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

[YoloinOhio]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

That's a silly argument by Robinson.  If you kill 4 people, it's not the same sentence as if you kill 1. 

Right but she thinks it wasn’t spelled out in the CBA so it’s the fault of the nfl that she leaned on the only precedent she had and followed the rules. There is some thought that she did this purposely to set up Roger so he can swoop in. If you read her ruling, it certainly sounds like she’s about to lay the hammer down on him. She finds him guilty of sexual assault, not credible, and not remorseful. She calls his behavior egregious. Then says she has to give him 6 games because there is nothing saying it should be more. 

Edited August 6, 2022 by YoloinOhio

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Right but she thinks it wasn’t spelled out in the CBA so it’s the fault of the nfl that she leaned on the only precedent she had and followed the rules. There is some thought that she did this purposely to set up Roger so he can swoop in. If you read her ruling, it certainly sounds like she’s about to lay the hammer down on him. She finds him guilty of sexual assault, not credible, and not remorseful. She calls his behavior egregious. Then says she has to give him 6 games because there is nothing saying it should be more. 

 

 

I've said so a few times.

 

There's really no other explanation other than she is doing exactly what the NFL expected her to do--low ball the suspension so they could come in with righteous hammer dropping to quell the public disgust.

 

Unfortunately she had to come up with a reason that really compromises her presumed legal intelligence.

[YoloinOhio]

28 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I've said so a few times.

 

There's really no other explanation other than she is doing exactly what the NFL expected her to do--low ball the suspension so they could come in with righteous hammer dropping to quell the public disgust.

 

Unfortunately she had to come up with a reason that really compromises her presumed legal intelligence.

It certainly appears to be a big PR setup for the nfl. Whatever, as long as Watson doesn’t get away with his BS.

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

It certainly appears to be a big PR setup for the nfl. Whatever, as long as Watson doesn’t get away with his BS.

 

 

It's all part of the show that the NFL has created out of this mess--all for our viewing/and reading  pleasure. Watson's awful human habits have been an unexpected boon to the NFL this off season.  

[mannc]

3 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

They can but they’ve acquiesced to the 6 games. They had to appeal it by Thursday morning and did not. So if they seek and get an injunction (no guarantee they will get it), week 7 is the earliest he could play. 

That makes sense to me, but isn’t it theoretically possible that the league suspends him for less than 6 games?  I mean, it’s highly unlikely but…

[YoloinOhio]

5 minutes ago, mannc said:

That makes sense to me, but isn’t it theoretically possible that the league suspends him for less than 6 games?  I mean, it’s highly unlikely but…

No, they wouldn’t settle for less than 12 before the ruling so they 100% won’t do that now

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

If the NFL (as the final arbiter of suspensions) gives him 17 games, the 6 game suspension no longer exists.  If the NFLPA sues in Federal court over the actual suspension, why wouldn't they seek an injunction so he could play until the case is decided?  At least that could get him playing week 1, possibly more, until the court decision (6 or 17 games) is handed down.

Florio (a former lawyer for what it's worth) sees this as unlikely.

 

The basic argument seems to go like this — because the NFL appealed Judge Sue L. Robinson’s six-game suspension of Watson, that punishment disappears. It will be replaced (as the argument continues) by whatever Peter Harvey, the Commissioner’s designee, decides to impose. Thus, when the time comes to take the NFL to court (and in turn to try to delay the commencement of the suspension), a preliminary injunction entered by the court would commence as of Week One, not Week Seven.

 

There are several serious problems with this contention.

 

First, the NFL did not challenge the six-game suspension. The NFL argued only that six games aren’t enough. The NFL’s appeal focuses on whether the suspension should extend beyond the first six weeks.

 

Second, the NFLPA didn’t appeal the decision. That would have been the best and safest way to put Week One through Week Six in play for a court order that would allow Watson to play. The union apparently balanced P.R. concerns (it declared on Sunday night that it wouldn’t challenge Judge Robinson’s ruling) and legal strategies in deciding not to place the first six weeks in issue by filing its own appeal. And so the union will instead make the argument (weak as it may be) that an appeal by the league operates as a clearing of the decks regarding the unchallenged six-week ban.

 

Third, nothing in the Personal Conduct Policy indicates that an appeal automatically wipes the prior punishment from the books. Indeed, the policy expressly states that the appeal “may overturn, reduce, modify or increase the discipline previously issued.” This means that the prior punishment survives the mechanical act of appealing the decision, with the question in this specific case being only whether the punishment will “increase” beyond six games.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Doc Brown

[Mr. WEO]

21 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Florio (a former lawyer for what it's worth) sees this as unlikely.

