Watson to Cleveland

A full year suspension might be preferable for the Browns, assuming that the report that his contract would just roll over is accurate.

An 8 or 10 or 12 or whatever game ban means you effectively have him under control for 4.25-4.5 years for your $230m.
A year ban means you have him for 5 years for the same money, but delayed a year.

Not obvious to me that they would prefer the first of those options, though of course the shorter the suspension the more option 1 is favoured. And for sure two full years out of the game would start to raise issues of how good he'll actually be when he comes back.

Either way, this year and for an indefinite period afterwards I'm rooting for the Pats and whoever is playing the Browns so fuck 'em.
 

Preacher

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,662
Harker Heights, TX
Perhaps the best non-baseball post I’ve seen on SoSH ever, and I’m one of those who in the early days of the Cosby downfall questioned the legitimacy of claims from a few women who “waited so long”. He had so much more power and prestige than just about anyone ever accused of rape/sexual assault on top of the demeaning and humiliating process of undergoing a SANE test. The process for these women to “prove” their claims is about equal to the trauma of the incident itself in many respects.
I just find it frustrating. How often do you hear these cases referred to as “he said/she said.” Do we say that about any other type of case? We’re automatically giving equal weight to the statements of the accused and accuser (even if the accused invokes his rights and doesn’t make a statement). There’s victim blaming in almost all these cases or a search for a motive to fabricate. And it certainly happens. There are false reports but they’re fairly rare with most studies clocking false reports at as low as 2% and as high as 10% (which is similar to other crimes). So why the immediate doubt?

Domestic violence comes close to this. If she were really being abused, why would she stay? A question that often has dozens of answers some of which the victim may not even realize.

I get there can certainly be a monetary motivation to report against a rich and famous athlete or entertainer. But I find it curious that someone like Watson or Cosby or Roethlisberger can have multiple accusers while literally thousands of other men navigate the field of athletics or entertainment and never have one person accuse them of any type of sex crime or harassment. My guess is, these guys aren’t just incredibly unlucky.
 

Eastchop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
396
I just find it frustrating. How often do you hear these cases referred to as “he said/she said.” Do we say that about any other type of case? We’re automatically giving equal weight to the statements of the accused and accuser (even if the accused invokes his rights and doesn’t make a statement). There’s victim blaming in almost all these cases or a search for a motive to fabricate. And it certainly happens. There are false reports but they’re fairly rare with most studies clocking false reports at as low as 2% and as high as 10% (which is similar to other crimes). So why the immediate doubt?

Domestic violence comes close to this. If she were really being abused, why would she stay? A question that often has dozens of answers some of which the victim may not even realize.

I get there can certainly be a monetary motivation to report against a rich and famous athlete or entertainer. But I find it curious that someone like Watson or Cosby or Roethlisberger can have multiple accusers while literally thousands of other men navigate the field of athletics or entertainment and never have one person accuse them of any type of sex crime or harassment. My guess is, these guys aren’t just incredibly unlucky.
Agree with the above poster- Great posts here from you

I don’t think we need to look far for answers.

edit: to remove unnecessary venting
 
Last edited:

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,772
Needham, MA
Happened after the criminal charges were dropped and before the settlement (after he was assured the apologize wouldn’t be used against him in the settlement).

-BREAK-

As an aside, and not trying to add any credulity to either situation, but getting a sexual assault victim to file a criminal report is very difficult in general. It’s something they come to on their own or with a lot of prodding from an outcry friend or family member. Most criminal jurisdictions have little interest in pursuing delayed reports because it makes the cases harder to prove (no SANE report, no DNA, lack of injuries observed ! - even with extensive injuries observed in the SANE of Kobe’s victim) Also, the prevailing thought is that real victims report immediately. Why would they wait? A good victim goes to the cops immediately and subjects herself to an invasive SANE. Do you know what a SANE entails? She surrenders her clothes and poses naked for photos, hops in the stirrups, and agrees to have her genitalia photographed in great detail by a complete stranger. Swabbing intimate areas for the possibility of semen or other DNA like saliva. Swabbing the mons pubis area, labia, then speculum insertion and then vaginal swabs, cervical swabs. And she gets to leave in hospital clothing. I’m giving you the highlights of a 4-6+ hour exam because it’s a lot more than that. An exam Kobe’s accuser went through. If anyone ever says a SANE is like an annual gynecological exam, they have no idea what it’s like. Reporting a rape “the right way” is incredibly difficult. Imagine your wife or daughter going through that and then questions being raised about her relationship to the accused or her motive to fabricate (she was probably drunk and stepped out on you and lied about it to cover it up).

