Betting Odds on Reich getting fired (BetOline)

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

  .000000000001

You left out a zero 

[throwing BBZ]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

You left out a zero 

 

 Oh, why indeed i did.

 Now i must di-vert my eyes because Betty is making the smoke come out of all my orifices. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

11 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Oh, why indeed i did.

 Now i must di-vert my eyes because Betty is making the smoke come out of all my orifices. 

Yeah she was something else. She had fun, RIP to her. She was a nice looking woman and seemed very nice.

[Four2itus]

On 6/25/2022 at 7:26 PM, AwesomeAustin said:

Im betting there has been more we dont know about.  Im sure there were moments Irsay was out of line when he was using drugs.  Money makes things go away.  Im not saying im ok with it but I accept it. Is what it is. 
 

 

I like you as a poster, but I have to call this out. 

 

Putting Mr. Irsays arrest or known instances of drug usage/abuse in the same sentence with Mr. Krafts indiscretions, is a massively bad comparison. I don't know of all Mr. Irsay's record, but I do remember him getting caught driving....what....11 MPH in a residential neighborhood, likely because he knew he was baked, and had prescribed pain pills and cash on him. Kraft was having sex with a trafficked human being. They don't belong in the same county of discussion. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

40 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

I like you as a poster, but I have to call this out. 

 

Putting Mr. Irsays arrest or known instances of drug usage/abuse in the same sentence with Mr. Krafts indiscretions, is a massively bad comparison. I don't know of all Mr. Irsay's record, but I do remember him getting caught driving....what....11 MPH in a residential neighborhood, likely because he knew he was baked, and had prescribed pain pills and cash on him. Kraft was having sex with a trafficked human being. They don't belong in the same county of discussion. 

Kraft seems like he has issues IMO. With the cheating first and the perv issues after, Irsay is nothing like that. Irsay got tanked and got pulled over, didn't hurt anyone and learned his lesson. Millions of people have been pulled over for a DWI (DUI = pills), to me not a big deal as long as nobody was hurt. Hell you can have 2 glasses of wine with a steak dinner and get pulled over and get DWI now days  . It only takes 2 beers to be right at .08. I can drink 2 beers and not even feel anything but I don't drive if I do have a couple. 99% of people that have been killed by drunk drivers, that driver was tanked as in he/she had 7 or 8 drinks/beers. Not saying drinking and driving is fine, it isn't but what Kraft and Watson have done is flat out sick. Watson should get a year suspension and he will IMO. Lets see if I am right?? I got hit by a drunk driver this past year and she was tanked, it totaled my car and I was slightly injured luckily. State Police arrested her and hopefully she learned her lesson. I talk to her while the cops were there and gave her a huge lecture but forgave her. She was only 25 years old. That impact I took probably should've killed me in reality.

[PRnum1]

11 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Irsay is now 63 years old and we don't have a long-term franchise QB. Read point 3 of my comment again. 

I think most likely we draft a QB next draft.

 

Let him sit for a year and learn under Ryan.

 

I think the QB draft is much deeper next season.

[Solid84]

2 hours ago, PRnum1 said:

I think most likely we draft a QB next draft.

 

Let him sit for a year and learn under Ryan.

 

I think the QB draft is much deeper next season.

I doubt we have the draft-capital to move up.
 

Multiple teams (Lions, Texans, Dolphins, Eagles and Seahawks) have 2 first round picks next season. They could all be looking at getting a new QB and have more to offer if they have to move up. This could potentially mean the top 5 QBs are gone before we get to the Colts. 
 

If Ballard wants to draft a QB in round 1 it propably won’t be untill the 2024 draft. 

[AwesomeAustin]

4 hours ago, Four2itus said:

I like you as a poster, but I have to call this out. 

