Monday’s news of an six-game suspension For Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson It has triggered an intense response, which is not surprising. This is understandable and fair, as the allegations against Watson of sexual misconduct are concerning and address the issue of how NFL players behave toward women. Cynicism is justified by the history of the league, which has seen enough mistakes in handling that many people felt a lot of Monday’s reactions. Many people expected to be disappointed with the result, and they were.
Arbitration decisions don’t make everyone happy. Arbitration decisions should be based on evidence and precedent. You can read the following: 16-page report It’s evident that Sue L. Robinson (retired federal judge) tried to keep this balance.
Robinson’s decision to make six games was explained by Robinson. What was Robinson’s requirement for Watson’s future sessions of massage therapy? Here are 12 key points from the report.
Watson lost the case against the NFL fundamentally.
Watson found Robinson guilty of violating the league’s personal conduct policy In three ways: sexual assault, engaging in conduct that is a real danger to another person’s safety and well-being, and conduct that compromises or threatens the integrity of NFL.
It is important that he was not found to have broken the policy. the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) states the binding nature of the decision by the jointly appointed discipline officers (in this instance Robinson), regarding whether there was a violation of personal conduct policy. The league would terminate her contract if she determined that there was no violation and therefore no discipline was required. Not a right to appeal.
The league can appeal the decision to discipline. Roger Goodell or his designee serve as appeals officers. The CBA states that any appeal from either the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) or the league “must be made in writing within three days of the decision by the Disciplinary Office.” Any response to an appeal must be made in writing within two days. The appeal will only be made to the Disciplinary Officer if the evidence below supports a modification in the amount of discipline.
The new process accomplished some of its intended goals.
Ask yourself this question: “What’s neutral arbitration if the commissioner still has the final say in discipline?” The new procedure will require the league to prove their case. The CBA states that it must rely upon “credible evidence” before an arbitrator. In this case, the arbitrator is a retired federal judge.
This is a significant improvement over when Goodell could simply hear the findings from his own investigators, and make disciplinary decisions without making those findings public.
Robinson was Not These cases are presented together with all 24 civil lawsuits that were filed against Watson
Robinson writes on Page 3 that her decision is limited by the evidence presented to her. This makes it clear that Robinson’s case was not about 24 individuals but rather four. The NFL interviewed 12 of 24 women who were suing Watson in civil court for damages. They “relied for their conclusions on the testimony from 4 therapists and interviews with some 37 other third party.”
The NFL investigators don’t have the power to subpoena women and cannot force them to speak to all 24. They interviewed 12 women and decided that four would be the basis for their argument Watson had violated the personal conduct policies. Although it is not clear why they chose to use four, they decided that this was the best way for them to present their case.
Robinson found Watson guilty in violation of the personal conduct policy
Robinson finds the details of Robinson’s league behavior disturbing. From Watson’s solicitation of massages to his use of a small towel to cover himself, to his intent and method of contact with the therapists, to the size of Watson’s towel. Robinson found the women in question convincing, based on circumstantial proof (including the fact that Watson demanded the massages and the towel he used to cover himself during them). Watson’s blanket denials that he was wrongfully doing anything was difficult to accept given the “credible testimony from the investigators”.
Robinson was not innocent of wrongdoing, and no one can read this report. Robinson concluded Watson “had a sexual motive — not just therapeutic — in making these arrangements for these therapists.” Robinson determined that Watson committed sexual assault based on what the league defined as sexual assault.
Watson’s actions were also included under the same umbrella. Deflategate And Bountygate
Robinson quotes “” in the section of the report that determines whether Watson was a conduct detrimental to the league.Tom Brady‘s inflation of the game balls used for the AFC Championship Game in January 2015 The 2021 New Orleans Saints’ ‘Pay-for Performance’“scheme” refers to past cases in which league invoked its “detriment-to-the league” clause.
Robinson accepted the NFL evidence of Watson’s actions being detrimental to the league because Watson identified himself as a player in the NFL when he reached out to the therapists.
1:32
Dianna Russini shares the reactions of NFL players and GMs to the Deshaun Wilson suspension.
Watson would be suspended from the NFL for the entire season, if it had its way
Robinson asks if the league’s proposed discipline was appropriate after Watson has been found guilty of violating the personal conduct policy. Watson was suspended for the 2022 season and for the postseason. He would not be allowed to return until he fulfilled certain conditions for reinstatement. Robinson writes that Robinson is charged with reviewing the proposal on Page 11 “for consistency in treatment, uniformity and selectivity of patents for parties similarly situated”
Let’s be clear. The NFL did not impose a suspension of six games. The NFL demanded that Watson be suspended for a year, claiming Watson’s behavior was unheard of.
