Judge Sue Robinson recommends 6 game suspension for Watson; NFL will appeal

[Buffalo_Stampede]

This whole thing makes me angry. 

[GunnerBill]

12 hours ago, eball said:

Given the language in Robinson's decision, Roger can now lay the hammer down.  I won't be surprised one bit if this becomes a full 1-year suspension.

 

 

Personally I would, because that really does undermine the process that Goodell has been trumpeting in its first case. This new disciplinary process is his baby. He has been extolling its virtues and getting his client journalists (hello Mike Florio) to do the same. The NFL argued to the independent disciplinary officer for a year's suspension. Judge Robinson applied a 6 game suspension. For Goodell on appeal to overturn that and then to give what the NFL asked for originally and she rejected totally undermines his new process. I don't think he is going to do that. 

 

I still think the NFL will appeal. I do think Goodell will extend the suspension but I see doubling it to 12 games as the ceiling. If he imposes a season he renders the new independent element of the process a sham which a) hurts his own credibility and b) puts him back in the position he was trying to get out of with the new process where he is the judge, jury and executioner which has been criticised by the courts in some of the recent high profile litigation in which the NFL has found itself. 

[YoloinOhio]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

This whole thing makes me angry. 

The Cleveland Browns are so sorry that you are “triggered”

 

🤮

[BarleyNY]

55 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

The Cleveland Browns are so sorry that you are “triggered”

 

🤮

It’s like they forgot they were going to have to issue a statement and  threw that together in five minutes from a generic MS Word template. 

[eball]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Personally I would, because that really does undermine the process that Goodell has been trumpeting in its first case. This new disciplinary process is his baby. He has been extolling its virtues and getting his client journalists (hello Mike Florio) to do the same. The NFL argued to the independent disciplinary officer for a year's suspension. Judge Robinson applied a 6 game suspension. For Goodell on appeal to overturn that and then to give what the NFL asked for originally and she rejected totally undermines his new process. I don't think he is going to do that. 

 

I still think the NFL will appeal. I do think Goodell will extend the suspension but I see doubling it to 12 games as the ceiling. If he imposes a season he renders the new independent element of the process a sham which a) hurts his own credibility and b) puts him back in the position he was trying to get out of with the new process where he is the judge, jury and executioner which has been criticised by the courts in some of the recent high profile litigation in which the NFL has found itself. 

 

These are good points and I agree.  12 games would send the appropriate message, and nobody outside of Cleveland will lose any sleep over it.

[YoloinOhio]

23 minutes ago, eball said:

 

These are good points and I agree.  12 games would send the appropriate message, and nobody outside of Cleveland will lose any sleep over it.

Nflpa will sue (they’ve at least threatened) if it is a full year like nfl wants. NFL wasn’t willing to settle for less than 12. Nflpa wasn’t willing to settle for more than 8. I could see goodell ruling  8-10 to avoid the court case - but I think the nflpa’s threat to sue may not be something they want to do either, because it would open up his deposition and could actually hurt his case. I doubt goodell prefers to go to court but he’s never backed down from it before. 
 

I could also see them not appealing so it will just be over with and wait out the backlash. I’m just not sure in this day and age the backlash will simmer down anytime soon. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Personally I would, because that really does undermine the process that Goodell has been trumpeting in its first case. This new disciplinary process is his baby. He has been extolling its virtues and getting his client journalists (hello Mike Florio) to do the same. The NFL argued to the independent disciplinary officer for a year's suspension. Judge Robinson applied a 6 game suspension. For Goodell on appeal to overturn that and then to give what the NFL asked for originally and she rejected totally undermines his new process. I don't think he is going to do that. 

 

I still think the NFL will appeal. I do think Goodell will extend the suspension but I see doubling it to 12 games as the ceiling. If he imposes a season he renders the new independent element of the process a sham which a) hurts his own credibility and b) puts him back in the position he was trying to get out of with the new process where he is the judge, jury and executioner which has been criticised by the courts in some of the recent high profile litigation in which the NFL has found itself. 

 

The "new process" was a sop for the NFLPA to get the CBA signed.  As with many things NFL, it's all for show.  Why else would there still be the possibility that Goodell is still the final arbiter if this is truly a new process.  It allows the "the NFL" to appeal to itself and decide the appeal. 

 

So the the first act of the show (why it took this judge weeks to come up with the 6 week suspension is a mystery) has concluded.  The NFL, as before the new CBA, is now free as it ever was to do as it pleases with Watson.  There really wasn't any new virtue in this.  It's all about the prime directive:  keeping the NFL on page 1 ("above the fold", as they used to say) in the off season.

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

Nflpa will sue (they’ve at least threatened) if it is a full year like nfl wants. NFL wasn’t willing to settle for less than 12. Nflpa wasn’t willing to settle for more than 8. I could see goodell ruling  8-10 to avoid the court case - but I think the nflpa’s threat to sue may not be something they want to do either, because it would open up his deposition and could actually hurt his case. I doubt goodell prefers to go to court but he’s never backed down from it before. 