 

Putting Mr. Irsays arrest or known instances of drug usage/abuse in the same sentence with Mr. Krafts indiscretions, is a massively bad comparison. I don't know of all Mr. Irsay's record, but I do remember him getting caught driving....what....11 MPH in a residential neighborhood, likely because he knew he was baked, and had prescribed pain pills and cash on him. Kraft was having sex with a trafficked human being. They don't belong in the same county of discussion. 

Hey I get it.  Not trying to say they are the same. However, Ive seen up close people with substance abuse issues and they caused so many problems they should have been arrested for or their behavior was just tolerated.  I doubt that was Irsays first encounter with his former problem and a lot was probably swept under the rug until then. I do not believe for one minute some of those under him didnt know about his issues. 
 

To me they fall close enough into the same category. I completely understand why you would not think that. Again, im not saying they are the same. I understand sexual misconduct especially with human trafficking can be a volatile topic for some bc it is heinous. My intent was to provide an example close to home of what happens when money and power is involved. 
 

On a personal level, I watched my sisters husband torture and wreck their family bc of his drug and alcohol addictions. I cant explain the turmoil that guy put her and their kids through.  It spilled over everywhere and affected all of us.  If i had to choose him being addicted to drugs and alcohol or getting handies from immigrants...i would choose the massage parlor every time. To you it may seem worse but to me it really doesnt come compare to the devastation Ive seen from addiction. However, im certain there are just as bad stories on both sides.  Why i say its close enough in my book bc its all a matter of perspective. 

[EastStreet]

On 6/26/2022 at 10:26 AM, shasta519 said:

I figured there were some reasons this hasn’t been completed. Wonder if he will end up with any suspension at all.

Yup. Watson pretty much told them to pound sand, and will take his chances with an arbitrator tomorrow. 

Might hear something tomorrow afternoon. 

Would love to be a fly lol

[AwesomeAustin]

12 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Yup. Watson pretty much told them to pound sand, and will take his chances with an arbitrator tomorrow. 

Might hear something tomorrow afternoon. 

Would love to be a fly lol

My gut says we are about to see the independent arbitrator isnt so independent. There will be a media frenzy and huge backlash if there isnt a suspension.  There will be plenty saying whatever he gets is not enough.  Im guessing 4-8 games. Something the league can spin and say our hands were tied bc they had no control. 
 

Coming from a guy that doesnt think the league should be involved. Its our judicial systems job to levy punishment and this mob mentality that society has to give their sentence as well is a slippery slope. Yeah the occasional rich and famous go down but the average joe is the one that will pay the most.   This is a very broad and complex topic that has no right answer. I honestly shouldn’t even be discussing it lol. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, AwesomeAustin said:

My gut says we are about to see the independent arbitrator isnt so independent. There will be a media frenzy and huge backlash if there isnt a suspension.  There will be plenty saying whatever he gets is not enough.  Im guessing 4-8 games. Something the league can spin and say our hands were tied bc they had no control. 
 

Coming from a guy that doesnt think the league should be involved. Its our judicial systems job to levy punishment and this mob mentality that society has to give their sentence as well is a slippery slope. Yeah the occasional rich and famous go down but the average joe is the one that will pay the most.   This is a very broad and complex topic that has no right answer. I honestly shouldn’t even be discussing it lol. 

I think he will get suspended for a year. Goodell wants to make an example of him. My initial thought because he has no criminal charges was 8 games, but I can see this being a year and it won't surprise me.

[AwesomeAustin]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think he will get suspended for a year. Goodell wants to make an example of him. My initial thought because he has no criminal charges was 8 games, but I can see this being a year and it won't surprise me.

I could see that as well. Either way, he plays for the Browns...thats the ultimate punishment lol

[EastStreet]

On 6/26/2022 at 4:28 PM, Four2itus said:

When was the last time Irsay fired a coach mid-season?

Never, but he did fire Pagano after extending him. A lot of folks have used Reich's extension as a reason why he won't be fired.

And that (2017 when Pagano was fired) was a year with Brissett as starter lol... 

