| THE WATSON DECISION
Back when this all started, the benchmark for the punishment of QB DESHAUN WATSON seemed to be the 6-game suspension of QB BEN ROETHLISBERGER, another case of unseemly behavior but no criminal charges.
Still times have changed, MLB pitcher TREVOR BAUER is getting something like two years and The Commish has leveled a four-game suspension for maybe knowing about possible under-inflated football.
But in the end, Disciplinary Officer Sue L. Robinson circled back to Roethlisberger (and RB EZEKIEL ELLIOTT). Jake Trotter of ESPN.com:
Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson will serve a six-game suspension without pay but will not be fined for violating the league’s personal conduct policy following accusations of sexual misconduct, disciplinary officer Sue L. Robinson ruled Monday.
Robinson issued her ruling in a comprehensive 15-page report. She wrote that the NFL recommended Watson be suspended for the entire 2022 regular season and postseason.
In relying on precedent, Robinson sought to differentiate between violent and non-violent sexual conduct. Robinson concluded that Watson’s conduct “does not fall into the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension” which the league had established as “by far the most commonly-imposed discipline for domestic or gendered violence and sexual acts.”
The ruling relied on 32 previous suspensions under the league’s personal conduct policy since 2015. In 21 of those instances, the league suspended the player for six games, including the cases of Derrius Guice and Johnny Manziel. Greg Hardy was suspended for four games.
The longest suspension — 10 games for Jarron Jones in 2021 — involved a criminal plea and multiple incidents of domestic violence. The two eight-game suspensions — of Kareem Hunt in 2019 and Mark Walton in 2020 — also took into account multiple incidents of domestic violence.
Robinson wrote that “the NFL carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report. Mr. Watson violated the Policy in this regard.”
Robinson also found that Watson’s “predatory conduct cast ‘a negative light on the League and its players.’ “
Robinson ruled that Watson is “to limit his massage therapy to Club-directed sessions and Club-approved massage therapists for the duration of his career, and so [I] impose this mandate as a condition to his reinstatement.” She also ruled that Watson is “to have no adverse involvement with law enforcement, and must not commit any additional violations of the Policy.”
The NFL Players Association, in a statement Sunday night, made it clear that it will “stand by” Robinson’s ruling and urged the NFL to do the same.
The NFL has until Thursday at 9 a.m. ET to file a written appeal. The league released a statement Monday saying it would determine its next steps.
“We thank Judge Sue L. Robinson, the independent disciplinary officer, for her review of the voluminous record and attention during a three-day hearing that resulted in her finding multiple violations of the NFL Personal Conduct Policy by Deshaun Watson. We appreciate Judge Robinson’s diligence and professionalism throughout this process,” the statement read.
“Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the NFL or the NFLPA on behalf of Watson may appeal the decision within three days. In light of her findings, the league is reviewing Judge Robinson’s imposition of a six-game suspension and will make a determination on next steps.”
If it does appeal, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell or his designee “will issue a written decision that will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute,” per terms of Article 46 in the league’s collective bargaining agreement.
Watson is eligible to return for the Browns’ Oct. 23 game at Baltimore. Sources close to the quarterback told ESPN’s Dianna Russini that they believe six games is too much, but they respect the decision.
Dan Graziano of ESPN.com with an analysis of the report:
Monday’s news of a six-game suspension for Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson has, predictably, triggered an intense reaction. This is fair and understandable, because the allegations of sexual misconduct against Watson are disturbing and deal with the issue of how the NFL polices players when it comes to behavior toward women. The history of the league includes enough mishandling of that to justify cynicism, and a lot of the reaction on Monday seemed to root itself in that cynicism. Many expected to be disappointed by the outcome, and to a large extent, they were.
Arbitration decisions aren’t designed to make everybody happy. The decisions are supposed to be based on the evidence presented and precedent in place. As you read through the 16-page report from retired federal judge Sue L. Robinson, it’s clear she tried to maintain that balance.
How did Robinson explain her decision, and how did she land on six games? And what did Robinson stipulate must happen for Watson’s future massage therapy sessions? Here are 12 key takeaways from the report.
Fundamentally, the NFL won its case against Watson
Robinson found Watson guilty of violating the league’s personal conduct policy in three ways: by engaging in sexual assault; by engaging in conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and by engaging in conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL.