Robinson concludes her report by explaining why she believes that was unfair. “Although Mr. Watson has violated the Policy, however, I have done this using the NFL’s post hoc definitions. The rule of law is crucial in allowing people to predict the consequences. It helps define prohibited conduct.
This ruling was formed by Ray Rice’s discipline
Cite the 2014 case of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray RiceRobinson notes that the NFLPA’s description is not what it claimed. Rice was suspended for two games by Goodell (as was the norm for Rice’s offense at this time), and then, after outcry, Goodell revised his personal conduct policy to provide a six-game suspension for violent offenders.
She claims that even though this policy change was in reaction to public outrage it at least “gave fair warning to its players” and the public about possible consequences for certain violent conduct.
The report includes a significant role for the word “violent”
The post-Rice personal behavior policy stipulates a six-game suspension for Policy violations, including (1) criminal assault or battery (felony);(2) domestic violence, dating violence and other forms family violence; or (3) assault with physical force or against an incapable person. These are Very specific Robinson states, on Page 13, that there are many violations. He says that Watson’s conduct doesn’t fall under the category of violent conduct which would warrant a minimum 6-game suspension.
She stated that previous cases involving nonviolent sex assaults had not resulted to six-game suspensions, but rather a maximum of three-game suspensions. (Jameis WinstonIf so, then Tampa Bay BuccaneersThe starting quarterback was suspended for the first three games of the 2018 season (For violating the NFL’s personal behavior policy. Robinson was not charged with any violations of the NFL’s personal conduct policy. Not Because Watson’s behavior was nonviolent, she suggested that the baseline of six games be used in the personal conduct policies. She also stated that it didn’t meet the requirements for a six game suspension.
Robinson sought consistency when the NFL claimed there wasn’t
On Page 13, there’s a very interesting passage. Robinson stated that the NFL claimed “consistency was impossible, because there aren’t similar players.” Robinson sees it differently. He writes: “By disregarding past decisions because they do not involve’similar conduct’, the NFL isn’t just equating violent behavior with non-violent conduct but has increased the importance of both without providing any evidence to support that position.” It may be appropriate to punish players for nonviolent sexual conduct more severely, but I don’t believe it is appropriate without noting the extraordinary changes this position could bring for the NFL.
Robinson is basically saying, Arguments that such behavior should be punished with a harsher penalty or a fine are possible. Perhaps you are right. That’s not the policy. The league should follow the same steps as it did after Rice and amend its policy to reflect the behavior Watson was found guilty of.
Interesting argument, for sure, but it answers a lot of the questions about the length of the suspension vis-à-vis some others in the past. She continues, “It’s inherently unfair to identify conduct that has been prohibited only after it has occurred, and it is also inherently unjust to alter the penalties for such conduct later.”
The suspension was not randomly placed for six games
Robinson decided that she would not start from a baseline of six games but rather from one of three or fewer games, based upon precedent from other cases of nonviolent sexual assault. As “aggravating reasons” (that’s, reasons to increase suspension), Robinson cites Watson’s “lackof expressed remorse” and his tardy notification to the NFL of her first-filed lawsuit. He is a first-time offenders and has a good reputation in his community before these events. He cooperated and paid restitution.
Very Interestingly, she also mentions the league Could Watson should have been on the commissioner’s exempt lists last year. Watson chose to not, which she seems to believe means that the league didn’t consider Watson’s behavior worthy of such punishment until it received the public response. She states this clearly in her conclusion: “The NFL may be forward-facing, but it’s not necessarily forward-looking.” The NFL seems to be responding to another public outcry over Mr. Watson’s violent conduct, just as it did with the NFL after a public outcry.
Robinson wrote that she settled for six games as it was the longest suspension for nonviolent sex conduct. However, Watson’s behavior is worse than those that resulted in previous suspensions.
1:24
Ryan Clark reviews Deshaun Watson’s six-game suspension, and compares it to other NFL suspensions.
Robinson seemed to have considered previous cases in which team owners were involved in the decision of Watson’s suspension
The argument of the NFLPA during the hearing was based on the belief that the league has never punished team owners for similar offenses. Robinson, in Footnote 51, on Page 15, notes that Robinson’s argument while writing the personal behavior policy was equally applicable to both team owners and managers. It appears that the NFLPA’s argument to Robinson that she should take into consideration the relatively lighter discipline given team owners as part the precedent was somewhat weighty.
Watson’s massage therapy needs to be coordinated by the entire team as long as Watson is an NFL player
Robinson makes it clear that Watson must, in order to be reinstated into the league following his six-game suspension, “limit his massage therapy sessions to Club-directed sessions only and Club-approved massage technicians for the remainder of his career.” If he’s caught using massages that are not within his team’s purview, the league can reimpose the suspension.