On 6/27/2022 at 1:06 PM, Four2itus said:

I like you as a poster, but I have to call this out. 

 

Putting Mr. Irsays arrest or known instances of drug usage/abuse in the same sentence with Mr. Krafts indiscretions, is a massively bad comparison. I don't know of all Mr. Irsay's record, but I do remember him getting caught driving....what....11 MPH in a residential neighborhood, likely because he knew he was baked, and had prescribed pain pills and cash on him. Kraft was having sex with a trafficked human being. They don't belong in the same county of discussion. 

 

All due respect... this is silly. He was arrested on Main Street in Carmel. He turned into a neighborhood after the cop past him and turned around. 

MADD would probably says that's as bad as a consensual handy. 

And not trying to bag on Irsay. He owned up and turned things around. It's what I admire most about him. 

 

On 6/28/2022 at 9:58 AM, AwesomeAustin said:

My gut says we are about to see the independent arbitrator isnt so independent. There will be a media frenzy and huge backlash if there isnt a suspension.  There will be plenty saying whatever he gets is not enough.  Im guessing 4-8 games. Something the league can spin and say our hands were tied bc they had no control. 
 

Coming from a guy that doesnt think the league should be involved. Its our judicial systems job to levy punishment and this mob mentality that society has to give their sentence as well is a slippery slope. Yeah the occasional rich and famous go down but the average joe is the one that will pay the most.   This is a very broad and complex topic that has no right answer. I honestly shouldn’t even be discussing it lol. 

 

Going into day 3 now.... So I'm guessing some sparks are flying, and it's not cut and dry. 

I'm still going with 4-6 games. 

[EastStreet]

On 6/28/2022 at 10:05 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think he will get suspended for a year. Goodell wants to make an example of him. My initial thought because he has no criminal charges was 8 games, but I can see this being a year and it won't surprise me.

 

On 6/28/2022 at 11:10 AM, AwesomeAustin said:

I could see that as well. Either way, he plays for the Browns...thats the ultimate punishment lol

 

Sounds like the NFL is tripping over their ducks.

 

From Florio...

 

Three days of testimony and argument have concluded. Per a source with knowledge of the proceedings, some relevant information appears below.

 

First, the NFL interviewed 12 women who are making allegations against the Browns quarterback. Five cases became the focal point of the league’s presentation.

 

Second, the NFL’s case included no evidence that Watson engaged in violence, made threats, applied coercion, or used force.

Third, the NFL admitted that the punishment it seeks (an indefinite suspension of at least one year) is unprecedented.

 

Fourth, as to the argument that any punishment imposed on Watson must be proportional to punishment imposed on owners who may have violated the Personal Conduct Policy, the NFL admitted that its director of security investigated the allegations of solicitation made against Patriots owner Robert Kraft, and that no punishment was imposed.

 

Based on those points, the NFL Players Association will push for no discipline of Watson. Judge Robinson will issue a decision, eventually.

 

If the decision is criticized as being too lenient, the league will try to take cover in the notion that it attempted to secure a significant punishment. If any discipline is imposed at all, the league will have the right to appeal the decision to the Commissioner.

[Solid84]

54 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

 

Sounds like the NFL is tripping over their ducks.

 

From Florio...

 

Three days of testimony and argument have concluded. Per a source with knowledge of the proceedings, some relevant information appears below.

 

First, the NFL interviewed 12 women who are making allegations against the Browns quarterback. Five cases became the focal point of the league’s presentation.

 

Second, the NFL’s case included no evidence that Watson engaged in violence, made threats, applied coercion, or used force.

Third, the NFL admitted that the punishment it seeks (an indefinite suspension of at least one year) is unprecedented.

 

Fourth, as to the argument that any punishment imposed on Watson must be proportional to punishment imposed on owners who may have violated the Personal Conduct Policy, the NFL admitted that its director of security investigated the allegations of solicitation made against Patriots owner Robert Kraft, and that no punishment was imposed.

