You have to get beyond that into questions about whether the decision maker has been procedurally fair - have they followed their own process to the letter and have they done that rationally. 

 

It is a high bar for the NFLPA to prove to a court that the NFL hasn't.... but if they can get into the door and get the court to hear the case even that in itself undermines what the NFL has been claiming. 

[John from Riverside]

On 7/14/2022 at 6:20 AM, ytownblofan said:

 

Currently live in Cleveland. I would say the vast majority are now hanging their hats on "Yeah, but what about Kraft and Snyder" and the lack of evidence. I have heard several times "well, if he actually did it, he should get suspended, but there really isn't any evidence against him, so Go Browns". 

 

Initially, the majority was disgusted but I would say since then its been switched and now the majority just want to find out what the punishment will be with most assuming it will be light. 

They are not going light on him what is interesting to me is Cleveland gave up all that cheddar and Watson has been away from the game for a while what if he comes back and sucks after another year

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, John from Riverside said:

They are not going light on him what is interesting to me is Cleveland gave up all that cheddar and Watson has been away from the game for a while what if he comes back and sucks after another year

 

Yea playing Quarterback is not flicking a switch.... it is a very reasonable question about whether he will ever be the same player and if so, how long it takes. 

[The Wiz]

1 hour ago, John from Riverside said:

They are not going light on him what is interesting to me is Cleveland gave up all that cheddar and Watson has been away from the game for a while what if he comes back and sucks after another year

That's Clevelands fault for not doing an actual investigation on him prior to making the deal.