That he was found to have violated the policy at all is a critical point, because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) states that the decision of the jointly appointed discipline officer (in this case Robinson), as to whether a violation of the personal conduct policy occurred, is binding. Meaning, if she had found no violation occurred (and thus no discipline was warranted), the league would not have had the right to appeal.
The league does have the right to appeal the determination of discipline, with commissioner Roger Goodell or his designee serving as appeals officer. According to the CBA, any appeal, either from the NFL Players Association or the league, “shall be in writing within three business days of the Disciplinary Officer’s decision, and any response to the appeal shall be filed in writing within two business days thereafter. The appeal shall be limited to arguments why, based on the evidentiary record below, the amount of discipline, if any, should be modified.”
The new process did some of what it was meant to do
If you’re asking yourself, “What’s the point of neutral arbitration when the commissioner still gets final say on discipline?” the answer is, under the new procedure, the league has to prove its case. It must, the CBA states, rely on “credible evidence” in front of an arbitrator, who in this case is a retired federal judge.
The NFLPA considers this a significant advance from when Goodell would simply hear the findings of his own investigators and rule on discipline without having to make those findings public.
Robinson was not presented with the cases of all 24 civil lawsuits filed against Watson
On Page 3 of her report, Robinson — who writes that her decision is “limited by the record presented to me” — makes clear the case presented to her was not about 24 different women but four. The NFL interviewed 12 of the 24 women who were suing Watson for damages in civil court and “relied for its conclusions on the testimony of 4 therapists, as well as interviews of some 37 other third parties.”
The NFL’s investigators do not have subpoena power and thus cannot compel all 24 of the women to talk to them. They interviewed 12, and of those 12, they decided four would form the basis of their argument Watson violated the personal conduct policy. It’s unclear why they used only four, but that’s what they apparently decided was the best way to make their case.
Robinson found Watson guilty of violating the personal conduct policy
The details of the behavior Robinson found the league to have proved are disturbing — from the way Watson solicited the massages to the unusually small size of the towel he insisted on using to cover himself during them to the intent and manner of contact he made with the therapists. Robinson found the four women in question convincing based on circumstantial evidence (including the fact they said they would have refused to work with him again after the alleged incidents) and found Watson’s blanket denial of all wrongdoing difficult to accept in light of what she called the “credible testimony of the investigators.”
No one who reads this report can come away thinking Robinson found Watson innocent of wrongdoing. Robinson concludes Watson “had a sexual purpose — not just a therapeutic purpose — in making these arrangements with these particular therapists.” Based on what she found to be the league’s definition of sexual assault, Robinson found Watson guilty of violating the personal conduct policy by engaging in sexual assault.
Watson’s actions fell under the same umbrella as Deflategate and Bountygate
In the portion of the report that decides whether Watson engaged in conduct detrimental to the league, Robinson cites “Tom Brady’s deflation of the game balls used in the AFC Championship Game in January 2015 and the 2021 New Orleans Saints’ ‘Pay-for Performance'” scheme as past cases in which the league invoked its “detriment to the league” clause: “Although the above examples were focused on the game of football itself, it clearly is within the purview of the NFL to expand the scope of its supervision to a player’s private life if he invokes his status as a player while engaging in prohibited conduct.”
Because Watson identified himself as an NFL player when reaching out to the therapists in question, Robinson found credible the NFL’s evidence that his actions were detrimental to the league.
If the NFL had its way, Watson would be suspended for the entire season
Having found Watson guilty of violating the league’s personal conduct policy, Robinson moves on to the question of whether the league’s proposed discipline was justified. The league proposed suspending Watson for the entire 2022 season and postseason and that he not be permitted to return until he satisfied certain conditions for reinstatement. Robinson writes on Page 11 she is tasked with reviewing that proposal “for consistency of treatment, uniformity of standards for parties similarly situated, and patent unfairness or selectivity.”
To be clear: If you’re asking why the NFL imposed only a six-game suspension, the answer is, it didn’t. The NFL, which contended in the hearing Watson’s conduct was unprecedented and therefore warranted an unprecedented suspension, wanted him suspended for a year.
In the final pages of her report, Robinson explains why she believed that was unjust: “Although I have found Mr. Watson to have violated the Policy, I have done so using the NFL’s post-hoc definitions of the prohibited conduct at issue. Defining prohibited conduct plays a critical role in the rule of law, enabling people to predict the consequences of their behavior.”