 

The basic argument seems to go like this — because the NFL appealed Judge Sue L. Robinson’s six-game suspension of Watson, that punishment disappears. It will be replaced (as the argument continues) by whatever Peter Harvey, the Commissioner’s designee, decides to impose. Thus, when the time comes to take the NFL to court (and in turn to try to delay the commencement of the suspension), a preliminary injunction entered by the court would commence as of Week One, not Week Seven.

 

There are several serious problems with this contention.

 

First, the NFL did not challenge the six-game suspension. The NFL argued only that six games aren’t enough. The NFL’s appeal focuses on whether the suspension should extend beyond the first six weeks.

 

Second, the NFLPA didn’t appeal the decision. That would have been the best and safest way to put Week One through Week Six in play for a court order that would allow Watson to play. The union apparently balanced P.R. concerns (it declared on Sunday night that it wouldn’t challenge Judge Robinson’s ruling) and legal strategies in deciding not to place the first six weeks in issue by filing its own appeal. And so the union will instead make the argument (weak as it may be) that an appeal by the league operates as a clearing of the decks regarding the unchallenged six-week ban.

 

Third, nothing in the Personal Conduct Policy indicates that an appeal automatically wipes the prior punishment from the books. Indeed, the policy expressly states that the appeal “may overturn, reduce, modify or increase the discipline previously issued.” This means that the prior punishment survives the mechanical act of appealing the decision, with the question in this specific case being only whether the punishment will “increase” beyond six games.

 

It would be hard to argue that the NFL, by appealing the decision, "did not challenge" the decision.  

[YoloinOhio]

 

[The Wiz]

Maybe Watson should have tried some drugs instead.  Sounds right up his alley.

[ColoradoBills]

So is there a date when this appeal will be heard, and a ruling handed down?

[KDIGGZ]

7 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Maybe Watson should have tried some drugs instead.  Sounds right up his alley.

Yes, I agree. Anyone thinking of sexually assaulting someone (or 27+ people) just take some hallucinagenics instead please. Are these transgressions supposed to be comparable in some way? I've seen a lot of people arguing online saying Watson is only in trouble because he is black but white QB's can do drugs and it's ok. Not sure those 2 things are comparable in even the slightest.

 

One question I did have is if Watson is suspended 17 games, does that mean he's eligible to return if by some miracle the Browns do make the playoffs? And how does that impact his contract situation if he does end up playing 1 wild card game? Maybe the Browns would decide not to activate him for that game if it would have a negative impact on his contract?

Edited August 8, 2022 by KDIGGZ

[Richard Noggin]

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It would be hard to argue that the NFL, by appealing the decision, "did not challenge" the decision.  

 

You appear to be avoiding a lot of salient context just to present this semantic point. The NFL would be challenging the severity of the punishment based on the decision rendered. He has already been found to be in violation of the code of conduct on several grounds. You're intentionally conflating judgment with sentencing. I'll bet you're smart enough to know that.  

[TBBills]

9 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Maybe Watson should have tried some drugs instead.  Sounds right up his alley.

Wow those were strong drugs.

[Punching Bag]

13 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

Mike Florio seems to think that Peter Harvey has the ethics of someone who has sold out to NFLPA and become a laywer on TV like him.

All speculation and suppositions. 

 

3 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

So is there a date when this appeal will be heard, and a ruling handed down?

 

No other than “expedited.”

[YoloinOhio]

7 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

So is there a date when this appeal will be heard, and a ruling handed down?

Nothing set in stone but the belief is it will he middle of this week. 

[Doc Brown]

18 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It would be hard to argue that the NFL, by appealing the decision, "did not challenge" the decision.  

I thought that too because of the Brady and Elliott cases but the NFLPA appealed those suspensions right away.  This time they didn't.  The NFL mouthpiece (Ian Rapaport) even admitted as such.  My guess to why they didn't appeal is  Watson't camp objected as they're unlikely to win in federal court.  Watson would rather give up a smaller amount of money this year (around 1m) even if he's out for the whole year than miss the 2023 season where he'd have to fork over 40 million plus should he lose the appeal.

