Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
You had me up until “good for the nfl.” The arbitrator’s light punishment WAS based on precedent. It just so happens that precedent is with owners, not players. There is a reason the nflpa requested zero games. Daniel Snyder’s shit is every bit as bad. Jerry jones cheerleader scandal is very bad. Robert kraft, while way smaller a deal than Watson was in the same ballpark. These were all very recent.
Do you think the nflpa would have led with 0 games if not for the nfls double standard punishing owners vs players? I think what Watson did should have costed him a season. I also fully understand an arbitrators point of view that a harsh punishment for Watson is disparate punishment vs how they punish themselves. If goodell wouldn’t have shielded the living hell out of his owners, the arbitrator could’ve led with a way harsher penalty. It is the nfls fault, not the arbitrators. And now they become huge hypocrites for recommending something harsher and I hope the nflpa attacks them on it.
No, it actually was not based on precedent. The "precedent" incidents only involved one instance of sexual assualt....Watson has over 20-- four of which of were the basis for the punishment from the arbitrator....so based on that, it should have been six games for each incident....or 24 games. [Reply]
The Judge should be the one who sets the precedent under the new system.
She probably has too much experience as a federal judge being constrained by the federal sentencing guidelines.
Punishment in prior cases had nothing to do with treating dozens of licensed massage therapists as sex workers. Seemed like the sensible thing to do would be to set standards for the new setup. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
No, it actually was not based on precedent. The "precedent" incidents only involved one instance of sexual assualt....Watson has over 20-- four of which of were the basis for the punishment from the arbitrator....so based on that, it should have been six games for each incident....or 24 games.
I mean, it is and it isn't. On the one hand we haven't seen personal conduct for a serial assaulter. On the other, you cant claim that owners getting 0 games for serial misconduct isn't part of that precedent. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
No, it actually was not based on precedent. The "precedent" incidents only involved one instance of sexual assualt....Watson has over 20-- four of which of were the basis for the punishment from the arbitrator....so based on that, it should have been six games for each incident....or 24 games.
Dude all the cases are not sexual "assault". From what I've read a couple could definitely be called that.
Most of it amounts to acting inappropriately and would come closer to harassment.
He is getting off lightly (pun intended) but lets not act like he attacked 20 women or something. Dude would be in jail not getting civilly sued. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The judge was presented with 4 of the cases and she determined they were all “sexual assault.”
Pretty simple.
Although 2 grand jury's decided not to prosecute. What he did was immoral and creepy, but not criminal at this point. Again, DeShaun would be smart to settle for the 6 games this year and a $20 million fine. That would basically be a 23 game suspension with no pay... [Reply]
The NFL has never needed proof beyond a reasonable doubt or a criminal charge to give out long suspensions when they believe there has been misconduct.
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Although 2 grand jury's decided not to prosecute. What he did was immoral and creepy, but not criminal at this point. Again, DeShaun would be smart to settle for the 6 games this year and a $20 million fine. That would basically be a 23 game suspension with no pay...
Who cares if something meets the standard of criminal? When you go out of your way to use the power and leverage of your position as the QB of the Texans to basically terrorize dozens of women in the local area, it's a shameful, horrible, and despicable thing that goes well beyond just "immoral and creepy." He has a history of serial sexual assault and shows absolutely no remorse. That's not my opinion - that's straight from the independent judge. Would you hire this guy to work at your company with this background?
I don't think he has the option of accepting 6 games/20mm. The length of the suspension is far more important to the optics than his money lost in the process. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Who cares if something meets the standard of criminal? When you go out of your way to use the power and leverage of your position as the QB of the Texans to basically terrorize dozens of women in the local area, it's a shameful, horrible, and despicable thing that goes well beyond just "immoral and creepy." He has a history of serial sexual assault and shows absolutely no remorse. That's not my opinion - that's straight from the independent judge. Would you hire this guy to work at your company with this background?
I don't think he has the option of accepting 6 games/20mm. The length of the suspension is far more important to the optics than his money lost in the process.
The fact that the initial suspension ruling limited him to the massages only done by team massage therapists….should tell you everything you need to know. [Reply]
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Although 2 grand jury's decided not to prosecute. What he did was immoral and creepy, but not criminal at this point. Again, DeShaun would be smart to settle for the 6 games this year and a $20 million fine. That would basically be a 23 game suspension with no pay...
He got paid last year. The fact that you’re defending him says a lot about you. [Reply]
TimeForWasp 08-07-2022, 12:38 AM
This message has been deleted by TimeForWasp.
Reason: ,
Originally Posted by LoneWolf:
He got paid last year. The fact that you’re defending him says a lot about you.
Reread my post... He earned $20 million last year and didn't play a down. I think it's horrible that his contract is structured this year so that he loses very little economically with the suspension. I am basically saying they should fine him $20 million that he earned last year not playing. This would then be a 23 game suspension without pay which most would think was appropriate. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Who cares if something meets the standard of criminal? When you go out of your way to use the power and leverage of your position as the QB of the Texans to basically terrorize dozens of women in the local area, it's a shameful, horrible, and despicable thing that goes well beyond just "immoral and creepy." He has a history of serial sexual assault and shows absolutely no remorse. That's not my opinion - that's straight from the independent judge. Would you hire this guy to work at your company with this background?
I don't think he has the option of accepting 6 games/20mm. The length of the suspension is far more important to the optics than his money lost in the process.
Yes, but again, two grand juries said it wasn't criminal. If he would not have gotten paid last year, or was fined $20 million now, would that satisfy you that he didn't play for 23 games and wasn't paid during that time? I wouldn't hire him to work at my company, but then again, there are many players with immoral backgrounds that I wouldn't hire to work at my company that are gainfully employed by the NFL. [Reply]