The Ray Rice discipline shaped this ruling
In citing the 2014 case of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, Robinson notes the NFLPA’s characterization of what happened — specifically that Goodell suspended Rice for two games (as was the standard for Rice’s offense at the time) and only after public outcry revised its personal conduct policy to establish a six-game suspension as standard for first-time violent offenders.
She states that this policy change, even though it was a reaction to public outrage, at least “gave fair notice to its players and to the public of the probable consequences of certain violent conduct.”
The word ‘violent’ plays a key role in the report
The post-Rice personal conduct policy specifies the six-game suspension “for Policy violations including (1) criminal assault or battery (felony); (2) domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse and other forms of family violence; or (3) sexual assault involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent.” These are very specific types of violations, and Robinson states on Page 13, “It is undisputed that Mr. Watson’s conduct does not fall into the category of violent conduct that would require the minimum 6-game suspension.”
She also states prior cases involving nonviolent sexual assault had not led to six-game suspensions but rather no more than a three-game suspension. (Jameis Winston, then the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ starting quarterback, was suspended for the first three games of the 2018 season for violating the NFL’s personal conduct policy.) It’s important to note Robinson was not starting from the six-game baseline in the personal conduct policy because she defined Watson’s behavior as nonviolent and stated it did not meet the policy’s requirements for a six-game suspension.
Robinson strove for consistency where the NFL argued there was none
There’s an extremely interesting passage on Page 13. Robinson states the NFL argued “consistency is not possible, because there are no similarly situated players.” But Robinson looks at that differently and writes, “By ignoring past decisions because none involve ‘similar’ conduct, the NFL is not just equating violent conduct with non-violent conduct, but has elevated the importance of the latter without any substantial evidence to support its position. While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this position portends for the NFL and its players.”
Basically, Robinson is saying something akin to, You want to argue that this behavior deserves a more severe penalty, fine. Maybe you’re right. But that’s not in your policy, and you can’t just make policy to support one specific case as it’s going on. If the league wants to do what it did post-Rice and adjust its policy to account for the type of behavior Watson is herein found guilty of, it should do that — then everyone would know.
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 goes on to write, “It is inherently unfair to identify conduct as prohibited only after the conduct has been committed, just as it is inherently unjust to change the penalties for such conduct after the fact.”
The six-game duration of the suspension was not random
Remember, Robinson first decided she was not starting from a six-game baseline but from one of three games or fewer, based on precedent set by other nonviolent sexual assault cases. As “aggravating factors” (that is, reasons to increase the suspension), she cites Watson’s “lack of expressed remorse and his tardy notice to the NFL of the first-filed lawsuit.” As “mitigating factors” (that is, reasons to go easier on him), she cites “he is a first-time offender and had an excellent reputation in his community prior to these events. He cooperated and has paid restitution.”
Very interestingly, she also notes the league could have placed Watson on the commissioner’s exempt list last year and chose not to, which she appears to think means the league didn’t consider his behavior worthy of such punishment until it saw the public reaction to it. She makes that clear in her conclusion when she writes, “The NFL may be a ‘forward-facing’ organization, but it is not necessarily a forward-looking one. Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson’s conduct.”
Robinson writes that she settled on six games because it is the largest suspension ever imposed for nonviolent sexual conduct but that Watson’s behavior is more egregious than the behavior that led to previous suspensions for nonviolent sexual conduct.
Robinson appeared to consider previous cases involving team owner behavior in determining Watson’s suspension
A big part of the NFLPA’s argument during the hearing (and likely a key part of its reaction if Goodell overrules Robinson and imposes harsher discipline) is the notion the league has not punished team owners for similar offenses. In Footnote 51 on Page 15, Robinson notes that argument while writing the personal conduct policy is equally applicable to team owners and management. Basically, it seems as if the NFLPA’s argument that she should consider the comparatively lighter discipline given to team owners as part of the precedent carried some weight.
Watson’s massage therapy must be coordinated by the team for as long as he is an NFL player
It’s important to note Robinson states that Watson, as a condition of his reinstatement into the league after his six-game suspension is complete, must “limit his massage therapy to Club-directed sessions and Club-approved massage therapists for the duration of his career.” This means if he is caught going outside of his team’s purview for massages again, the league would have the right to reimpose the suspension.
What does Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com have to say?
The full, 15-page decision in the Deshaun Watson case has been released. You can read it here.
