The NFL is in a tough spot. A grand jury found the allegations weren’t even worthy of a trial. They are supposed to find him guilty and suspend him?
1. You are 100% correct. I was too lazy to go back for the actual quote. Instead of “Don’t bring religion into this”, you’re reply to yeah, a religion for math nerds was: Which IMO is actually way funnier. I, 100% should have taken the time to get the original quote 2. Dude… it’s 1 fucking page on a link you posted (e) (i)(i) The Disciplinary Officer will be responsible for conducting evidentiary hearings (pursuant to the procedures of Section 2 below), issuing binding findings of fact and determining the discipline that should be imposed, if any, in accordance with the Personal Conduct Policy.
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….. 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 conductincludes but is not limited to the following: Neither arrested, charged, nor indicted are mentioned as qualifications for being subjected to disciplinary actions. Sexual assault are both “offenses” and “actions”. If he is believed to have committed the actions of sexual assault, it doesn’t matter if he’s been charged with the “offense”. I honestly didn’t think I had to highlight the entire document or take the step to say sexual assault isn’t limited to being an “offense” Between the 1 page PCP referenced above, the 1 page CBA you posted, are many of the replies I’ve quoted over the last couple pages, it’s blatantly obvious that you don’t read your own posts, links, or quotes, and often argue directly against clear information found in your posts, links, and reply’s.
Is there anyone here that really believes Watson didn't do anything wrong or tarnishes the image of the NFL? I mean I understand people like to argue and take an opposite stances just because, but come on. 24 lawsuits that could be 26. Where there's smoke there's fire.
As we’ve found out in the recent televised hearings, the general public often doesn’t have access to all the information available. I mentioned earlier that in the beginning, I was on Watson’s side but as more information has been released my opinion has changed. *Tangent: A comedian once had a bit to the effect of: I don’t agree with people who are out there protesting in front of abortion clinics… but I get it. They believe with all their hearts that embryos are the same as babies… and if you really think there’s a place that kills babies all day, you better be out there protesting. You seem to truly believe the actions were limited to “some uncomfortableness” and “happy endings” so I get where you’re coming from. But IMO it’s gone waaay past that. Uncomfortable: Watson: Can you give me a handjob? Masseuse: No that makes me uncomfortable Assault: Same as above followed by Watson: Proceeds to then masturbate to completion “If Watson's activity did not fit the definition of "consensual" it would have been prosecuted after the criminal investigations” While there may not have been enough evidence to find him guilty, there certainly wasn’t enough evidence to find him innocent. If there was any indication that happy endings were a part of these masseuses business models, it would have come out a long time ago. Criminal court has different standards than civil court which has different standards than “NFL court” The PCP clearly states “conduct”. It could be argued that simply going up to strangers and unprovoked, asking them for handjobs could be considered inappropriate conduct.
He definitely wasn’t found innocent. No one’s come forward saying they’ve gotten happy endings from those massage therapists. He had a clear pattern of approaching people, at their workplace, and would ask them for a handjob. Not at a bar, not after a date, not even after flirting off the street…. Are certain professions OK to sexually harass? Would you feel differently if he’d go to a different chiropractor 2xs a week? When the Chiroprator says “what’s the problem? DW pulls out his dick and says his testicles have been throbbing “crack my cock doc” and asks the Dr. to jerk him off. Would that be appropriate conduct? Look, I’m a guy. Most of us can be pervy or inappropriate at times. But being a representative of a trillion dollar company who has to sign a conduct policy, the only stretch is to think the base of his actions isn’t inappropriate conduct.
I didn’t say he was found innocent at all. Only a dumbass like our former president declares something like that as being “fully exonerated” Im also not really interested in defending his behavior, or arguing with you about it being inappropriate. he’s a piece of shit no doubt. I just don’t know why the NFL is supposed to suspend every time someone does something shitty in their league.. allegedly..
So, I'm correct on point one, you misquoted me. Thank you. You are partially correct on point number two, I missed that particular phrase out of the 456 pages of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. On the other hand, in post #179 you claimed "evidentiary hearing" was in the PCP so that is where I searched. "+ Evidentiary pattern? The PCP mentions an “evidentiary hearing”. If anyone is curious, I’ve copied a definition below." I'm sure you'll accept responsibility.
You actually don't need to highlight anything, the standard convention of using quotation marks when repeating the words of others would suffice; when doing so, the speaker or writer should be identified. Your largest, bolded font above is self explanatory and requires a finding (hence the word "found"); there has been no such finding in Watson's case. Your claim that "it doesn't matter if he's been charged with the offense" is one of opinion, degree or both since the PCP allows for discipline without such but that does not mean it does not matter at all since the record of criminal proceedings can be viewed as prima facie evidence in the disciplinary process. There is no such record here to be used against Watson. If an individual is arrested, charged or indicted it indicates a degree of evidence exists to initiate a criminal prosecution. If a district attorney declines to prosecute due to a lack of evidence any case to be made outside the court is weakened. As of this moment I have not seen a single shred of evidence that any "sexual assault" took place by Watson - do you have anything other than your own opinion to suggest it did?
