Six games off. That’s the suspension. That’s it.
After reviewing arguments for and against Deshaun Watson’s punishment, retired federal judge Sue L. Robinson ruled that Watson was guilty.
Robinson, the mediator who oversaw Watson’s hearing, decided against the N.F.L.’s recommendation that Watson receive at least a year’s suspension after he was accused by more than two dozen women of sexual misconduct during massage treatments.
Reviewing the results of the league’s 15-month investigation of Watson, she deemed his conduct “predatory” and “egregious.”
The clock is ticking on the N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell. What will be the league’s next move in the sordid spectacle that is the Deshaun Watson case?
The N.F.L. The N.F.L. has until Thursday morning for an appeal. Goodell can choose to suspend for a longer time, which Watson and union would most likely contest in federal court. He can also levy an additional fine to recover some of Watson’s nearly $45million signing bonus. However, if the N.F.L. simply ducks and gives up without a fight, that’ll say everything about how it views women and how seriously it takes their stories.
Robinson agreed with Watson’s accusation without reservation. He exposed himself. He repeatedly touched women with his penis.
Here’s a sampling of her conclusions:
“The N.F.L. “The N.F.L. has assumed its burden to prove that Mr. Watson was involved in sexual assault (as defined the N.F.L.)” against four therapists who were identified in the league’s report.
“The N.F.L. has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson’s conduct posed a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person.”
“Mr. Watson knew such sexualized contact was unwanted.”
“Mr. Watson had a reckless disregard for the consequences of his conduct, which I find equivalent to intentional conduct.”
Robinson claimed that she was limited. Robinson could have handed out a more severe penalty, but she refused. Instead, she leaned on the N.F.L.’s history of leniency. The most common discipline for “domestic or gendered violence and sexual acts is a six-game suspension,” Robinson noted.
She went on to list the other suspensions of players, including one who had to sit for 10 games “for multiple incidents of domestic violence for which the player pleaded guilty to battery.”
It is acceptable to rely on precedent. But this decision was made in a court not of law. The N.F.L. does not have to accept Robinson’s recommendation, especially not in a case in which the player’s contract has been structured, as Watson’s was, to avoid a significant financial hit for a suspension. Watson will be losing just over $300,000. in game checks during his six-game suspension after he signed a $230 million fully guaranteed contract with the Browns.
The league is a private organization. It can impose whatever punishment it deems necessary. If Watson, his lawyer and the players’ association have a problem with it, they can sue.
Let them move on and keep Watson’s allegations front and center.
Harassment against women is not something that is new in the N.F.L. which often seems to be the Neanderthal Football League. I wrote as much last week when Congress — not the league — tried to make Washington Commanders owner Daniel Snyder account for his team’s knuckle-dragging culture and misdeeds.
The Washington Post reported that Snyder settled a claim for sexual misconduct stemming from an incident in 2009. The N.F.L.’s investigation of Watson lasted 15 months. These drawn-out inquiries spiral into theater of the absurd only because the league and its commissioner have not established precedents that would allow for decisive action — the kind that would send a clear signal that the N.F.L. It does not tolerate the mistreatment of women.
As the Watson decision stands now at six games without a fine, nobody wins.
Not the women, whose lawyer described the suspension as “a slap in the face.”
Not the league, whose personal conduct policy purports to “define, address and sanction” players whose actions are detrimental to the N.F.L.’s image.
Not the Browns. A franchise that has proven it will sell its soul and shred its dignity for a chance to be a Super Bowl competitor.
Not Watson, who, despite being mobbed by Browns fans at training camp, will be forever mentioned as one of the league’s pariahs, an example of its misogynist culture.
Not victims of domestic violence or sexual violence, nor their advocates. “We brace ourselves for this kind of disappointment,” Sondra Miller, president of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, said in an interview on Monday. “It’s a common feeling that offenders are not held accountable for their actions. So, that is part of what we are feeling today.”
Who else? Certainly not the women who came forward with stories of being abused by what Robinson called “sexualized behavior.”
Twenty-four women were alleged by lawsuits that Watson engaged sex coercive and lewd behavior in massages that took place from the fall 2019 to March 2021.
Watson was not charged in criminal courts and settled with all his accusers, except one. That’s not an uncommon outcome given how hard it is to litigate cases of sexual misconduct, which often occur in private and come down to the conflicting accounts of the two people involved.
The N.F.L. changed its personal conduct policy in 2014, after backlash over Ray Rice discipline. toughened its personal conduct policy in 2014, in response to backlash over the Ray Rice discipline, Goodell wrote that the league held itself to “a higher standard.”
Common sense must prevail if we are to live up to that statement. When so many women come forward with stories about harassment and abuse, it is essential that they are believed.
Robinson makes it clear that she believes sexual misconduct took place, but she was hampered by the league’s past when it came to the punishment. The N.F.L. The N.F.L.
It’s time to start correcting the course. The league and its commissioner must stand against Monday’s ruling and prepare for a fight.
Read the full article here