Meanwhile, if my wallet were stolen, I’d call the cops, report the description of my wallet to include contents and be automatically deemed a legit reporter and not questioned on why I was where I was or how much I had to drink. They would seek out they person I claimed stole my wallet. They would not ask me to surrender my clothing or swab by body. They wouldn’t even care if I was having dinner with my mistress

Unfortunately, rape myths permeate our criminal justice system and culture at large. Failure to report immediately means it’s not true. Not fully complying with law enforcement means it’s not true. Trying to get money when you’re told it’s likely there will be no conviction means it’s not true. So many similar parallels to domestic violence cases here. The old power and control wheel at play again. I’m sorry for the tangent. There’s a lot of people out there telling the truth but you’re second guessing because they didn’t act the way you expected them to act.
Great post.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
6,503
If anything close to "indefinite suspension, 1 year minimum" ends up happening, how did these teams get it so wrong? It wasn't just the Browns...Carolina, Atlanta, New Orleans too.

These teams wouldn't have been desperate to give up a ton of money and 1st round picks for him with a 1 year suspension looming would they? He's good but it's not like he alone is going to take you to a Super Bowl. Plus the terrible publicity.

Just strange all the way around.
I wouldnt be surprised if they received indications from the league that it would be about 8 games, but that went out the window once the story got worse.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
11,752
I wouldnt be surprised if they received indications from the league that it would be about 8 games, but that went out the window once the story got worse.
Yeah, I suppose so. I guess to me the story has always been bad and nothing new really came out that changed anything for me.

Just a few more details that we basically could assume and the number of lawsuits very slightly increased.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,417
Santa Monica, CA
Yeah, I suppose so. I guess to me the story has always been bad and nothing new really came out that changed anything for me.

Just a few more details that we basically could assume and the number of lawsuits very slightly increased.
It's really borderline unthinkable that a team would make this move with a suspension of a full season or more on the table. It's reckless and stupid. I assumed they had access to information that indicated something we weren't seeing. Oof.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,752
Well, they actually do have another quarterback under contract -the one they originally planned to start this year - and if Watson is suspended for a season they just roll everything out next year. It’s weird but it might work. Two year suspension and it gets funky.

ed they of course have Baker AND Jacoby. I meant Mayfield.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
16,933

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,463
New York City
His agent will likely explain the long-term value of being the starting QB on a playoff-caliber NFL team.
Seriously. Baker might have some hurt feelings but he also kind of sucks as often as he's great, (4 years of sample size) so he should view this situation as an incredible opportunity to restart his career. What's his alternative, pout and sit out?
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
15,498
Washington
I hope he sits out for a while. I'm not a Baker fan, but I know he played with a lot of injuries last year and between that and having Watson hanging over him, I don't think sitting out for a while is completely unreasonable. Risking injury for a team that he knows doesn't give a shit about him and sure as hell isn't going to be overly concerned about his longterm health is a lousy situation. He really needs a fresh start somewhere. If Watson is banned for a year and Baker is willing to sit out the beginning of the season for however many games, won't Cleveland have to bring in another solid backup for Brissett? And once they have bring another QB on board, maybe the calculus changes enough to move Baker. Especially if another QB or three in the league goes down early and trade opportunities expand.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
11,752
It's really borderline unthinkable that a team would make this move with a suspension of a full season or more on the table. It's reckless and stupid. I assumed they had access to information that indicated something we weren't seeing. Oof.
Yeah, it's nuts. And there was a bidding war, it's not like the Browns were the only ones involved.

I assumed there was some under the table acknowledgement from the NFL the suspension was going to be light....otherwise why take this huge risk, give up all those picks, and pay arguably even higher than market price for a total creep that could miss an entire season?

The "new revelations" are basically just more confirmation of what we knew before so I don't know how the Browns et al. got this so incredibly wrong.
 

