It’s only going to get worse browns players…y’all think it’s bad to have to answer questions on baker lol just wait….
It's amazing how in the Sports Radio 610 interview with Watson's lawyers they say the therapist for one of the accusers (Lauren Baxley) testified during her deposition that she believed that Baxley was not fully truthful and the fact she was scheduling more massages with Watson did not fit the profile of someone dealing with trauma. Yet the only thing that gets attention and picked up by other media outlets is Hardin saying that receiving a happy ending at the end of a massage doesn't mean a crime has occurred.
If I'm the NFL (obviously I'm not) I think that I have to consider the ugly image this cluster is creating for my product. According to this study ( chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=psychology_dissertations ) gender demographics for NFL fans are 55% male and 45% female. That was surprising for me. So although more men watch the NFL, many of us have wives, daughter or sisters, and all of us have mothers--my point is that respect for women is something the NFL should be taking very seriously. I haven't listened to Rusty's interview, but his premise cited above is BS. I've gotten massages all over the world and it isn't hard to figure out what kind of place you're going to and what your expectations should be. Watson was a leader for the Texans and our community. He violated the responsibility that leaders have to resist temptation and hold yourself to a much higher standard. Is he the first? No, men have done this since the beginning of our existence and wealth/power only seem to accentuate their perversions. So as the NFL, how should I handle this situation as to not to further piss off a fan base that has deteriorated with some of the player behavior in recent seasons? I found this PDF on the NFL's policy/procedures ( chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/NFL_domestic_violence_policy.pdf ). If you go to the NFL Disciplinary Decision block you see "Violations involving assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault will result in a baseline six-game suspension without pay, with more if aggravating factors are present, such as the use of a weapon or a crime against a child. A second offense will result in banishment from the NFL." Ok, so I went into this PDF on Conduct Policy ( chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2017/08/11/0ap3000000828506.pdf ) I'm no expert, but it looks like they can consider his situation under these areas... - Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses - Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel With that as background, it would seem the minimum suspension would likely be 6 games (for one incident?), but for potentially 24 that would seem unprecedented. Maybe the NFL's investigation didn't find all of the 22 cases valid and has some assessment of ones that could be considered some kind of sexual assault or offense (kinda vague as to what that could be). He definitely (in my mind) fit the "Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL..." but again, I'm not a legal expert by any stretch. So how should the NFL handle this? I think they would want to send a clear message that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated from anyone in our organization. I'd say that's at least a 1-year suspension (what his contract negotiations prepared for) or potentially 1.5 years. Hell, if I want to appeal to our fan base, maybe I suspend him 1-game for each complaint (22 or 24). Now, I doubt that will happen, but I do believe DW has put Goodell in a very precarious position and Rusty's interview didn't help from a PR perspective. Bottom line: If the NFL does the right thing, this should be good for our draft picks.
We have to give Watson some credit, since his victims started to speak out, he's gone months, MONTHS, without sexually assaulting ANYONE!!! That's the longest he's gone since he was a teenager, so he's already had to start making sacrifices.
I agree with this if we are certain 100% that Watson is guilty. The main problem I have with how Watson is being treated in the media is that everyone assumes guilt because they hear the allegations. Misstatements by Watson's attorney and scandalous details of the lawsuit get amplified by the media while Watson's defense gets little attention. There was a lot of info presented during that nearly hour-long interview Hardin did on 610 radio and the only thing that gets attention was Hardin trying to explain that receiving a happy ending during a massage doesn't necessarily mean a crime was committed. Watson maintains that of the 23 accusations, sexual contact only occurred with 3 of the accusers and in all cases, the woman initiated the sexual contact. Hardin was trying to explain that just because Watson had sex with these women doesn't mean he committed a crime (i.e. solicitation or rape). If the massage therapists voluntarily included a sexual favor after the massage and both parties consented to it, then a crime was not committed. That's basically the crux of the dispute that Hardin was trying to explain. Did Watson force these women to have sex or did they voluntarily provide it and then claimed assault afterward?
No one can be 100% certain of anything, but that isn't the standard. Would I say that he's guilty of some form of sexual assault and/or sexual battery of at least a few women by a preponderance of the evidence standard? Yes. Would I say that he's guilty of some form of sexual assault and/or sexual battery of at least a few women by a clear and convincing evidence standard? Yes. Would I say that he's guilty of some form of sexual assault and/or sexual battery of at least a few women by a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard? I'd have to see a bit more, but we're not far from it. The notion that all 23 women, who we know he admitted to have personally employed, would all by lying is IMO unreasonable. This isn't some scenario where randoms are lodging ridiculous allegations for political reasons....and if they were just in it for a quick and easy payday, any of them could have just taken the 100k offered by Watson and walked away immediately. None did.
Two grand juries disagree with you. They've seen all the evidence and know details that haven't been revealed to the public. Most of the information we have has been leaked by Buzbee who uses the "Me Too, Believe ALL Women" climate to his advantage. Hardin explained that Watson never wanted to settle. However, he wanted to play for the Dolphins and would've been traded last season had not the owner Stephen Ross required Watson to settle all the lawsuits and have an NDA in place. 18/22 women were going to settle, however, 4 did not agree to it either because they didn't want the NDA or they were unhappy with the settlement amount which killed the trade talk with Miami. Since Watson couldn't go to Miami it wasn't worth it for him to settle. He'd rather take it to court. Regarding the notion 23 women can't all be lying, Hardin says that when you look at each case by itself the allegation doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They even supposedly have text messages and witness depositions that prove some of the accusers admit that they joined the lawsuits for money. Whether that's true remains to be seen, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that Buzbee is not properly vetting these allegations and is using potentially fake allegations to slander Watson. Remember, last year he publicly said that he would provide the info to the HPD but then became reluctant to do so because he said Rusty Hardin's son who works for the HPD would manipulate things. Since then Watson has been cleared by 2 grand juries. Also, Buzbee was critical of the NFL investigation process when they started asking questions to check the veracity of the allegation.
Grand juries are based on the evidence they are given by the prosecutor and the prosecutor basically gets to decide what result they want the grand jury to come back with. They are able to hide any information they wish from the grand jury and present information dishonestly if that's what they want. In this instance, there were powerful interests that would dissuade ANY prosecutor from wanting the case to go forward. It suggests NOTHING about guilt or innocence. As to Watson not wanting to settle, I'm sure he didn't want to give his victims anything....he clearly doesn't value them as people.....that's the whole problem. It's why he felt comfortable sexually assaulting them. I get that fans don't care and that's fine. No one expects any more than that from sports fans.
I agree with what you're saying, however, you have to remember we live in a "sound bite world". Rarely do people read or even understand in-depth analysis or perspectives. My struggle with this situation is the sheer volume of accusations. I mean if it was 3-5 and all in the Houston area then maybe there's cause to think there was a misunderstanding or an ambulance chaser was trying to secure a settlement. But this is roughly 2 dozen women in multiple states, dude has issues whether he's guilty of sexual assault or not, this is not a good look for him, the Browns or the NFL. I'm a retired USAF officer and work in the corporate world now. If this number of accusations were levied at a Commander or CEO, they wouldn't be allowed to sit on the sidelines, collect pay for a year and then get a big raise with all of these allegations still in flux. I love sports, but we've elevated athletes (and entertainers) to a strata that still needs to be held accountable, whether its criminal or not. As far as having sex with women you're paying for a service, I think that's questionable as solicitation. How much did he pay them? Was the amounts different than the others he paid?