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

 Wyatt Teller’s wife catching all kinds of strays from the local media today 😂

 

 

[muppy]

23 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 Wyatt Teller’s wife catching all kinds of strays from the local media today 😂

 

 

exhausting is one word for it. There could be a long list of adjectives describing their fans. The one I would choose at the top of the list would be PAINFUL .  THIS debacle and how the organization has handled things would be the straw that broke the camels back. Im NOT rooting for a sexual pervert sorry NOT sorry. I could Not do it. Maybe thats how a lot of fans feel. He is just one player on the team. But then the whole Baker Mayfield situation preceding. The mistake by the lake Indeed

Edited August 8, 2022 by muppy

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

You appear to be avoiding a lot of salient context just to present this semantic point. The NFL would be challenging the severity of the punishment based on the decision rendered. He has already been found to be in violation of the code of conduct on several grounds. You're intentionally conflating judgment with sentencing. I'll bet you're smart enough to know that.  

 

 

Not really.  The NFL is clearly challenging the decision to give him only 6 games.  Also, why would the NFLPA's decision not to appeal the suspension decide not to attempt to seek an injunction if they sue in federal court?  It would be a suit they have a low chance of winning so wouldn't their strategy be to get Watson playing week 1 if possible while the court hears the case.  Are they precluded from doing so?

[eball]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Not really.  The NFL is clearly challenging the decision to give him only 6 games.  Also, why would the NFLPA's decision not to appeal the suspension decide not to attempt to seek an injunction if they sue in federal court?  It would be a suit they have a low chance of winning so wouldn't their strategy be to get Watson playing week 1 if possible while the court hears the case.  Are they precluded from doing so?

 

Their argument for an injunction is pretty weak when they already consented to the 6-game suspension.  That doesn't mean they won't still push for one, but I'd be surprised if a judge granted it.

 

[Doc]

The 6 games have already been agreed-upon by all parties.  There is no need for an injunction since it won't take more than 2-1/2 months to make a decision on additional games.

[Scott7975]

58 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Not really.  The NFL is clearly challenging the decision to give him only 6 games.  Also, why would the NFLPA's decision not to appeal the suspension decide not to attempt to seek an injunction if they sue in federal court?  It would be a suit they have a low chance of winning so wouldn't their strategy be to get Watson playing week 1 if possible while the court hears the case.  Are they precluded from doing so?

because they accepted the decision. The only thing in question is the penalty. 

[Mr. WEO]

6 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Their argument for an injunction is pretty weak when they already consented to the 6-game suspension.  That doesn't mean they won't still push for one, but I'd be surprised if a judge granted it.

 

 

Their case in general would be weak, given the court's established refusal to override bargained for agreements.  I wouldn't be surprised if they asked for one either.  

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

[muppy]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

The 6 games have already been agreed-upon by all parties.  There is no need for an injunction since it won't take more than 2-1/2 months to make a decision on additional games.

two and a half months of possible waiting for the NFL to act? I know you can't be sure but dang I had hoped the hammer would fall sooner than 2 1/2 months from now.

But if the delay involves he losing more  money I'd be for that. 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, muppy said:

two and a half months of possible waiting for the NFL to act? I know you can't be sure but dang I had hoped the hammer would fall sooner than 2 1/2 months from now.

But if the delay involves he losing more  money I'd be for that. 

No, the hammer will fall soon. I’m just saying it won’t take until game 7 of the season to make a decision on additional punishment so no need for a delay in the start of his penalty. 

[muppy]

Just now, Doc said:

No, the hammer will fall soon. I’m just saying it won’t take until game 7 of the season to make a decision on additional punishment so no need for a delay in the start of his penalty. 

Ohhh okay thank you for that Doc

[Warcodered]

 

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Not really.  The NFL is clearly challenging the decision to give him only 6 games.  Also, why would the NFLPA's decision not to appeal the suspension decide not to attempt to seek an injunction if they sue in federal court?  It would be a suit they have a low chance of winning so wouldn't their strategy be to get Watson playing week 1 if possible while the court hears the case.  Are they precluded from doing so?

No but it will likely fail based off all the reports I've seen.

 

Also, Watson may not want the league to seek an injunction for financial reasons.  He loses $57,500 per game this year.  He'd lose about $2,550,000 per game next season.  If the suspension is extended to 10 to 14 games this year he may just want to take his medicine and not sue.  Not sure how he handles it if it's a year long suspension as the contract would then get pushed back a year.

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

No but it will likely fail based off all the reports I've seen.

 

Also, Watson may not want the league to seek an injunction for financial reasons.  He loses $57,500 per game this year.  He'd lose about $2,550,000 per game next season.  If the suspension is extended to 10 to 14 games this year he may just want to take his medicine and not sue.  Not sure how he handles it if it's a year long suspension as the contract would then get pushed back a year.