 

Based on those points, the NFL Players Association will push for no discipline of Watson. Judge Robinson will issue a decision, eventually.

 

If the decision is criticized as being too lenient, the league will try to take cover in the notion that it attempted to secure a significant punishment. If any discipline is imposed at all, the league will have the right to appeal the decision to the Commissioner.

The NFL kind of lose all credibility when they won’t hold the owners to the same standards as their players. 

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

The NFL kind of lose all credibility when they won’t hold the owners to the same standards as their players. 

Exactly. I predicted 4-6, but also said I wouldn't be surprised if he got less given their defense around the Kraft narrative. 

I read that his team (lawyer, and NFLPA) were even going to ask for Kraft to testify lol... The NFL/Goodell wasn't going to let that happen. 

 

I'm gonna LOL if he gets nothing. The protests in Cleveland will be entertaining, and the visiting fan chants should be fire. 

[Solid84]

18 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Exactly. I predicted 4-6, but also said I wouldn't be surprised if he got less given their defense around the Kraft narrative. 

I read that his team (lawyer, and NFLPA) were even going to ask for Kraft to testify lol... The NFL/Goodell wasn't going to let that happen. 

 

I'm gonna LOL if he gets nothing. The protests in Cleveland will be entertaining, and the visiting fan chants should be fire. 

This could really blow up in their face. If he gets no suspension and fans disagree this could eventually come full circle and hit the NFL and Kraft right in the face. 

[Dingus McGirt]

None of it matters, however it ends up.  

[EastStreet]

15 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

This could really blow up in their face. If he gets no suspension and fans disagree this could eventually come full circle and hit the NFL and Kraft right in the face. 

 

I hope it does blow up on the NFL. The level of hypocrisy these days within the NBA and NFL is off the charts. They deserve it lol. 

[AwesomeAustin]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

 

I hope it does blow up on the NFL. The level of hypocrisy these days within the NBA and NFL is off the charts. They deserve it lol. 

I hope it forces the NFL out of the policing business and get back to just football.  Its the judicial systems job to punish. Let people throw a fit on social media...they are going to do it anyways. They will move on to something else 15min later 

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, AwesomeAustin said:

I hope it forces the NFL out of the policing business and get back to just football.  Its the judicial systems job to punish. Let people throw a fit on social media...they are going to do it anyways. They will move on to something else 15min later 

I actually don't mind policing. It is their league after all. But if they do, it has to be consistent and fair. And it sure has been awfully inconsistent. And with the consistency, it needs to be "felt" team wide, not just some symbolic nonsense penalty. Especially when it comes to owners, coaches, FO, etc.. It shouldn't be just a fine on the owner, or them not able to be at the game. It needs to be felt by the team, just like missing a player would impact the team. A couple hundred grand, or even a million, is not going to hurt an owner. And it's more or less zero impact to the team. 

[AwesomeAustin]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

I actually don't mind policing. It is their league after all. But if they do, it has to be consistent and fair. And it sure has been awfully inconsistent. And with the consistency, it needs to be "felt" team wide, not just some symbolic nonsense penalty. Especially when it comes to owners, coaches, FO, etc.. It shouldn't be just a fine on the owner, or them not able to be at the game. It needs to be felt by the team, just like missing a player would impact the team. A couple hundred grand, or even a million, is not going to hurt an owner. And it's more or less zero impact to the team. 

I get it.  Their house, their rules. Its just a slippery slope that leads to situations just like this. There is no way to police conduct fairly so why even bother?  Hope they enjoy the mess their in lol. 

[EastStreet]

18 minutes ago, AwesomeAustin said:

I get it.  Their house, their rules. Its just a slippery slope that leads to situations just like this. There is no way to police conduct fairly so why even bother?  Hope they enjoy the mess their in lol. 

 

I just want an even playing field and consistency. 

