You're right, but the allegations against Watson started in March 2020. Massage parlors were shut down until Abbott reopened them in June 2020.
I'm sure a handful of them were from before July 2020. But honestly, so what? I don't see how that has any impact on civil litigation relating to claims of assault.
It shows a willful attempt to not abide by laws governing the industry. A point to be added along with the other red flags many of which were addressed by professionals in the article Chill posted. Hardin isn't going to argue anything that suggests his client was trolling for sex though.
I don't think you're gonna find a jury in Texas that will see not being in full compliance with covid regulations as a character flaw. Good luck with that.
Again while a minor non stand-alone point, it adds to the other things that support these women are providing non professional service. I'm saying that to support my stance that non professional massage without the proper training or guidelines is unsafe and providers are less likely to know or follow laws which does contribute to harming the reputation of legit therapists. Hardin is trying to normalize happy endings across the industry but that is highly unfair to the providers who are legit LMT's. Hardin is NOT ever going to tell the truth and say that Watson was looking for women to pay for sexual services. He is saying that his client was so damn charming that the therapists willfully did things for free which I believe is still illegal in a licensed establishment.
That's all good and well. Now go and sell a Texas jury that dodging covid restrictions that most of us all dodged means you shouldn't take them seriously. That's ridiculous. They better have way better arguments than that.
Last time I go down that rabbit hole with you. That's 1 point on a laundry list of things that cast doubt on the veracity of their allegations. I never said that would win the case but at that point in time a close contact encounter like that was dangerous as hell and shows poor judgement.
Just got a push from Audacy saying "sources" are saying the suspension will be between 2-8 games.........who knows how much truth is in that but if its only 2 games then this whole thing is a joke, hell 6 games is to lenient IMO
https://www.audacy.com/sportsradio6...n-suspension-expected-to-be-between-2-8-games https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...2-8-games-could-be-final-range-of-punishment/
This is just pure speculation, unless the paid arbitrator is leaking information. I mean, it could be an accurate guess, but it's just a guess.
Lol, 2-8 games is a fairly big range. Why just not say 0-2 years? Getting really tired of clickbaiters.
So the Browns gave up a smorgsboard of picks, alienated their starting QB, and they don't know when Watson will play next, after already sitting out for a year. Cleveland/10.
Florio is the king of speculative clickbait. He literally pulls things out of his ass and the smaller media outlets circulate it making it sound official. Last week he was speculating that the Texans were going to trade for Garoppolo. This is how he makes his money.
You don’t understand math. 2-8 is -6. It is a negative suspension which is an addition. They are going to give him 6 games back from last year. I’m sure he will have played really well in those games.
Yes, I'm aware. I knew of him since before he was famous (his 1st cousin used to be a sports radio producer in the DC area), and Florio used to be just a basement online button pusher and rumor blogger. Kudos to him for building a carreer from that.
Watson will get the minimum suspension the league thinks they can get away with without having to deal with public outrage. I can’t see there being any chance at all that he misses the season, and I’d be shocked if he ultimately misses more than maybe 6 games. Follow the money. Always.