DanoooME

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
18,227
Henderson, NV
His agent will likely explain the long-term value of being the starting QB on a playoff-caliber NFL team.
Seriously. Baker might have some hurt feelings but he also kind of sucks as often as he's great, (4 years of sample size) so he should view this situation as an incredible opportunity to restart his career. What's his alternative, pout and sit out?
He's sucked a lot more than he's been decent, and never great. And if he continues that suckitude with a playoff-caliber team, he'll crater his value completely and he'll be lucky to get a clipboard-holding job. Being a starting QB with a team with nothing invested in you is just a bad road to take. He'll end up like Paul Crue the first time he practiced with the cons in The Longest Yard.

Yeah, it's nuts. And there was a bidding war, it's not like the Browns were the only ones involved.

I assumed there was some under the table acknowledgement from the NFL the suspension was going to be light....otherwise why take this huge risk, give up all those picks, and pay arguably even higher than market price for a total creep that could miss an entire season?

The "new revelations" are basically just more confirmation of what we knew before so I don't know how the Browns et al. got this so incredibly wrong.
Because they are the Browns and they are owned by a clueless moron, whose influence rolls right downhill through the rest of the organization.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
56,087
Rotten Apple
View: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1548001981628760065

The Houston Texans have reached settlements with 30 women who have accused the NFL quarterback Deshaun Watson of sexual misconduct in massage appointments, according to the lawyer representing the women.

View: https://twitter.com/AP/status/1548002660023820291

Thirty women have settled claims against the Houston Texans over allegations that quarterback Deshaun Watson sexually assaulted and harased them have settled their legal claims against the team, their attorney says. Terms were not disclosed.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,183
South Dartmouth, MA
If he gets within the same vicinity as the amount of games Brady got for delflategate I have a feeling that will be the last straw for me and Ill be breaking up with the NFL.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
50,011
Incoming DM from Deshaun Watson to Rev's instagram in 3...2...
Goddamn you, @Kenny F'ing Powers . I’m sure you know perfectly well that if I haven’t posted in this thread it’s because I’ve studiously avoiding the ick and the evil of this shit. But noooooo…


Fine. Here’s your treat:

There is an extensive literature on judicial decision making (in and out of court, including legalistic and quasi-legalistic regimes) that shows that judges (like, judges - judges but also people in general in repeat play juridical roles) make decisions strategically. And judges have admitted as such.

What that means is that a judge doesn’t necessarily choose the outcome of their own absolute preference, but the outcome closest to it that actually occur, that will stick. Which is to say: Make a decision that will have enough support from the other actors required for the decision to stand. This could mean moderating an opinion on a multi-person bench to gain enough votes to make it binding, or optimizing it so that the judge gets as much as they want without it being superseded by a legislature (i.e. if it’s too extreme, a majority of the legislature just passes a law to get by it, whereas a more moderate decision doesn’t get that majority, so it stands), or optimizing it so an actor or actors with appellate authority won’t overturn it.

This makes intuitive sense: Judges want their decisions to stand, both to get outcomes—and future outcomes—that they find proper or desirable, and also to reinforce their legitimacy in the system which being overturned all the time would erode. This in no way means that they necessarily ignore the law or the rules, but rather that they behave strategically within the system in pursuing what they think is right and proper.

Viewed through this lens, we would expect Judge Robinson to choose an outcome within the range of outcomes that she finds acceptable, but that she also would anticipate as being acceptable to the other parties that could overrule and / or subvert it. In this vein, there’s no real point in making a decision that would be overturned by Goodell or which she thinks would be overturned by the courts should Watson file suit against it, except to “make a statement,” and judges are almost genetically predisposed against doing that except in the most extreme of circumstances (I learned that experiences can change your genes from anti-vaxers and Spider-Man.) and by which I mean usually not even extreme circumstances of facts but of thoroughly unjust processes or abuse thereof.

Which, if course, is what #deflategate was really about. The parties involved weren’t playing for justice, they were playing for rules, i.e. what would the rules for future plays of the game be? Which is why factual truth was functionally incidental to the whole thing. And the NFL won on them having final say, which is what they wanted. And if the NFLPA wanted that changed, they’d have to pay for it in concessions in the new CBA. Which they did, but the NFL ate the NFLPA’s lunch again on this, as the NFLPA got a neutral arbiter instead of some league stooge, so that looks like it would be better, but, given strategic decision making on the part of people in juridical roles, it’s only marginally better, because the decision making will still occur in the strategic context of which other actors in the system can overrule the decision.