 

I think the NFL would be very confident going to court.  Another precedent confirming decision would be most likely and would further solidify their control over the players and the NFLPA. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The "new process" was a sop for the NFLPA to get the CBA signed.  As with many things NFL, it's all for show.  Why else would there still be the possibility that Goodell is still the final arbiter if this is truly a new process.  It allows the "the NFL" to appeal to itself and decide the appeal. 

 

So the the first act of the show (why it took this judge weeks to come up with the 6 week suspension is a mystery) has concluded.  The NFL, as before the new CBA, is now free as it ever was to do as it pleases with Watson.  There really wasn't any new virtue in this.  It's all about the prime directive:  keeping the NFL on page 1 ("above the fold", as they used to say) in the off season.

 

While I don't disagree about their motivation that is not the way they (and their client journalists) have spun the public narrative and I do not expect them to blow that out of the water at the first attempt. I think they will appeal and increase the suspension, but I think they will stop short of going for the year that they publicly said they were looking for in the first instance. 

[HOUSE]

It really doesn't matter to me because EVERYTHING EXPLODES IN CLEVELAND

 

Waste your #1 draft pick on the wrong QB then trade him for near nothing (boom)

Draft players that end up in jail then waive (boom)

Bring in Odell Beckham (boom)

Sign a new QB to a 230 mil GUARANTEED contract, +  give away premium draft picks for years to come (boom boom)

Fire coaches every 2 years (boom)

 

Even the Browns stadium is falling apart After 20 freaking years

 

Boom Boom Boom, this ain't over yet....THE BROWNS are doomed

[eball]

I think these two Andrew Brandt tweets nailed this pretty succinctly.  Robinson's "punishment" makes no sense, and this all smells rotten.

 

Andrew Brandt 1

 

Andrew Brandt 2

[Mr. WEO]

49 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

While I don't disagree about their motivation that is not the way they (and their client journalists) have spun the public narrative and I do not expect them to blow that out of the water at the first attempt. I think they will appeal and increase the suspension, but I think they will stop short of going for the year that they publicly said they were looking for in the first instance. 

 

 

That's always their goal.

 

A year, symbolically, is a big blow.  They may not give him that.  But yeah, the 6 games this judge settled on is ridiculous.  It's not impossible that all of this is according to plan--she gives some silly lowball number, prompting the appropriate public outrage, and the NFL steps in and ups to double in a show of justice for women (viewers).  

 

The NFL is TV's most popular and longest running drama not by coincidence, but by design.

[BillsShredder83]

On 8/1/2022 at 8:35 AM, ScottLaw said:

Those massages are going to be awkward as ***** from now on. 

They should make Harvey Weinstein exclusively give him massages

[TheBrownBear]

3 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

They should make Harvey Weinstein exclusively give him massages

Lol.  I was thinking they need to find the ugliest male ogre possible to give him massages going forward.  Maybe have the masseuse wear only a tiny loin cloth and periodically *whoops* "release" on him. 

[Simon Says]

On 8/1/2022 at 8:26 AM, DJB said:

24 complaints of harassment NFL gives you 6 games. 
 

Bet on the NFL or smoke weed and gone for a year.

 

Makes no sense at all

Under the new CBA, I dont believe the NFL suspends players for smoking pot. You might check it out and consider retracting your statement.

[DrDawkinstein]

2 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

The Cleveland Browns are so sorry that you are “triggered”

 

🤮

 

I was just about to comment on that choice of phrasing. No one in the organization could come up with a more sympathetic way of saying it? They had to use the online troll phrasing?

 

You nailed it. Shows exactly who the Haslams are (in case anyone didnt already know of their scumbaggery).

[DJB]

30 minutes ago, Georgie said:

Under the new CBA, I dont believe the NFL suspends players for smoking pot. You might check it out and consider retracting your statement.

Perhaps you could review the past NFL history and think about what you write before you post?

Edited August 2, 2022 by DJB

[FireChans]

19 minutes ago, DJB said:

Perhaps you could review the past NFL history and think about what you write before you post?

No one has ever gotten suspended a year for first offense failing a marijuana drug test. And the rules have relaxed even more under the new CBA. He was right, you have no idea what you’re talking about. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by FireChans

[Mango]

10 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

i know a fair amount of Browns fans who are absolutely repulsed by Watson and angry at the team over signing him. It’s a tough spot to be in as a fan of that team.

I was in Cleveland a few weeks ago and am back today. I always get comments on my Bills hat re:Watson. I don’t know if everybody feels that way. But somebody last night mentioned my hat and hating the Browns at the moment and again this AM at my appointment. 

