Please don't tell me that I have a history of not comprehending what I read at the same time you appear unable to grasp the difference between what the NFL can do and what a court of law can do. You show that with your mention of an unrelated criminal court case, a faulty definition and improper vocabulary. You also do not seem to realize that the NFL, having established its Personal Conduct Policy in conjunction with the player's union, must apply it uniformly. That means when a team owner has been charged with a crime and the NFL chooses not to discipline that owner they will be on thin ice in attempting to discipline a player who has never been charged with a crime regardless of what the "public as a whole" may or may not think. You may care to note that the PCP claims to have held league and team ownership and management to a higher standard and to discipline those people more severely. You don't seem to understand the difference between a conviction at trial in a court of law and arbitrary punishment imposed by an organization such as the NFL or you would not have even mentioned Weinstein. The only thing that is pertinent to the Watson situation is previous applications of punishment through the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy. Public opinion may play a part in the motivation behind that but consistency is essential if the NFL does not want its decision dragged into a real court. You do realize that the definition you have provided for "evidentiary hearing" includes a reference to "a legal court proceeding," right? Do you also realize that "evidentiary hearing" does not appear in the NFL PCP - are you looking at an earlier version of the policy? The NFL is not in the business of running a court system, does not have the authority to do so, and has not and will not do so regarding Deshaun Watson. No "testimony" has been given at all to the NFL regarding Watson; what the NFL has received from the accusers are self-serving claims, allegations and statements. There has been no opportunity for the accused to cross examine anyone making those statements or claims and there is no mention in the PCP of any statements being given under oath. Weinstein, on the other hand, was afforded all those benefits. I don't believe your claim that "the court of public opinion" has spoken; you may have slammed your mind shut on Watson's culpability but I can certainly disagree - it is simply too soon and too thin, even in the hyped up allegations of a lawyer who will share in the proceeds of any awards or settlements. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and we have not seen the details. Certainly you don't believe Watson should be disciplined based on the limited information provided by ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Twitter and a thousand websites, do you? The PCP gives no consideration for public opinion in reaching a decision. Here's a link to what I believe is the current NFL Personal Conduct Policy, please correct me if I'm wrong: Microsoft Word - 2018 Personal Conduct Policy.docx (nflcommunications.com) And if you're actually interested in discussing what the NFL may do regarding Deshaun Watson maybe you could point out the verbiage within the eight pages of the policy that you believe will support imposing discipline on Watson.
Both instances you cite predate the current Personal Conduct Policy under which Watson's actions will be judged. The rules have changed.
Although you’ve proven time and time again the inability to stay on topic I wholeheartedly respect your strategies. Posting a long drawn out post you know no one will read is a brilliant way to not be called out by the drivel in your novel. I have read the PCP and the language you search for is riddled throughout the document. “Everyone who is part of the league must refrain from “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL” “In cases where a player is not charged with a crime, or is charged but not convicted, he may still be found to have violated the Policy if the credible evidence establishes that he engaged in conduct prohibited by this Personal Conduct Policy.” Regarding evidentiary hearing, it’s in the 2020, CBA. If one of us is using outdated information, it’s not me. https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows....-Bargaining-Agreement-Final-Executed-Copy.pdf Regarding Watson specifically, my view on the situation has changed as information on the case as it’s come out. On the information you’ve looked at, you’re not there yet and I get it. Repeatedly comparing what Kraft was accused or with what Watson is accused of is ridiculous. Posting links which you obviously haven’t read is pathetic. Being as loud as you are with the limited amount of knowledge you have is just sad in a kinda funny “look at the retarded kid eating worms” way. Edit: Here’s a post with a better link to the section of the CBA which mentions the evidentiary hearing. This douche posted a link but didn’t bother to read it himself.
I'm curious if there is specific langue regarding gambling. I'm too lazy to read through it. I ask because the Falcons wide receiver did not commit any crimes but he was suspended for an entire year.
My opinion only regarding NFL in this example: Gambling $ > females treated like shit. But I'm starting to get the feeling NFL gonna drop the hammer on Watson and suspend him for at least a year.
I hope they do. He's obviously got some sort of issue when it comes to women. This is a guy I wouldn't want my pre-teen child idolizing. He's definitely tarnished the NFL's image.
Reality is that the NFL has been filled with dirtbags from day 1..... but in today's society, alot more dirty laundry gets aired, not to mention current state of social conscience But gambling is their true Golden Goose that they're willing to protect at all costs. If it it was ever proven games were fixed, there'd be alot more lost than a few small protests
Serously, Joe? We're talking about a possible violation of the Personal Conduct Policy, an eight page document, and you link the entire CBA of over four hundred pages? They are different documents with different dates. And I have read the appropriate sections; the difference between us is that I'm the one who comprehends what he reads. Of course you realize that I had linked both documents in the post you also link here - so who is the "douche"? And why is it necessary for you to make such a personal attack again? If you can't handle the conversation just leave. If you had found the term "evidentiary hearing" in either document as it applies to the Watson situation, I'm sure you would have been more than thrilled to cite it specifically here by page, if not paragraph. On the off chance that you are feebly attempting to state your position let me be more specific in regard to the two vague passages from the PCP you have quoted - How does Watson getting a handjob damage the "integrity and public confidence" in the NFL? It's not like he's throwing games by getting a happy ending and it's not like Kraft (designated in the PCP to be held to a higher standard) was disciplined for doing so. Comparing the Kraft situation to Watson's is far from "ridiculous" as both are bound by the same document that governs any discipline Watson may face today. And, specifically, where is the activity Watson is accused of "prohibited by the Personal Conduct Policy"? Your "retarded kid" comment is not simply a personal attack but offensive to anyone with a semblance of understanding how wrong it is to use a reference to the disabled as an insult.