In this case, that context is 1) Goodell’s ability to choose whatever the fuck he wants (though obviously “image” and “optics” would / could be a factor); and 2) Watson’s ability to sue.

So let’s posit that Judge Watson would want a harsh sentence. If it’s harsher than Goodell will accept, then it’s overturned and she has accomplished nothing and looks like a tool or impotent or whatever. If Goodell doesn’t overturn and Watson sues… well, I’m not doing the research for that, but Robinson probably has some good idea of possible outcomes; those outcomes, though, while normally should hinge on process considerations, because one of those process considerations here is the disparate treatment of such (alleged) offenses as the Houston Dickheads have faced, then substantive outcomes becomes a consideration for the courts, which becomes the structure for Robinson’s decision making.

So while Judge Robinson is the “neutral decision-maker” that the NFLPA bargained for, even though she has the gravitas of a judge, the reality of judicial decision making is such that that decision making is constrained within a system the dominant consideration of which is the Commissioner having final say.

As such, in cases where the League’s Interests and Justice might be what we mortals perceive to be at logger-heads, strategically speaking within the operational constraints of the juridical regime, the ability of the neutral decision-maker—even operating under the assumption that they are, in fact, neutral—to effect justice, be it harshness or leniency, is functionally capped by the expectations of what the decision-maker thinks will be acceptable to the arbiter of final say, which in this case would be Goodell.

Therefore, under the new regime established by the 2020 CBA, if we were to assume that Robinson thinks that the outcome should be harsh but believes that Goodell doesn’t want it to be, strategically, it makes sense for her to choose the harshest outcome that would not be overturned by Goodell and not challenged by Watson in Court.

So the decision-maker here is likely only to choose an outcome within the “plausibility structure” of what would be acceptable to the other actors, though she might well choose an outcome as far to the extreme as would be accepted by them… unless she wants to make a stink, which judges rarely do.

So the new CBA makes a difference in that it doesn’t have an actual NFL toadie making the initial decisions, but an understanding of how such legal(istic) regimes, as the one established by the CBA, work, it’s not as different as it might seem in terms of serving the intersts of The League of Evil from the previous regime, except now they have a bona fide judge to give the system the imprimatur of legitimacy.

So yeah, the system is still bullshit and if I had to bet, we’ll see so soon, though I will be more than pleased to be surprised. Are you fucking happy now, @Kenny F'ing Powers ? I feel gross now. I guess I needed to shower before heading to PT anyway…

Fuck you. :wooper:
 
Last edited:

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,631
CT
Anything less than a full season is pretty disgusting.

Just shows how rigged the system is against the aggrieved women in this case and why so many of them either never come forward or settle.

What is the number that would have been too high for the NFL? 50? 100?

Just remember this when the NFL and Deshaun Watson wear pink for breast cancer awareness and everyone pretends that nothing ever happened.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
77,952
Oregon
Goddamn you, @Kenny F'ing Powers . I’m sure you know perfectly well that if I haven’t posted in this thread it’s because I’ve studiously avoiding the ick and the evil of this shit. But noooooo…


Fine. Here’s your treat:

There is an extensive literature on judicial decision making (in and out of court, including legalistic and quasi-legalistic regimes) that shows that judges (like, judges - judges but also people in general in repeat play juridical roles) make decisions strategically. And judges have admitted as such.

What that means is that a judge doesn’t necessarily choose the outcome of their own absolute preference, but the outcome closest to it that actually occur, that will stick. Which is to say: Make a decision that will have enough support from the other actors required for the decision to stand. This could mean moderating an opinion on a multi-person bench to gain enough votes to make it binding, or optimizing it so that the judge gets as much as they want without it being superseded by a legislature (i.e. if it’s too extreme, a majority of the legislature just passes a law to get by it, whereas a more moderate decision doesn’t get that majority, so it stands), or optimizing it so an actor or actors with appellate authority won’t overturn it.

This makes intuitive sense: Judges want their decisions to stand, both to get outcomes—and future outcomes—that they find proper or desirable, and also to reinforce their legitimacy in the system which being overturned all the time would erode. This in no way means that they necessarily ignore the law or the rules, but rather that they behave strategically within the system in pursuing what they think is right and proper.

