Originally posted by Scooper1:
How is it all for show?? The browns and Watson camp purposefully cooked the books on his contract expecting him to be suspended for a year: the nfl wants to take money out of Watson and the browns pocket for doing so. There were claims the other owners were not happy at all with fully guaranteeing watsons contract. They already said they want more games and a fine which was not levied. Also, judge Robinson said this is an UNPRECEDENTED case so how do you go based off precedent in that situation. There was predatory and egregious sexual actions all stated in the brief. Big Ben and seek each had exactly 1 count of sexual misconduct against them and got 6 games each. Watson had 26 so he should get the same penalty? Hell the way you are talking why suspend him at all.
A year is a very reasonable penalty for what he put the league through which is what this penalty is about. It is not about the law. He's cast a shadow on the league for a year and a half with this b******t and it will go on the rest of his career. He should've taken the 12 games the nfl offered said thank you I'll see you week 13. the browns are about to get punished for cooking the books. This is their best chance of a deep playoff run in forever and it's about to be ripped away.
The conduct is considered unprecedented by the NFL, however the basis for the judge's decision is not.
"...if this recommended sentence is unprecedented (as characterized by Mr. Watson and the NFLPA), that is because his conduct is unprecedented."
"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. It likewise is undisputed 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 had been previously warned about his conduct."
"I am bound "by standards of fairness and consistency of treatment among players similarly situated." The NFL argues that consistency is not possible, because there are no similarly-situated players. By ignoring past decisions because none involve "similar" conduct, however, 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."
"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."
So again, while the NFL contends Watson's situation is unprecendented, the rationale the judge used in coming to her decision is based on past NFL actions. Actions that amount to precedent. Actions that played a large part in the judge's decision.
As for the rest of what you wrote, you seem emotional. I don't argue based on emotion. The judge is clear in why she acted the way she did. She made clear consistency in punishment is paramount. She also noted Goodell can do whatever he wishes. But she cannot. She is bound by certain and specific rules. It's clear you did not read the judge's decision. I suggest you do. That way your future claims and arguments will be based on fact, as opposed to emotion.
).