Kraft was on video and charged, but his million dollar team got the vid thrown out.

Watson, while completely icky, wasn't even charged by the grand jury. 

If Florio is correct, and that the NFL found that everything was consensual (no violence, not coercion), then there's no way they can suspend him for a year after giving Kraft nothing.

I mean heck, they had Kareem Hunt on video beating up a woman, and he only got 8 games lol. 

The best thing that can happen, is simply the hypocrisy to be exposed in a public way. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

10 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

 

Sounds like the NFL is tripping over their ducks.

 

From Florio...

 

Three days of testimony and argument have concluded. Per a source with knowledge of the proceedings, some relevant information appears below.

 

First, the NFL interviewed 12 women who are making allegations against the Browns quarterback. Five cases became the focal point of the league’s presentation.

 

Second, the NFL’s case included no evidence that Watson engaged in violence, made threats, applied coercion, or used force.

Third, the NFL admitted that the punishment it seeks (an indefinite suspension of at least one year) is unprecedented.

 

Fourth, as to the argument that any punishment imposed on Watson must be proportional to punishment imposed on owners who may have violated the Personal Conduct Policy, the NFL admitted that its director of security investigated the allegations of solicitation made against Patriots owner Robert Kraft, and that no punishment was imposed.

 

Based on those points, the NFL Players Association will push for no discipline of Watson. Judge Robinson will issue a decision, eventually.

 

If the decision is criticized as being too lenient, the league will try to take cover in the notion that it attempted to secure a significant punishment. If any discipline is imposed at all, the league will have the right to appeal the decision to the Commissioner.

I think Watson will get some kind of suspension. Zeke got 6 games and was never charged for a criminal crime and that was with 1 girl. I still bet it will be 8 games at worse. I originally predicted 8 games once it came out that no criminal charges would be filed. It could still even be a year. It will be interesting to see how this ends.

[2006Coltsbestever]

7 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think Watson will get some kind of suspension. Zeke got 6 games and was never charged for a criminal crime and that was with 1 girl. I still bet it will be 8 games at worse. I originally predicted 8 games once it came out that no criminal charges would be filed. It could still even be a year. It will be interesting to see how this ends.

To follow this up Ben got suspended for 6 games which reduced down to 4, but he still got 4 games and no criminal charges were filed in his case either when he was accused of rape. The NFL will look so bad if they don't give Watson at least 8 games, so that boxes them into a corner with Watson. The NFL doesn't want their league too look bad, owners and players are 2 separate things when they get in trouble. We don't buy tickets, popcorn, and beer to watch the owners play. If Watson just gets 8, I would run with that and celebrate if I was him with 26 accusers. Goodell could literally suspend him for a year.

[Four2itus]

Looks like this thread has run it's course. It's no longer about Frank getting fired (thank the universe). 

[EastStreet]

On 7/2/2022 at 3:52 AM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I think Watson will get some kind of suspension. Zeke got 6 games and was never charged for a criminal crime and that was with 1 girl. I still bet it will be 8 games at worse. I originally predicted 8 games once it came out that no criminal charges would be filed. It could still even be a year. It will be interesting to see how this ends.

I doubt highly he'll get a year. 

Nothing would shock me though. 

Kraft got nothing after being charged with a bunch, and being on video. 

His money got him off the legal charges and tape destroyed, and his status got him off any NFL penalties.

If the arbitrator is fair, no way he's getting a year. 

I don't like Watson, so don't really care. I would love to see the situation blow up into a major stink though, as I hate the hypocrisy. 

[lollygagger8]

 

I'll be happy if he just wins the first game for once 

[Nickster]

On 6/25/2022 at 6:46 PM, Four2itus said:

To me, this reeks of a rich NFL perv getting away with things because of his occupation and his wealth. 

Simply sounds like soliciting prostitution to me and there is a reason that prostitution is universally known as the oldest profession.

 

If everyone who had ever solicited prostitution was suspended the world would collapse overnight.