And you should. It’s largely devoid of legalese and other jargon. But if you can’t or won’t read it (or if you did and you want our take on it), we’ll be posting several items regarding what it means, and where things may go from here.
For starters, one thing that seemed very significant is that Judge Robinson concluded, in the most tactful way possible, that Watson didn’t tell the truth when testifying. As noted at page 7, Watson declined to concede that he developed erections during massages, or that he inadvertently touched therapists with his penis. Judge Robinson wrote that he “categorically denied the allegations against him, including that he ever developed an erection during a massage.”
Then there’s this extremely important sentence: “It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties.”
In other words, Judge Robinson doesn’t believe him. She doesn’t believe him because the accounts from the accusers were, as explained in footnote 25 on page seven, “substantially corroborated” by “contemporaneous text messages and discussions with third parties after their interactions with Mr. Watson.” Also, as mentioned in footnote 26 on that same page, “some massage therapists who publicly supported Mr. Watson stated that he had become erect during sessions with them.”
This becomes critical to a potential appeal because the facts, as determined by Judge Robinson, become binding on both sides if/when the Commissioner or his designee are considering the ultimate punishment. Although Judge Robinson stopped short of being as blunt and candid as she could have been, the Commissioner could declare in the final written decision that Watson lied while testifying when he denied any wrongdoing and made the broad claim that he never had an erection during a massage.
Thus, even though the outcome was better for Watson than many had expected, the factual findings made by Judge Robinson could give the Commissioner everything he needs to justify a stronger suspension. Indeed, Judge Robinson affirmatively found by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not) that Watson engaged in non-violent sexual assault, that his conduct endangered the safety and well-being of another person, and that his behavior undermined or put at risk the integrity of the NFL.
Those factual findings could ultimately fuel an outcome on appeal that Watson and the NFLPA won’t like, at all.
Florio does explain why WR CALVIN RIDLEY can be done for the year due to one measly bet and Watson suffers a far kinder fate.
One of the more common questions raised in response to Judge Sue L. Robinson’s decision to suspend Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson for six games flows from a fairly obvious set of comparisons.
How does Watson, who faced 24 lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct during massage therapy sessions, get suspended only six games when Cardinal receiver DeAndre Hopkins was suspended six games for trace amounts of a PED he claims he didn’t know he ingested and Falcons receiver Calvin Ridley was suspended a whole season for making $1,500 in parlay wagers?
On the surface, the answer is easy. These three players were suspended under three completely different policies: Personal Conduct, PED, and gambling.
There’s a more nuanced explanation. The PED policies and gambling policies go directly to the integrity of the game, whether by cheating in it or betting on it. The Personal Conduct Policy relates to off-duty behavior, conduct that has no connection to the league’s core business interests.
The vast majority of American employers don’t, won’t, and can’t police the private lives of their employees. If an employee faces multiple civil lawsuits unrelated to his workplace behavior and/or if he’s investigated but never charged with any crime(s), the employer has no cause to do anything.
The NFL has cause to do something to players like Watson because the league and the NFL Players Association have agreed that the NFL can and should investigate and discipline players who get in trouble away from work. Despite the inherent flaws (such as the inability to force non-employees of the league or its teams to cooperate), the NFL has the right — and feels an obligation t0 — take action against employees who have gotten into certain types of trouble.
And remember this. First, the NFL focused only on four cases, not 24. Second, the NFL has the right to appeal the ruling to (checks notes) the NFL, and in turn to impose a much greater suspension than Judge Robinson’s six games.
So while the comparisons are understandable, there’s a reason for the differences in treatment of Watson and Hopkins/Ridley. For many, however, those subtleties will be irrelevant.
The big issue between Robinson’s opinion and that of its critics is her more traditional definitions of “violence” and “assault.” More from Florio:
On Monday, Judge Sue L. Robinson found, as to the factual allegations against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, that he did what the league accused him of doing. Her decision to suspend Watson only six games arose from separate considerations.
Specifically, she concluded that Watson engaged in a “non-violent sexual assault.” And she found, based on past precedent, that a non-violent sexual assault does not justify the kind of punishment the league sought.
At page 13 of her ruling, Judge Robinson writes that “prior cases involving non-violent sexual assault have resulted in discipline far less severe than what the NFL proposes here, with the most severe penalty being a 3-game suspension for a player who has been previously warned about his conduct.”