There is nothing specific at all in the Personal Conduct Policy regarding gambling but it is not hard to see the intent of the final line in this section, depending on the severity of the offense the "Crimes of dishonesty" section could also come into play: Expectations and Standards of Conduct It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. We are all held to a higher standard and must conduct ourselves in a way that is responsible, promotes the values of the NFL, and is lawful. Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this Policy) are subject to discipline. But even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following: Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence; Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses; Violent or threatening behavior toward another employee or a third party in any workplace setting; Stalking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation; Illegal possession of a gun or other weapon (such as explosives, toxic substances, and the like), or possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting; Illegal possession, use, or distribution of alcohol or drugs; Possession, use, or distribution of steroids or other performance enhancing substances; Crimes involving cruelty to animals as defined by state or federal law; Crimes of dishonesty such as blackmail, extortion, fraud, money laundering, or racketeering; Theft-related crimes such as burglary, robbery, or larceny; Disorderly conduct; Crimes against law enforcement, such as obstruction, resisting arrest, or harming a police officer or other law enforcement officer; Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel. Here's what Goodell said in announcing Ridley's suspension: "There is nothing more fundamental to the NFL's success -- and to the reputation of everyone associated with our league -- than upholding the integrity of the game,"
Dude…. It’s in the 1 page link that you originally posted. If you don’t take the time to read shit you link a lot of things make sense. Like a lot. BTW If you think Deshawn is in trouble for getting some handjobs, you haven’t been paying attention, which seems to be a common theme for you. Lol remember that time you said some people treat PFF like a religion? When I replied, yeah a religion for math nerds You replied: Don’t bring religion into this Classic Ralebird, pays enough attention to try and make a point but not enough attention to actually make one. #sad
According to the NFL, Ridley placed bets during a five-day period in late November 2021, when he was away from the club's facility on the non-football illness list. The former first-round pick played in just five games in 2021 before leaving the club to focus on his "mental wellbeing." The league announced its investigation found no inside information was used or that any game was compromised. Also, there was no evidence coaches, staff, teammates, or other players were aware of Ridley's betting. Ridley wasn't even active when he made the bets but I understand that it is a judgement call made by the commissioner to suspend him for an entire year. I don't think a suspension for Watson is some off the wall idea and/or it wouldn't be warranted. There is evidence that shows he put women in very uncomfortable situations (some to the point in which they felt threatened) and it's not like we are talking about just one or two. Considering how popular the #metoo movement is, I think the NFL would be viewed in a terrible light if they did absolutely nothing. If Ridley got a year for his actions, Watson should get something close to it. Personally I think what Watson did is worse.
I actually don't have a problem with that. From a societal standpoint its not "just" of course but the league is stupid for trying to play cops & bad guys. Goodell has had a hard on for that for too long. They should stay completely out of legal matters and if a team wants to hire a rapist or criminal, so be it, they will deal with the consequences. Gambling on the game, on the other hand, ruins their product and they should have a strict no tolerance policy. The games already have a credibility issue, last thing you want is for people to question whether that player was profiting from his fumble or interception and thus did it on purpose.
My crystal ball says Watson will spend this year on the Commissioner’s Exempt list and get his suspension next year of at least a season.
Doesn't he get any credit for time served? Under your prediction he would end up with 3+ years in "NFL Jail".
He wasn’t on the list last year, last year’s exile was self imposed. It’s like pre-trial house arrest. It doesn’t count as any time against the sentence.
1. Don't put words in my mouth. Use real quotes, in context. 2. Where are the words "evidentiary hearing" in the current Personal Conduct Policy?
Classic Roach - Not understanding that "Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses" are criminal offenses and Deshaun Watson has not been arrested, charged or indicted with any criminal offense.
I provided the information regarding Ridley in response to your question and added how it links to the section of "integrity" in the PCP and am familiar with his situation. It's easy to believe Ridley acted alone and bet strictly on his own, at the same time I don't believe Pete Rose never bet on a game he was involved in - the gray area in between is where the league must be concerned and take a no leeway stance on football betting. None of us know what the NFL will decide on Watson, certainly they are in a no-win position and will face blowback regardless of the outcome and may be facing legal challenges as well. Actually, we have seen no "evidence" regarding what Wilson may have done; what we have are unsubstantiated accusations and claims by those who stand to reap a reward. Nothing in the PCP addresses making anyone feel "uncomfortable." One would think that in revamping the Personal Conduct Policy in 2018 it would have been much more specific about non-criminal allegations of such activity since the #metoo movement you mention began in 2006. Comparing Ridley to Watson is problematic because it is easy to equate gambling on football with threatening the "integrity" of the NFL but it is difficult to find language in the PCP that ties consensual activity to potential discipline. If Watson's activity did not fit the definition of "consensual" it would have been prosecuted after the criminal investigations.