 

This man is a rich, physically attractive world class athlete.  He would have no problem getting females to do whatever he wanted them to do free of charge, but apparently had some sort of weird masseuse fetish.  Although I think it’s weird, overall I don’t think he needs to spend any more time not playing for what seems to be consensual sex.  He was de facto suspended for a season.

 

If he forced himself on any of these women, then I’m all for frying the MFer.  But When a grand jury didn’t indict that led me to believe that there was no there there other than pay for the ole happy ending.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

I don’t think he needs to spend any more time not playing for what seems to be consensual sex.  He was de facto suspended for a season.

 

Two points of disagreement for me here.

 

1) There are a couple dozen women claiming these encounters were NOT consensual. (And that's the main difference between Watson and Kraft, IMO. However despicable one might find Kraft's actions -- and the "trafficking" aspect was not proven, and seemed to be overly ambitious -- it was apparently consensual, from a legal standpoint.)

 

2) Watson was not suspended for a season. He chose not to play. He wasn't placed on the commissioner's list. The Texans didn't ask him to stay away. He demanded a trade, Houston said no, kept him on the active roster, and paid him his full compensation for the season. His 2021 status was no doubt influenced by his legal issues, but the first and most significant reason he didn't play in 2021 is that he chose to not play. 

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Two points of disagreement for me here.

 

1) There are a couple dozen women claiming these encounters were NOT consensual. (And that's the main difference between Watson and Kraft, IMO. However despicable one might find Kraft's actions -- and the "trafficking" aspect was not proven, and seemed to be overly ambitious -- it was apparently consensual, from a legal standpoint.)

 

2) Watson was not suspended for a season. He chose not to play. He wasn't placed on the commissioner's list. The Texans didn't ask him to stay away. He demanded a trade, Houston said no, kept him on the active roster, and paid him his full compensation for the season. His 2021 status was no doubt influenced by his legal issues, but the first and most significant reason he didn't play in 2021 is that he chose to not play. 

1.  I am using complete conjecture.  The accusers were not all unaware there was sex going on when they took the jobs which IIRC is substantiated fact from both sides.  I think Watson paid for sex and thought that was understood.  I am pretty confident that he didn’t rape 2 dozen women.

 

if a Grand Jury doesn’t indict, there isn’t vert much evidence at all.  Lack of evidence isn’t always evidence of lack, But it often is. The witnesses must have been thought not to be credible.

 

2.  That’s why I said de facto. This is the 1st thing on the net.  “The Texans do not plan to play quarterback Deshaun Watson during the 2021 NFL season, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter. Watson is currently facing 22 active civil lawsuits and 10 criminal complaints alleging sexual misconduct.”

 

so he wasn’t de jure suspended but was de facto suspended with pay.  

 

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, Nickster said:

1.  I am using complete conjecture.  The accusers were not all unaware there was sex going on when they took the jobs which IIRC is substantiated fact from both sides.  I think Watson paid for sex and thought that was understood.  I am pretty confident that he didn’t rape 2 dozen women.

 

if a Grand Jury doesn’t indict, there isn’t vert much evidence at all.  Lack of evidence isn’t always evidence of lack, But it often is. The witnesses must have been thought not to be credible.

 

2.  That’s why I said de facto. This is the 1st thing on the net.  “The Texans do not plan to play quarterback Deshaun Watson during the 2021 NFL season, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter. Watson is currently facing 22 active civil lawsuits and 10 criminal complaints alleging sexual misconduct.”

 

so he wasn’t de jure suspended but was de facto suspended with pay.  

 

 

1) It's unproven. I personally don't know how a person can conclude these encounters were consensual when all these accusers are saying they weren't. (Also, my understanding is these encounters didn't involve sex, and he's not being accused of raping anyone.) I'm not concluding anything, just don't know how you're so confident about what did or didn't happen.