Viewed through this lens, we would expect Judge Robinson to choose an outcome within the range of outcomes that she finds acceptable, but that she also would anticipate as being acceptable to the other parties that could overrule and / or subvert it. In this vein, there’s no real point in making a decision that would be overturned by Goodell or which she thinks would be overturned by the courts should Watson file suit against it, except to “make a statement,” and judges are almost genetically predisposed against doing that except in the most extreme of circumstances (I learned that experiences can change your genes from anti-vaxers and Spider-Man.) and by which I mean usually not even extreme circumstances of facts but of thoroughly unjust processes or abuse thereof.

Which, if course, is what #deflategate was really about. The parties involved weren’t playing for justice, they were playing for rules, i.e. what would the rules for future plays of the game be? Which is why factual truth was functionally incidental to the whole thing. And the NFL won on them having final say, which is what they wanted. And if the NFLPA wanted that changed, they’d have to pay for it in concessions in the new CBA. Which they did, but the NFL ate the NFLPA’s lunch again on this, as the NFLPA got a neutral arbiter instead of some league stooge, so that looks like it would be better, but, given strategic decision making on the part of people in juridical roles, it’s only marginally better, because the decision making will still occur in the strategic context of which other actors in the system can overrule the decision.

In this case, that context is 1) Goodell’s ability to choose whatever the fuck he wants (though obviously “image” and “optics” would / could be a factor); and 2) Watson’s ability to sue.

So let’s posit that Judge Watson would want a harsh sentence. If it’s harsher than Goodell will accept, then it’s overturned and she has accomplished nothing and looks like a tool or impotent or whatever. If Goodell doesn’t overturn and Watson sues… well, I’m not doing the research for that, but Robinson probably has some good idea of possible outcomes; those outcomes, though, while normally should hinge on process considerations, because one of those process considerations here is the disparate treatment of such (alleged) offenses as the Houston Dickheads have faced, then substantive outcomes becomes a consideration for the courts, which becomes the structure for Robinson’s decision making.

So while Judge Robinson is the “neutral decision-maker” that the NFLPA bargained for, even though she has the gravitas of a judge, the reality of judicial decision making is such that that decision making is constrained within a system the dominant consideration of which is the Commissioner having final say.

As such, in cases where the League’s Interests and Justice might be what we mortals perceive to be at logger-heads, strategically speaking within the operational constraints of the juridical regime, the ability of the neutral decision-maker—even operating under the assumption that they are, in fact, neutral—to effect justice, be it harshness or leniency, is functionally capped by the expectations of what the decision-maker thinks will be acceptable to the arbiter of final say, which in this case would be Goodell.

Therefore, under the new regime established by the 2020 CBA, if we were to assume that Robinson thinks that the outcome should be harsh but believes that Goodell doesn’t want it to be, strategically, it makes sense for her to choose the harshest outcome that would not be overturned by Goodell and not challenged by Watson in Court.

So the decision-maker here is likely only to choose an outcome within the “plausibility structure” of what would be acceptable to the other actors, though she might well choose an outcome as far to the extreme as would be accepted by them… unless she wants to make a stink, which judges rarely do.

So the new CBA makes a difference in that it doesn’t have an actual NFL toadie making the initial decisions, but an understanding of how such legal(istic) regimes, as the one established by the CBA, work, it’s not as different as it might seem in terms of serving the intersts of The League of Evil from the previous regime, except now they have a bona fide judge to give the system the imprimatur of legitimacy.

So yeah, the system is still bullshit and if I had to bet, we’ll see so soon, though I will be more than pleased to be surprised. Are you fucking happy now, @Kenny F'ing Powers ? I feel gross now. I guess I needed to shower before heading to PT anyway…

Fuck you. :wooper:
You wrote that months ago, just waiting for someone to send out the Bat-signal
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,907
Anything less than a full season is pretty disgusting.

Just shows how rigged the system is against the aggrieved women in this case and why so many of them either never come forward or settle.

What is the number that would have been too high for the NFL? 50? 100?

