Listening to the hosts talked about this on 610...it kind of made sense from what Judge SR said in the released statement, she seems to be pushing back the ball into Goodell's hand to extend the suspension and she has done what was given to her.
Guessing the Texans shouldve recieved more based on this news. I disagree with the judge that sexual assault is not a violent act.
Disappointed in the draft picks. I was saying that since most of the women have settled, I would assume they've gotten what they want at this point, though we'll never really know. Most only ever went the civil route so they weren't necessarily trying to get him behind bars, just looking for restitution.
Not unexpected. Disappointed on three fronts... - Message the Legal/NFL systems are sending on the importance of women compared to other infractions. - Impact on DW, thought he should have gotten longer suspension and/or fine... perhaps the settlements will balance at least the financial impact of his actions. - Finally, was hoping for at least 1 year suspension to help value of our draft picks.
That doesn't really work. The appeal would be by Roger Goodell ... to Roger Goodell, who makes the final determination. If the NFL appeals, they can't blame anyone else for the punishment anymore because it's entirely up to Goodell at that point. It's a bizarre process.
“The record was compiled in connection with the NFL’s allegations that Deshaun Watson, a player in the NFL, violated three provisions of the Policy by engaging in: (1) sexual assault; (2) conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and (3) conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL.” “The NFL’s investigation was conducted by two former prosecutors with decades of experience investigating sexual assault cases. Although Mr. Watson allegedly worked with more than 60 massage therapists during the 15-month period beginning in the fall of 2019 through the winter of 2021, the NFL only investigated the claims of the 24 therapists suing Mr. Watson for damages. Of these 24 complainants, the NFL investigators were only able to interview 12; of those 12, the NFL relied for its conclusions on the testimony of 4 therapists (“the therapists”), as well as interviews of some 37 other third parties and substantial documentary evidence. The Resulting 215-page investigative report (“the Report”), along with the testimony of its two investigators, comprised the NFL’s case presented at the three-day evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to Article 46 of the 2020 CBA. The record before me also includes multiple exhibits identified during the hearing, and the testimony of Dr. Robert Peppell, a sports chiropractor and physiotherapist who currently works with Mr. Watson. My credibility determinations are based largely on the credibility of the NFL investigators. The parties have also submitted post-hearing briefing.” The “pattern of conduct” described by the NFL includes the following steps: Mr. Watson identified himself from the outset of each encounter as a quarterback for the NFL via an Instagram inquiry for a massage. Mr. Watson’s requests were typically “urgent,” wanting to schedule a massage that day. He was not looking for a professional setting and often inquired as to whether the massage would be “private.” Mr. Watson admitted that he was not concerned whether the women were experienced massage therapists or even licensed. Of the four massage therapists who are the subject of the Report, only three were licensed and operating their own businesses; the fourth therapist was working towards her licensure. Mr. Watson would follow his Instagram contact with texts or calls before each session to make sure that the therapists were comfortable massaging certain areas of his body, particularly his lower back, glutes, abs, and groin area (his “focus points”). Mr. Watson requested that the therapists use a towel to cover his private parts rather than the more typically used sheet. Mr. Watson often provided his own towels, which have been variously described as “medium/small” towels or “Gatorade” towels. Once in the massage sessions, each of the therapists allege that Mr. Watson engaged in what the NFL has characterized as “sexualized behavior.” This behavior includes Mr. Watson’s insistence that the therapists work on his focus points with just a towel as cover. When he turned over on his back, it is alleged that Mr. Watson exposed his erect penis and purposefully contacted the therapists’ hands and arms multiple times with his erect penis. One of the therapists alleges that Mr. Watson not only contacted her arm multiple times, but that he ejaculated on her arm. There is no allegation that Mr. Watson exerted any force against any of the therapists. As noted above, the conduct of “sexual assault” is not defined in the CBA, the Policy, or the Report. On behalf of the NFL, one of its investigators defined the term at the evidentiary hearing as the “unwanted sexual contact with another person.” The NFL contends that Mr. Watson committed sexual assault by allegedly “touching [his] penis to the women