[Chandler#81]

🤦‍♂️

[3rdnlng]

On 8/1/2022 at 9:35 AM, IronMaidenBills said:

Its extremely complicated. I’ve mulled this psychologically for years with the numerous shady things that have happened within the NFL. I’ve learned to accept the illness, some cope with it, others straight up deny it while knowingly or unknowingly support it, while others truly stand and take action ie Boycotting. I’m vehemently against what Watson and others have done, but I’m addicted to football. It is what it is. 

So, you've mulled over Watson like actions for years and are quite disgusted by them, but are not inclined to take any action such as a boycott because of your addiction to football?  Your moral authority seems to not have any basis in reality but is willing to succumb to your desire to see men beating on other men. I don't have any problem cheering on men beating on other men either but it seems that you feel obligated to sorta object to woman beating on men, even if they've been paid to do so. 

 

The judge says she mitigated the recommendation due to the fact that Watson did not use violence or the threat of violence to obtain a happy ending. It would appear to me that she is on the one hand saying that whatever went on in the massage rooms was between consenting adults but what went on in the massage rooms was also wrong, not because 20 some women were forced into sex acts but because they complained about having consented to those acts. Your response is to lambast those activities but throw your disgust aside because you are addicted to football. Now that's some moral clarity. 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, Chandler#81 said:

🤦‍♂️

Also the same league that gave Ray Lewis a $250k fine and 0 games suspended for his involvement in a double murder.  They are not exactly a model of consistency. 

[Warcodered]

 

 

[CoudyBills]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, you've mulled over Watson like actions for years and are quite disgusted by them, but are not inclined to take any action such as a boycott because of your addiction to football?  Your moral authority seems to not have any basis in reality but is willing to succumb to your desire to see men beating on other men. I don't have any problem cheering on men beating on other men either but it seems that you feel obligated to sorta object to woman beating on men, even if they've been paid to do so. 

 

The judge says she mitigated the recommendation due to the fact that Watson did not use violence or the threat of violence to obtain a happy ending. It would appear to me that she is on the one hand saying that whatever went on in the massage rooms was between consenting adults but what went on in the massage rooms was also wrong, not because 20 some women were forced into sex acts but because they complained about having consented to those acts. Your response is to lambast those activities but throw your disgust aside because you are addicted to football. Now that's some moral clarity. 

Do you feel better now, bishop?

[BarleyNY]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Personally I would, because that really does undermine the process that Goodell has been trumpeting in its first case. This new disciplinary process is his baby. He has been extolling its virtues and getting his client journalists (hello Mike Florio) to do the same. The NFL argued to the independent disciplinary officer for a year's suspension. Judge Robinson applied a 6 game suspension. For Goodell on appeal to overturn that and then to give what the NFL asked for originally and she rejected totally undermines his new process. I don't think he is going to do that. 

 

I still think the NFL will appeal. I do think Goodell will extend the suspension but I see doubling it to 12 games as the ceiling. If he imposes a season he renders the new independent element of the process a sham which a) hurts his own credibility and b) puts him back in the position he was trying to get out of with the new process where he is the judge, jury and executioner which has been criticised by the courts in some of the recent high profile litigation in which the NFL has found itself. 

I’ve been thinking about this. The NFL dramatically changing the neutral arbiter’s ruling would undermine the overall agreement between the NFL and PA - as well as lead to a lot of other problems.  But what about the NFL appealing and keeping the suspension at 6 games per Robinson’s ruling, but also tacking on a huge fine?  They could use his contract structure as the rationale for that, saying that it will bring his lost income more into line with his missed games. 

[cle23]

18 hours ago, CincyBillsFan said:

I suspect that Roger will quote the judges language heavily focusing on the "egregious" nature of the acts and then cite the NFL's commitment to bringing women into the fold and state that Watson's actions has damaged the leagues reputation and efforts to meet their key business goal of attracting female fans. He'll then raise the suspension to 12 games with a hefty fine.

 

The NFLPA would have to think long and hard about the optics of challenging that kind of ruling.

 

 

 

 

From what I have read, Goodell does not have the power to just raise it to whatever he wants.  He has to be able to justify it based on her statements and the evidence listed.  Some believe that is why Robinson went into such great detail in regards to some of the issues.  Goodell has to be able to back up his changes with precedent and with reasonable cause given the violations that Robinson did find.

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

From what I have read, Goodell does not have the power to just raise it to whatever he wants.  He has to be able to justify it based on her statements and the evidence listed.  Some believe that is why Robinson went into such great detail in regards to some of the issues.  Goodell has to be able to back up his changes with precedent and with reasonable cause given the violations that Robinson did find.

 

He doesn't unless the PA takes it to court. Goodell can make it anything he wants but if it gets challenged in court the standard is that he can't act irrationally. If he does, and the PA can demonstrate that in court, then his potential overrule of Robinson could be invalidated. But irrationality is a high bar. The PA wouldn't have to only prove that Goodell should have reached a different conclusion but that no rational person could have overrurled in the way he did based on the evidence. 