That player is, we’re told, Saints quarterback Jameis Winston. He was suspended three games to start the 2018 season, for touching an Uber driver “in an inappropriate and sexual manner without her consent.” Winston’s suspension was the result of a negotiated compromise between the league and the NFL Players Association.
Judge Robinson concluded that the league is attempting to dramatically increase the punishment for non-violent sexual assault “without notice of the extraordinary change” in the league’s approach. The league’s position is that the rules aren’t changing, but that the facts have changed. At page 12, Judge Robinson explained that the league characterizes its recommended punishment of a one-year suspension as “unprecedented . . . because his conduct is unprecedented.”
Basically, the league’s position is that it hasn’t changed the rules. The league’s position is that it’s applying existing rules to a set of fact it never before witnessed.
As to Winston’s three-game suspension, he had only one victim. Watson had four. The NFL interviewed 12 of the persons Watson allegedly assaulted, but he was sued by 24 different people — and settled with all but one of them. Although Judge Robinson managed to ignore these basic realities, most will have a hard time doing so.
And some will have a hard time distinguishing “non-violent” sexual assault from sexual assault. Sexual assault is still sexual assault. If anything, it appears that clumsy efforts in the past by the league to be lenient as to some players prevented the league from getting the ruling it wanted from Judge Robinson as to Watson.
That said, the league secured the factual findings from Judge Robinson necessary to permit the Commissioner or his designee to impose a much higher punishment, if the NFL appeals the ruling. Again, she concluded that Watson did what he was accused of doing. At this point, it would be a surprise if the league doesn’t appeal the decision to Goodell, and it would be a surprise if he doesn’t increase the suspension.
Judy Bautista of NFL.com, the NFL’s website, lays out what is at stake in the NFL’s decision whether or not to appeal the decision to the NFL. And by her reckoning, presumably league-approved, Watson’s punishment must be increased:
On Monday afternoon, a few hours after Judge Sue L. Robinson’s decision to suspend Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson for six games was made public, the NFL sent a note to its staff. In it, the NFL assured the staff that it “stands against domestic violence and sexual assault of all forms.”
In the next few days, the NFL has a chance to put its actions behind its words.
By Monday evening, the NFL was weighing whether to appeal Robinson’s decision — an appeal would be decided by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell or his designee — a right agreed to by the league and the NFL Players Association in the collective bargaining agreement. The NFL had sought a suspension of at least a year, so allowing the six games to stand without an appeal would undermine the NFL’s claims to care about the well-being of women. An increase in the punishment would almost certainly trigger a lawsuit from the players union, a familiar tactic that, in multiple past instances, has resulted in courts reinforcing the power of the commissioner to impose discipline for violations of the personal conduct policy. But a lawsuit would keep Watson’s predatory conduct — Robinson’s words — in the headlines for weeks, when the NFL would certainly prefer the focus to be on football.
None of that is as important, though, as this, from Robinson’s ruling: The NFL, she wrote, had proved, “by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report.”
Read that again. Watson was a repeat sexual assailant. That makes a six-game suspension mystifying and disheartening, as so much of the behavior by so many people involved in this case has been.
Somewhat incredibly, considering she said Watson’s behavior was predatory and amounted to sexual assault, Robinson stressed that there was no violence involved in Watson’s assaults, a factor in her decision to settle on six games. That, at best, implies that causing unwanted sexualized contact is not inherently violence against the victim.
The NFL’s request for an indefinite suspension of at least a year was rebuffed by Robinson, who settled on six games, because she thought such a lengthy suspension represented a “dramatic shift” in its culture without providing fair notice to players about what was expected from them and what the fallout could be. So Robinson relied on the precedent set by other cases. But there is no analogous case to Watson’s, because of the volume of accusations. Robinson was presented with four cases (of the 24 accusations originally made in civil suits). The precedents on which Robinson relied did not have multiple victims, and, perhaps more importantly, some of those precedents were products of a different era, before the recent awakening to violence against and harassment of women that was birthed by the Me Too movement. Jameis Winston, for instance, was suspended three games for inappropriately touching a woman. One woman. Issuing a significantly longer suspension, in a case involving four victims of sexual assault, does not sound like a “dramatic shift.”
The NFL’s response to Robinson’s decision represents an important litmus test for the league, which has not had a case as high-profile and disturbing involving behavior with women since 2014, when Ray Rice was initially suspended for just two games after knocking out his fiancée in a hotel elevator. The league’s disastrous handling of that episode of domestic violence — the subsequent release of a video showing the attack forced the NFL to suspend Rice indefinitely, essentially ending his career — was one of the lowest moments in the league’s history. Robinson cited the Rice case when she noted that the NFL often reacts to public outcry. Of course, so do all businesses.