without their consent.” As it is the NFL’s prerogative to impose the Policy on its players, I am bound to accept the NFL’s definition of sexual assault. Therefore, it is the NFL’s burden to prove that it is more likely true than not that: (1) Mr. Watson intended to cause contact with his penis; (2) he did so for a sexual purpose; and (3) he knew that such contact was unwanted. The record presented by the NFL to support its allegations of sexual assault includes many undisputed facts. For instance, there is no dispute that Mr. Watson used Instagram to contact these therapists, and that he was clearly identified to them as a player for the NFL through Instagram. There is also no dispute that he reached out for private massage sessions with women whose professional qualifications were unknown to him, nor were their professional qualifications explored by him. Mr. Watson always forecast his desire that certain areas of his body be massaged, including his lower back, glutes, abs, and groin area. In all four cases, the therapists were willing to go forward with the massage; however, none of the therapists were willing to offer him massage services again. Finally, there is no dispute that Mr. Watson preferred a towel to the traditionally used sheet for draping, and there should be no dispute that a medium or small-sized towel will more likely slip off a body than a sheet, leaving a client exposed. Importantly, much of the alleged conduct is not, in and of itself, challenged as wrongful. The use of Instagram to advertise a business or to engage a business, for instance, is commonplace. There is evidence in the record that Mr. Watson’s focus points (the lower back, glutes, abs, and groin area) are legitimate focus areas for professional athletes. Moreover, it is not unusual for therapists to inadvertently contact a male client’s penis while treating these legitimate focus areas, nor for male clients to get an erection during a massage.
Mr. Watson has not testified that he had erections and inadvertently touched the therapists here; instead, he has categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage. It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties. Moreover, the totality of the evidence (including the undisputed facts relating to Mr. Watson’s use of towels, his focus points, and the not uncommon experience of massage therapists to have contact with the erect penis of their male clients) lends support to my conclusion that it is more probable than not that Mr. Watson did have erections and that his erect penis contacted the therapists as claimed by them. With respect to whether the contact was intentional, the matter of intent generally must be inferred from circumstantial evidence in the absence of an admission. In this case, Mr. Watson reached out to women whose professional qualifications were unknown and unimportant to him. He insisted on using a towel, increasing the probability of exposure. He insisted on having the therapists focus on areas of his body that not uncommonly triggered erections. And he engaged in this pattern of conduct multiple times. I find this sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the NFL’s contention not only that contact occurred, but that Mr. Watson was aware that contact probably would occur, and that Mr. Watson had a sexual purpose – not just a therapeutic purpose – in making these arrangements with these particular therapists. Finally, I find that the NFL has produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the last prong of the test, that Mr. Watson knew such sexualized contact was unwanted. Of course, there is no indication on the record that even experienced therapists “want” such contact, and Mr. Watson certainly did not seek out the most experienced therapists. Moreover, there is credible evidence that one of the therapists expressed her discomfort of the unwanted contact to Mr. Watson during the sessions, and another of the therapists ended the session early. Given that none of these therapists accepted Mr. Watson’s invitations to engage in further therapy sessions, I find the evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Watson knew, or should have known, that any contact between his penis and these therapists was unwanted. I, therefore, find that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report. Mr. Watson violated the Policy in this regard. Once again, there is no definition provided in the Policy or CBA for the prohibited conduct of posing a “genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person.” Neither has the NFL provided a definition in connection with this matter. The evidence upon which the NFL relies for proof of this offense, however, is based squarely on the emotional responses of the four therapists to Mr. Watson’s conduct. For instance, the NFL asserts that the therapists were “fearful” of Mr. Watson’s ability to “use his status as an NFL player to damage their professional careers.” Further evidence identified by the NFL in support of this offense includes testimony from the four therapists: (1) one of the therapists told the