I see that here you have answered some of the questions I raised immediately above; I do not agree that Watson has clearly been shown to have made anyone "uncomfortable" and I surely don't believe that just making an adult "uncomfortable" should be grounds for taking away any or all of someone's livelihood. I also remind you that your script above represents the claims of the accusers looking for a payday and not any version of an accurate account of what transpired. The PCP does not speak to making someone feel uncomfortable as inappropriate. As far as "evidence" is concerned the prosecutors determined there was not enough of it to even mount a case, much less prevail. No one is ever found "innocent" at trial, the only options are "guilty" or "not guilty." An accused, in a criminal case or an NFL disciplinary action, already is innocent according to the Constitution.
They’re supposed to based on the standards they imposed on themselves. Why did they set those standards? We can only speculate. But the fact is they set those standards and we shouldn’t be surprised when people who represent the league are disciplined for not living up to those standards.
This is awesome. Where else but TGG does orange donnie get emotionally thrown into a deshaun watson thread?
So your big gotcha moment is that I said it was in the PCP and not the CBA? Which i corrected 4/5 posts and a couple hours later The fact that it is in fact part or the NFL policy means nothing to you. A NFL policy that you linked in a post. A post I replied to numerous times saying - the link is in your post. You are exhausting. Since you’re big on taking responsibility, take this opportunity to admit to not reading your posts or links and let’s call or a day.
I accepted responsibility for my part, I expected you would too since you're the one who claimed the phrase was in a different document. But what's your point? You seem determined to see Watson banished. You have made an extremely weak case for that happening because you seem to have accepted every accusation about him as fact and believe the NFL will as well. In addition you do not seem to acknowledge that the Robert Kraft situation and how the NFL disposed of it will be material in how Watson must be judged. Would you care to comment on that or would you like to talk about Harvey Weinstein? What about Bill Cosby?
I missed the part about you taking responsibility about not reading your links, your own posts and only half of posts you reply to. If you had, you'd have seen I corrected myself the very next time I posted. What's worse, you repeatedly denying something exists within a link you posted or me quoting the wrong link and correcting myself the very next post? If you had read my posts, you'd have noticed the several times i mentioned I started on team Watson. I have no interest in seeing Watson banished. I do have interest in saying things like "soliciting a prostitute" isn't in the same ball park of rape (the most extreme accusation), sexual assault (the most common accusation), or even sexual harassment (the lowest of bars aka asking a licensed therapist for a hand job). We can talk about whatever you want. Harvey came up because you mentioned the girl's testimony is worthless. The PCP links came up because you said focuses on criminal charges and does not directly address non criminal claims Evidentiary hearing came up because you implied that despite witness testimony being a factor in Weinstein somehow it wasn't going to play a part in the NFL investigation. An evidentiary hearing is a legal court proceeding that involves eyewitness testimony, given under oath, that's relevant to the case. Point is: you're driving this crazy train, i'll just jump occasionally when you say something factually incorrect and easily disprovable.
Here's some nice simple yes or know questions to see what page everyone is on Do you still believe DW's accusations are limited to soliciting a prostitute as implied in this post equating Kraft with Watson? You now know that witness testimony can be devastating in court and the NFL will having evidentiary hearing defined as: a legal court proceeding that involves eyewitness testimony, given under oath, that's relevant to the case. Do you still believe that client's claims (and obvious impending testimony amount to nothing? Do you still agree with the this statement? Do you still believe that the PCP doesn't apply to Watson bc there are no criminal charges?
That's because I take responsibility for those things I do, not bullshit claims made up by others. I don't post links to things I have not read nor do I respond to posts I have not read. I don't need to agree with everything I read.nor do I need to respond to everything written here. Weinstein didn't just come up, you brought him up repeatedly as if a criminal court case has something to do with a labor action. I have no idea what "girl" you are talking about when you mention her testimony because no girl has given any testimony in the Watson case. There is no reason to further discuss anything about Harvey Weinstein because his case is totally irrelevant to that of Watson as is what occurs in a legal court proceeding which an NFL discipline hearing is not. I continue to maintain that the list of infractions in the PCP is directed at criminal activity and does not directly address specific non-criminal claims. If you disagree perhaps you could share that section of the PCP which lists specific .acts not permitted. The real point is that you still do not seem to understand the difference between a court of law and a labor discipline action and that what happens in one has no bearing on what happens in the other.