Just remember this when the NFL and Deshaun Watson wear pink for breast cancer awareness and everyone pretends that nothing ever happened.
There is no number high enough. Without criminal charges, it could have been 700 women and the NFL wouldn't have done anything substantial. The league has no interest in making a stand here. If we want these guys to be held accountable, it needs to happen first with the judicial system.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,907
Goddamn you, @Kenny F'ing Powers . I’m sure you know perfectly well that if I haven’t posted in this thread it’s because I’ve studiously avoiding the ick and the evil of this shit. But noooooo…


Fine. Here’s your treat:

There is an extensive literature on judicial decision making (in and out of court, including legalistic and quasi-legalistic regimes) that shows that judges (like, judges - judges but also people in general in repeat play juridical roles) make decisions strategically. And judges have admitted as such.

What that means is that a judge doesn’t necessarily choose the outcome of their own absolute preference, but the outcome closest to it that actually occur, that will stick. Which is to say: Make a decision that will have enough support from the other actors required for the decision to stand. This could mean moderating an opinion on a multi-person bench to gain enough votes to make it binding, or optimizing it so that the judge gets as much as they want without it being superseded by a legislature (i.e. if it’s too extreme, a majority of the legislature just passes a law to get by it, whereas a more moderate decision doesn’t get that majority, so it stands), or optimizing it so an actor or actors with appellate authority won’t overturn it.

This makes intuitive sense: Judges want their decisions to stand, both to get outcomes—and future outcomes—that they find proper or desirable, and also to reinforce their legitimacy in the system which being overturned all the time would erode. This in no way means that they necessarily ignore the law or the rules, but rather that they behave strategically within the system in pursuing what they think is right and proper.

Viewed through this lens, we would expect Judge Robinson to choose an outcome within the range of outcomes that she finds acceptable, but that she also would anticipate as being acceptable to the other parties that could overrule and / or subvert it. In this vein, there’s no real point in making a decision that would be overturned by Goodell or which she thinks would be overturned by the courts should Watson file suit against it, except to “make a statement,” and judges are almost genetically predisposed against doing that except in the most extreme of circumstances (I learned that experiences can change your genes from anti-vaxers and Spider-Man.) and by which I mean usually not even extreme circumstances of facts but of thoroughly unjust processes or abuse thereof.

Which, if course, is what #deflategate was really about. The parties involved weren’t playing for justice, they were playing for rules, i.e. what would the rules for future plays of the game be? Which is why factual truth was functionally incidental to the whole thing. And the NFL won on them having final say, which is what they wanted. And if the NFLPA wanted that changed, they’d have to pay for it in concessions in the new CBA. Which they did, but the NFL ate the NFLPA’s lunch again on this, as the NFLPA got a neutral arbiter instead of some league stooge, so that looks like it would be better, but, given strategic decision making on the part of people in juridical roles, it’s only marginally better, because the decision making will still occur in the strategic context of which other actors in the system can overrule the decision.

In this case, that context is 1) Goodell’s ability to choose whatever the fuck he wants (though obviously “image” and “optics” would / could be a factor); and 2) Watson’s ability to sue.

So let’s posit that Judge Watson would want a harsh sentence. If it’s harsher than Goodell will accept, then it’s overturned and she has accomplished nothing and looks like a tool or impotent or whatever. If Goodell doesn’t overturn and Watson sues… well, I’m not doing the research for that, but Robinson probably has some good idea of possible outcomes; those outcomes, though, while normally should hinge on process considerations, because one of those process considerations here is the disparate treatment of such (alleged) offenses as the Houston Dickheads have faced, then substantive outcomes becomes a consideration for the courts, which becomes the structure for Robinson’s decision making.

So while Judge Robinson is the “neutral decision-maker” that the NFLPA bargained for, even though she has the gravitas of a judge, the reality of judicial decision making is such that that decision making is constrained within a system the dominant consideration of which is the Commissioner having final say.

As such, in cases where the League’s Interests and Justice might be what we mortals perceive to be at logger-heads, strategically speaking within the operational constraints of the juridical regime, the ability of the neutral decision-maker—even operating under the assumption that they are, in fact, neutral—to effect justice, be it harshness or leniency, is functionally capped by the expectations of what the decision-maker thinks will be acceptable to the arbiter of final say, which in this case would be Goodell.