investigators that she sought counseling after her session with Mr. Watson and is struggling to work; (2) another of the therapists reported that she was frustrated, upset, and embarrassed after the session; (3) a third therapist testified that she changed her business practices and suffered from depression and sleeplessness as a result of incident; and (4) the fourth therapist remained uncertain whether she would continue to pursue a career in massage therapy. … Based on the NFL’s broad interpretation of this prohibited conduct as reflected in the evidence it chose to present, I find that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson’s conduct posed a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person. The NFL asserts that Mr. Watson’s conduct has “undermined the public’s confidence in the integrity and reputation of the NFL and its players.” According to the NFL, “[t]he matters that can affect such integrity and public confidence [in the game of professional football] evolve and change over time depending on developments within and external to the League, and the parties to the CBAs have agreed not to operate with a static or frozen definition of conduct detrimental.” … In this regard, the NFL has demonstrated that Mr. Watson identified himself as a player for the NFL to initiate contact with the therapists, and used his ties to the Texans to reinforce his requests for massages focused on his lower back, glutes, abs, and groin area. Having established himself in this context, the NFL has further demonstrated that Mr. Watson engaged in sexualized conduct during the massage sessions. I find this evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Watson’s conduct undermined the integrity of the NFL in the eyes of the therapists. The NFL has recommended that Mr. Watson be suspended for at least the entire 2022 NFL regular and post-season and not be permitted to return unless he satisfies any conditions imposed for reinstatement. According to the NFL, if this recommended sentence is unprecedented (as characterized by Mr. Watson and the NFLPA), that is because his conduct is unprecedented. The NFL’s reasoning is reflected in the following testimony of one of its investigators: “[E]ven with just the four [women], I think we haven’t had someone who over the course of a year-plus time . . . [committed] sexual assault against four different people, and he uses, again, invokes the league in some ways of doing so. That in and of itself is unprecedented. . . .” It is undisputed that Mr. Watson’s conduct does not fall into the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension. It likewise is undisputed that prior cases involving non-violent sexual assault have resulted in discipline far less severe than what the NFL proposes here, with the most severe penalty being a 3-game suspension for a player who had been previously warned about his conduct.
Unless I am misinterpreting the tweet above, it says the judge sustained the sexual assault conduct. And by legal definition sexual assault is considered a violent act.
I find it interesting that part of the reason Robinson didn't believe Watson is because he flat out denied that his pecker ever touched them, even though it is something that could very possibly have happened with no ill intention whatsoever. Like his ego couldn't handle the possibility that he would admit to anything in these cases, so he flat denied everything that wasn't already in hard evidence (like his Insta chat records)...and that worked against him because it made him seem less credible.
[The MMQB] Absent an appeal, the Deshaun Watson suspension cements Roger Goodell’s legacy as one of staggering weakness
Looks like they wanted to suspend him for the entire year. But, standard fare is six games for violating the personal conduct policy. I suppose an appeal is coming.
This is really important to note. The NFL interviewed a lot of people but only brought 4 cases (and a 5th based purely on media reports, which seems dumb?). Someone should ask the NFL why they didn't argue the rest.
I thought that by having an independent person rule on this the league wanted to reset perspective on what "normal" was and reset the punishment but from what I see is she had to use past precedent to find her ruling which is 6 games......but that's only based on the F`d up cases in the past, what happened to resetting expectations? So now its in Roger`s hand, he can and should go ahead and use his power to suspend him for the year. Watson couldn't even tell the truth while under oath "allegedly". I did like how she took a few jabs at the NFL, it sounded like she wanted to do more but her hands were tied to past precedent. Good Luck Brownies, he is your POS now so good luck with that
As has already been noted, they really just needed one finding of wrongdoing to set a punishment at whatever they deem appropriate. As you said, the system is set for them to hear their own appeal. If they want to let it sit at 6 games, then it's 6 games. If they want to make it 1 year+, then it's 1 year+. Weird system, but the NFLPA signed off on it...