He will get a hefty fine.  The NFL understands the game he and the Browns are playing 

[Malazan]

https://www.clevescene.com/news/cleveland-new-home-of-deshuan-watson-is-hosting-the-national-massage-therapists-convention-this-month-39442444

[TBBills]

2 hours ago, Malazan said:

https://www.clevescene.com/news/cleveland-new-home-of-deshuan-watson-is-hosting-the-national-massage-therapists-convention-this-month-39442444

25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40....

Edited August 9, 2022 by TBBills

[CSBill]

22 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 Wyatt Teller’s wife catching all kinds of strays from the local media today 😂

 

 

 

She may be the smartest person in Cleveland.

[Mr Info]

47 minutes ago, CSBill said:

 

She may be the smartest person in Cleveland.

My favorite twitter reply to Carly Teller. Similar to later years of the 17 year Bills drought. Tough for Browns fans.

 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Mr Info

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Scott7975]

From NFL.com

 

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday explained the league's decision to pursue a one-year suspension for Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson and weighed in on the findings of an independent investigation into integrity of the game violations committed by the Dolphins.

 

Goodell told reporters that the evidence showed Watson committed multiple violations of the NFL's personal-conduct policy.

 

"We've seen the evidence," Goodell said following Tuesday's Special League Meeting in Minneapolis, which was called to allow for a vote on the sale of the Broncos. "[Disciplinary officer Sue L. Robinson] was very clear about the evidence, should we enforce the evidence. That there was multiple violations here, and they were egregious, and it was predatory behavior. Those are things that we always felt were important for us to address in a way that's responsible."

 

In issuing a six-game suspension for Watson on Aug. 1, Robinson wrote that Watson engaged in "sexual assault; conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL." Robinson, however, noted that she was "bound 'by standards of fairness and consistency of treatment among players similarly situated' " in her decision for a six-game suspension despite the NFL seeking a yearlong ban.

 

The NFL officially appealed Watson's suspension on Aug. 3, and Goodell later designatedformer New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey to rule on the appeal. Goodell told reporters the right to appeal the decision is outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

"It's a part of the CBA that two parties have the right," Goodell said. "Either party could certainly challenge and appeal that and that was something that we thought was our right to do, as well as the NFLPA. So we decided it was the right thing to do."

Goodell added that he does not have a timeline for a decision from Harvey.

 

Goodell also was asked for his reaction to the investigation into the Dolphins organization. The NFL announced on Aug. 2 that the team will forfeit its 2023 first-round draft pick and 2024 third-round pick, and that team owner Stephen Ross has been suspended through Oct. 17.

 

"Integrity of the game's critically important," Goodell said Tuesday. "I think the finding was very clear on the tampering charges. While tanking clearly did not happen here, I think we all have to understand that our words and our actions have implications, can be interpreted and we have to be careful."

 

Additionally, Goodell told reporters that he did not have any additional information regarding Commanders owner Daniel Snyder's virtual testimony before Congress on July 28 as part of the House's investigation into the Washington franchise's workplace culture.

 

"We were not party to that. We did not participate in any way," Goodell said. "So I don't have any other information that you don't have on that context. As far as his status, as we all know there's an ongoing congressional investigation as well as our investigation into those issues. As we get to a resolution on that Dan and I will discuss where he participates."

[Punching Bag]

16 hours ago, Malazan said:

https://www.clevescene.com/news/cleveland-new-home-of-deshuan-watson-is-hosting-the-national-massage-therapists-convention-this-month-39442444

Quote

In addition to continuing education and other member benefits, AMTA, as an organization, advocates "for the issues important to massage therapists" across the country, including state and federal policies and fair licensing. But the organization has also spoken out against Deshaun Watson and the NFL.

 

Spoke out about it but not enough to change location of venue which other organizations have done when they have such a organization protecting a predator.

I wonder if they scheduled this before or after the trade was in works.

[Big Turk]

Goodwill...err...his appointee...is about about to throw the book at him. Watson will be lucky if ALL he gets is a year.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/roger-goodell-deshaun-watson-committed-205007908.html

 

 

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

Goodwill...err...his appointee...is about about to throw the book at him. Watson will be lucky if ALL he gets is a year.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/roger-goodell-deshaun-watson-committed-205007908.html

 

 

Six games for each of the four findings, so 24 games.