 

2) I see it very differently. The Texans didn't plan to play him because he told them he wouldn't play for them anymore.

 

My point in replying was just that I don't think 'he was de facto suspended for a year, so he shouldn't face any additional suspension' is going to be a compelling argument in this case.

[Nickster]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

1) It's unproven. I personally don't know how a person can conclude these encounters were consensual when all these accusers are saying they weren't. (Also, my understanding is these encounters didn't involve sex, and he's not being accused of raping anyone.) I'm not concluding anything, just don't know how you're so confident about what did or didn't happen.

 

2) I see it very differently. The Texans didn't plan to play him because he told them he wouldn't play for them anymore.

 

My point in replying was just that I don't think 'he was de facto suspended for a year, so he shouldn't face any additional suspension' is going to be a compelling argument in this case.

1.

 

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

1) It's unproven. I personally don't know how a person can conclude these encounters were consensual when all these accusers are saying they weren't. (Also, my understanding is these encounters didn't involve sex, and he's not being accused of raping anyone.) I'm not concluding anything, just don't know how you're so confident about what did or didn't happen.

 

2) I see it very differently. The Texans didn't plan to play him because he told them he wouldn't play for them anymore.

 

My point in replying was just that I don't think 'he was de facto suspended for a year, so he shouldn't face any additional suspension' is going to be a compelling argument in this case.

1.  Oh I am not ready to make a legal decision here Supe.  But when a Grand Jury doesn’t indict, There must be little to no credible evidence here.  Are you assuming the women are telling the truth?  Why?  People, groups of people, plaintiffs in civil suits often lie.  Supe if a Grand Jury doesn’t indict why would the NFL suspend?  Maybe PR What evidence to they have  that the state didn’t?

you do realize the low standard of indictment I would presume.  It’s just probable cause. No preponderance and certainly no reasonable doubt. 

 

so how can a person conclude that these encounters were not consensual?  Just because there are multiple accusers?  
 

so I assume he’s not guilty of 24 cases Of sexual assault on 24 completely innocent women.  I could be wrong, but I haven’t personally seen enough evidence to restrict him from plying his trade.

 

i assume it much  like the legal thing, but dude 24 accusers and no indictment definitely leads me to conclude money grab and I’m not into policing people’s personal sexual proclivities.  If it’s forced then I would be happy to exact medieval punishment personally.

 

2.  The league will do what it wants to do and has the right as far as I’m concerned.  It’s the owners purview imo.

 

 

 

[AwesomeAustin]

This whole thing looks like a money grab.  Society has become if there are any allegations against a man they are guilty.  No, making a pass at a woman is not a crime.  You shouldnt lose your paycheck for it. Now they call it sexual misconduct.  It’s disgusting. 
 

I dont know if he did anything wrong but a jury of his peers said there wasnt anything there.  I accept it and wish people would move on.  Instead the general consensus is he MUST get some kind of punishment. For what?  What evidence convinced you?  Or is it just bc there were allegations?  

[EastStreet]

7 minutes ago, AwesomeAustin said:

This whole thing looks like a money grab.  Society has become if there are any allegations against a man they are guilty.  No, making a pass at a woman is not a crime.  You shouldnt lose your paycheck for it. Now they call it sexual misconduct.  It’s disgusting. 
 

I dont know if he did anything wrong but a jury of his peers said there wasnt anything there.  I accept it and wish people would move on.  Instead the general consensus is he MUST get some kind of punishment. For what?  What evidence convinced you?  Or is it just bc there were allegations?  

 

My buddy in TX has followed this far closer than me. He said more or less that some, of the women had questionable pasts/records. Read into that how you will. The two that went on air for the HBO interview seemed credible to me though. But even their description of events included no violence, etc. Highly inappropriate, yes. But there's simply so much that doesn't make sense. My guess is that some of these "travelling massage therapists" are one thing, and some are actually legit. The legit ones likely started the complaint (and are sincere), and the rest piled on for $$. The fact that nobody though went to the police at the time of the incident add more fogginess. 