[Warcodered]

 

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

 

If people only read one thread on this issue, read this one. Excellent breakdown.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Honestly this is the worst outcome. I was hoping the arbitrator would look at the evidence and say she didn’t see any evidence of sexual misconduct. Instead she believes it happened but in a non violent way.

 

I don’t care about the suspension, how did he avoid indictment. 

[Gugny]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If people only read one thread on this issue, read this one. Excellent breakdown.

 

Thanks, GB.  Good stuff.  And this is what's most disturbing to me ...

 

There is no precedent, here.  No one has ever been sued for the despicable acts that Watson has.  Going by prior NFL punishments was not only asinine, but a missed opportunity to make a bold statement.  Major fail.

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Thanks, GB.  Good stuff.  And this is what's most disturbing to me ...

 

There is no precedent, here.  No one has ever been sued for the despicable acts that Watson has.  Going by prior NFL punishments was not only asinine, but a missed opportunity to make a bold statement.  Major fail.

 

Why would she set precedent so low for something that has never happened before? It makes no sense. 

[Gugny]

28 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Why would she set precedent so low for something that has never happened before? It makes no sense. 

 

That's what I was trying to say.  She had the opportunity to set precedent, but instead referred to past punishments which had little-to-no relevance.

 

[GunnerBill]

42 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Thanks, GB.  Good stuff.  And this is what's most disturbing to me ...

 

There is no precedent, here.  No one has ever been sued for the despicable acts that Watson has.  Going by prior NFL punishments was not only asinine, but a missed opportunity to make a bold statement.  Major fail.

 

 

Being sued does 100% NOT establish a legal precedent. Only courts set precedents, settlements do not. You have to be sued successfully for it to become a separate category legally. There is one outstanding case against Watson. It could go to court and he could lose, but failing that the judge is right, in law, not to hold settled civil suits that never saw court as establishing new precedent. 

[Gugny]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Being sued does 100% NOT establish a legal precedent. Only courts set precedents, settlements do not. You have to be sued successfully for it to become a separate category legally. There is one outstanding case against Watson. It could go to court and he could lose, but failing that the judge is right, in law, not to hold settled civil suits that never saw court as establishing new precedent. 

 

I still think she had an opportunity to recommend more games and failed to do so.  

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I still think she had an opportunity to recommend more games and failed to do so.  

 

She could have recommended more games. But she was right not to use the excuse of the settled law suits as a precedent to do so. I actually don't think her legal analysis was that far off for the reasons explained in that thread. Could it have been 8 or maybe 10 rather than 6? Sure. There is always an element of judgment call there. But her legal reasoning is pretty strong. I still think Goodell, ultimately, will increase it. But his room for manouvere is more limited than it was. That is why I see doubling as his realistic ceiling. 

[Dr. Who]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

She could have recommended more games. But she was right not to use the excuse of the settled law suits as a precedent to do so. I actually don't think her legal analysis was that far off for the reasons explained in that thread. Could it have been 8 or maybe 10 rather than 6? Sure. There is always an element of judgment call there. But her legal reasoning is pretty strong. I still think Goodell, ultimately, will increase it. But his room for manouvere is more limited than it was. That is why I see doubling as his realistic ceiling. 

I hope he does double it. No idea about legal reasoning, but I suspect that is closer to what the majority of people believe is merited by his actions insofar as it applies to his NFL career.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Dr. Who

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Honestly this is the worst outcome. I was hoping the arbitrator would look at the evidence and say she didn’t see any evidence of sexual misconduct. Instead she believes it happened but in a non violent way.

 

I don’t care about the suspension, how did he avoid indictment. 

 

Why would you hope she found a scumbag innocent?

 

Do you not understand that civil court and criminal court have two different standards?

[GoBills808]

27 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Being sued does 100% NOT establish a legal precedent. Only courts set precedents, settlements do not. You have to be sued successfully for it to become a separate category legally. There is one outstanding case against Watson. It could go to court and he could lose, but failing that the judge is right, in law, not to hold settled civil suits that never saw court as establishing new precedent. 

The precedent was Roethisberger, by rights Watson should have gotten 300+ games.

[RyanC883]

On 8/1/2022 at 8:33 AM, Mango said:

 

This gets parroted a lot and I don't get it. You don't need to be charged with a crime for your employer to fire or suspend you. 

 

right, but there is a union and cba involved here, that tends to make this more complex

7 hours ago, Airseven said:

Suspension is fine for a non-criminal, off-field, personal perv matter. Watson should take his money, shut up, and move on. Of course ESPN is wall-to-wall methodically interjecting their political lean. 

 

all espn can do is interject their political lean.  They never cover sports.