Therefore, under the new regime established by the 2020 CBA, if we were to assume that Robinson thinks that the outcome should be harsh but believes that Goodell doesn’t want it to be, strategically, it makes sense for her to choose the harshest outcome that would not be overturned by Goodell and not challenged by Watson in Court.

So the decision-maker here is likely only to choose an outcome within the “plausibility structure” of what would be acceptable to the other actors, though she might well choose an outcome as far to the extreme as would be accepted by them… unless she wants to make a stink, which judges rarely do.

So the new CBA makes a difference in that it doesn’t have an actual NFL toadie making the initial decisions, but an understanding of how such legal(istic) regimes, as the one established by the CBA, work, it’s not as different as it might seem in terms of serving the intersts of The League of Evil from the previous regime, except now they have a bona fide judge to give the system the imprimatur of legitimacy.

So yeah, the system is still bullshit and if I had to bet, we’ll see so soon, though I will be more than pleased to be surprised. Are you fucking happy now, @Kenny F'ing Powers ? I feel gross now. I guess I needed to shower before heading to PT anyway…

Fuck you. :wooper:
I miss dragging you into the abyss. This was refreshing.
 

Preacher

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,662
Harker Heights, TX
There is no number high enough. Without criminal charges, it could have been 700 women and the NFL wouldn't have done anything substantial. The league has no interest in making a stand here. If we want these guys to be held accountable, it needs to happen first with the judicial system.
Good for the NFL that many sexual assault and domestic violence offenses end up not being prosecuted for various reasons, despite significant evidence tending to indicate guilt. Gives them a ton of leeway to keep domestic and sexual offenders on the field (or at least off the field for minimal time). I’m assuming if all these complaints were made against, say, a college athlete, he would be kicked out of college. But I guess it really just comes down to talent level so maybe not.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
50,011
You wrote that months ago, just waiting for someone to send out the Bat-signal
*snort laugh* If only it were that hard to bang out how people in power design their own quasi-legal forums that favor them. I haven’t even reread the post.

Or did you mean that it would probably be basically the same thing even if written months ago? o_O

I miss dragging you into the abyss. This was refreshing.




The abyss? Pshaw. I live here.

I particularly had forgotten how much I missed the whining
Wha— What is this slander??
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
50,011
Good for the NFL that many sexual assault and domestic violence offenses end up not being prosecuted for various reasons, despite significant evidence tending to indicate guilt. Gives them a ton of leeway to keep domestic and sexual offenders on the field (or at least off the field for minimal time). I’m assuming if all these complaints were made against, say, a college athlete, he would be kicked out of college. But I guess it really just comes down to talent level so maybe not.
Probably kicked out, but, on the other hand, a victim might be even less likely to bring charges against Div 1 football player, if that’s even possible. They live and work in the same place, overlapping social circles, etc.

I was working at a Div 1 school once when a football player (allegedly) raped a woman from a neighboring (like, across the street) women’s college with strong ties to the school I worked at. She would get threats about coming forward. Messages saying “You don’t want to fuck with [REDACTED] football.” She was so terrified that she started wearing [REDACTED] gear whenever she went out anywhere to make sure everyone knew that sh—

She killed herself.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
77,952
Oregon
If only it were that hard to bang out how people in power design their own quasi-legal forums that favor them. I haven’t even reread the post.
That's okay, I didn't read it the first time
 

JohnnyTheBone

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2007
27,748
Nobody Cares
I’m assuming if all these complaints were made against, say, a college athlete, he would be kicked out of college. But I guess it really just comes down to talent level so maybe not.
This seems like a good time to re-post the Todd Hodne piece that ESPN ran earlier this year.

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/32496588/before-jerry-sandusky-penn-state-football-had-another-serial-sexual-predator-untold-story-crimes-fight-bring-justice

It's an engrossing read that reminds us that the justice system can break down in the college, professional, and real worlds.
 

Preacher

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,662
Harker Heights, TX
Probably kicked out, but, on the other hand, a victim might be even less likely to bring charges against Div 1 football player, if that’s even possible. They live and work in the same place, overlapping social circles, etc.