The approach with Rice revealed a cluelessness and — worse — a callousness that the NFL badly needs to prove it has since remedied. Whatever gains have been made by subsequent years of public and private programs about domestic violence and workplace harassment, and all the celebrations of Women’s History Month, would largely be erased if the NFL is satisfied with a similar slap on the wrist for Watson.
Watson has given the league ample reason to display its new bona fides. Even as Robinson said this was non-violent sexual conduct, she noted that his pattern of conduct is more egregious than any before reviewed by the NFL. This was not what Watson’s lawyer flippantly suggested was just a man looking for a “happy ending” at a massage. This was a pattern of behavior that amounted to sexual assault. Despite that, as Robinson also noted, there has been no public expression of remorse from Watson.
During the fallout from the Rice case, one long-time team owner boiled the situation down for me one day. Why, he wondered, was the NFL going easy on a man who beat a woman? The NFL should come down hard, he said — and let the players union take up for the abuser if it wished. The NFL, he said, should not be afraid to take up that fight.
Rice and the union did eventually win Rice’s reinstatement after he appealed his suspension, though Rice never played again. Robinson cited the arbitrator’s decision in the Rice case when arguing that it is unfair to change penalties for conduct after the fact.
But that should not dissuade the NFL from doing everything it can to prove that it really does stand against domestic violence and sexual assault in all forms. Robinson got at least one thing very right in her decision Monday — the NFL appears to be trying to enact a “dramatic shift” in its culture.
It is long overdue.
What Bautista does not engage in is an analysis of whether or not the NFL should disregard Robinson’s first judgment in a new process that was designed to get The Commish and his sometimes inconsistent process out of the equation.
Here is Shalize Manza Young of YahooSports.com also reacting to the term “non-violent”:
Imagine you’re at an ATM near your home. You’re headed to your niece’s high school graduation party and want to put some cash in her card. As soon as you let go of the door of the bank lobby and step back onto the sidewalk, you’re approached by a larger, imposing person who demands the money you just withdrew.
You comply, and they run off. Your heart is pounding in your ears, your hands are shaking.
Police find the robber, and when the robber is in front of a judge, you find out not only are they not remorseful, they did the same thing to at least seven other people in the days before and after you were robbed.
The judge acknowledges the crimes were committed, even says they believe the robber will do the same thing again. But since they never actually harmed you with a weapon or their fists and only verbally threatened you, the punishment will be five hours of unsupervised community service.
You’d be furious, right? After all, you may not have been physically hurt, but the mental and emotional damage meant weeks of vivid nightmares, and even months later you’re terrified to walk in your neighborhood, the one that not so long ago felt comfortable.
This, in a nutshell, is what independent arbitrator Sue L. Robinson said to the accusers of Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson in her decision released Monday, the meandering one in which she wrote yes, Watson did commit sexual assault, but in her estimation it was “non-violent.”
Much of her 16-page ruling — which was limited, Robinson wrote, to the four massage therapists whose testimony was included in the NFL’s investigative report, and not all 24 women who filed civil lawsuits — was nonsensical. But apparently to Robinson, since there were no rape kits, no bruises, no ripped underwear in an evidence envelope somewhere, then the mental and emotional trauma suffered by the accusers was apparently not worth considering as she meted out Watson’s punishment.
Of the four women the NFL presented to make its argument during the hearing, one said she needed therapy after her appointment with Watson and is “struggling to work,” according to the ruling. Another said she was battling depression and sleeplessness because of what she alleges Watson did to her. Another is considering leaving massage therapy entirely.
That’s not violent?
Ashley Solis, the first woman to file suit against Watson, has gone on the record multiple times with her allegation of Watson’s sexually inappropriate and unwanted behavior during their appointment. Two years after her interaction with Watson, she’s still brought to tears by the memory of it, as evidenced by her interview with Soledad O’Brien on HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” that aired May.
That’s not violent?
Since Robinson’s decision gives the impression that she was wedded to the letter of the personal conduct policy and not the spirit of it, she perhaps should look up the definition of “violent” because it is not so narrow as she thinks it is. Violence can be in force or effect. The effect Watson’s behavior had on Solis and these other women was violent. |