I was working at a Div 1 school once when a football player (allegedly) raped a woman from a neighboring (like, across the street) women’s college with strong ties to the school I worked at. She would get threats about coming forward. Messages saying “You don’t want to fuck with [REDACTED] football.” She was so terrified that she started wearing [REDACTED] gear whenever she went out anywhere to make sure everyone knew that sh—

She killed herself.
My experience with college cases is only anecdotal. Those are tough case all around. My experience in my jurisdiction is a bit different. My personal experience in cases resulted in 3 victim suicides. Attempted suicides and ideations are obviously higher.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,134
Baylor U laughs at the notion of accountability for rape in college football programs from its myriad recent bowl games and top 25 rankings.
 

Preacher

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,662
Harker Heights, TX
Probably kicked out, but, on the other hand, a victim might be even less likely to bring charges against Div 1 football player, if that’s even possible. They live and work in the same place, overlapping social circles, etc.

I was working at a Div 1 school once when a football player (allegedly) raped a woman from a neighboring (like, across the street) women’s college with strong ties to the school I worked at. She would get threats about coming forward. Messages saying “You don’t want to fuck with [REDACTED] football.” She was so terrified that she started wearing [REDACTED] gear whenever she went out anywhere to make sure everyone knew that sh—

She killed herself.
The REDACTED is interesting in your posts. Like you’re protecting public records at this point. Don’t point at the rapist! They have rights!
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
50,011
The REDACTED is interesting in your posts. Like you’re protecting public records at this point. Don’t point at the rapist! They have rights!
Oh, not at all. And I thought about that. But it’s not about protecting anyone; I mean, it made semi-national news and stuff—around the same time as the mildly windy day bullshit. It’s more about the subforum and things can screwy in here, eh? I posted about it here back not long after it happened and some poster launched into an extensive tirade against me for being biased and spiteful just like any other typical Michigan; things got weird when I told him I went to school in Massachusetts. He didn’t even grasp why it was messed up that he thought he knew where I went to college simply because I mentioned that a football player had likely committed a crime—didn’t even register the non-rationality of his process. It was vaguely entertaining, in fact. But I figure anyone from V&N knows where it was.

But good spot, and yes, I agree.

And as for your case experience, I can’t even imagine.

Frankly, while perhaps not nearly as much as you, I have a reasonable amount of experience in the area—I was even once personally asked by a dean to serve on a judicial affairs board—but… I cannot wrap my mind around how many women have come forward with Watson. Not in an unbelieving way by any means, of course. But I’m also struggling with the fact that there aren’t larger waves coming off of this, though I regrettably understand.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,134
Oh, not at all. And I thought about that. But it’s not about protecting anyone; I mean, it made semi-national news and stuff—around the same time as the mildly windy day bullshit. It’s more about the subforum and things can screwy in here, eh? I posted about it here back not long after it happened and some poster launched into an extensive tirade against me for being biased and spiteful just like any other typical Michigan; things got weird when I told him I went to school in Massachusetts. He didn’t even grasp why it was messed up that he thought he knew where I went to college simply because I mentioned that a football player had likely committed a crime—didn’t even register the non-rationality of his process. It was vaguely entertaining, in fact. But I figure anyone from V&N knows where it was.

But good spot, and yes, I agree.

And as for your case experience, I can’t even imagine.

Frankly, while perhaps not nearly as much as you, I have a reasonable amount of experience in the area—I was even once personally asked by a dean to serve on a judicial affairs board—but… I cannot wrap my mind around how many women have come forward with Watson. Not in an unbelieving way by any means, of course. But I’m also struggling with the fact that there aren’t larger waves coming off of this, though I regrettably understand.
Eh, just remember two of our last four presidents were credibly accused of rape/sexual assault before they were elected and it helps put everything else in perspective.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,631
CT
My official guess is 6.

No way he and the NFLPA are out in front of it saying they’ll take whatever it is without appeal without knowing it’s a slap on the wrist.

The sad thing is the precedent that will be set will make single time sexual offenders basically bullet proof. How do you suspend a guy longer than Deshaun? Every lawyer will argue for a fraction of whatever his penalty ends up being.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,631
CT
My official guess is 6.

No way he and the NFLPA are out in front of it saying they’ll take whatever it is without appeal without knowing it’s a slap on the wrist.

The sad thing is the precedent that will be set will make single time sexual offenders basically bullet proof. How do you suspend a guy longer than Deshaun? Every lawyer will argue for a fraction of whatever his penalty ends up being.
Nailed it.