 

Either way, the dude is icky and definitely has issues lol. And if the report is true about the Texans organization actually scheduling these chicks, and providing him with NDAs for them to sign, then that makes it even ickier on an NFL level. But Kraft did similar, and not near the outrage. He went to a place that likely offered the services so he didn't need to coax, but the place was part of a trafficking sting, which is a whole new level of ick.  

[Superman]

8 hours ago, Nickster said:

1.  Oh I am not ready to make a legal decision here Supe.  But when a Grand Jury doesn’t indict, There must be little to no credible evidence here.  Are you assuming the women are telling the truth?  Why?  People, groups of people, plaintiffs in civil suits often lie.  Supe if a Grand Jury doesn’t indict why would the NFL suspend?  Maybe PR What evidence to they have  that the state didn’t?

you do realize the low standard of indictment I would presume.  It’s just probable cause. No preponderance and certainly no reasonable doubt. 

 

so how can a person conclude that these encounters were not consensual?  Just because there are multiple accusers?  
 

so I assume he’s not guilty of 24 cases Of sexual assault on 24 completely innocent women.  I could be wrong, but I haven’t personally seen enough evidence to restrict him from plying his trade.

 

i assume it much  like the legal thing, but dude 24 accusers and no indictment definitely leads me to conclude money grab and I’m not into policing people’s personal sexual proclivities.  If it’s forced then I would be happy to exact medieval punishment personally.

 

2.  The league will do what it wants to do and has the right as far as I’m concerned.  It’s the owners purview imo.

 

1) I'm not assuming the women are telling the truth (although I'm less inclined to dismiss these accusations than you seem to be, but that's a difference of opinion). On the other hand, you are assuming that you know whether Watson did what he's accused of or not. It can be difficult to prove lack of consent related to intimate encounters; even moreso when many of the accusations do not include any intimate contact, and the accusations that do include contact would not be supported by any physical evidence. Lack of an indictment in a situation like this does not prove innocence. 

 

But your conclusion seems to be 'hey, sounds like everything that happened was consensual, so what's the problem?' And I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Even if you're inclined not to believe the accusers, you don't know what did or didn't happen.

 

2) Connected to the previous point, the NFL has suspended players for inappropriate conduct, even in the absence of legal penalties. Ezekiel Elliott is a good example. Ben Roethlisberger is another.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, EastStreet said:

But Kraft did similar, and not near the outrage. He went to a place that likely offered the services so he didn't need to coax, but the place was part of a trafficking sting, which is a whole new level of ick.  

 

There was plenty of outrage related to Kraft. And then it became obvious that the "trafficking" angle was trumped up at best, bogus at worst. And the conclusion was that he basically went to a brothel for services, was never accused of anything non-consensual, and the evidence was illegally obtained and deemed inadmissible by the courts (not destroyed in secret by Goodell). It would be illegal for the NFL to even obtain the video evidence, and I have zero doubt that Kraft would prevail in a lawsuit against the NFL if they tried to act against him on the basis of illegal video footage.

 

Local authorities decided to go after the sex workers in that case, while Kraft was rescued by legal technicalities (like the pesky 4th Amendment). Setting aside one's personal feelings about prostitution, it's connections to trafficking, and personal choice, from a legal standpoint, I don't think it's similar, and was never presented similarly. One major, pertinent difference: consent.

 

And I say this as someone who has zero affection for Robert Kraft.

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/robert-kraft-massage-parlor-arrest-sex-worker-fined-1098303/

[EastStreet]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There was plenty of outrage related to Kraft. And then it became obvious that the "trafficking" angle was trumped up at best, bogus at worst. And the conclusion was that he basically went to a brothel for services, was never accused of anything non-consensual, and the evidence was illegally obtained and deemed inadmissible by the courts (not destroyed in secret by Goodell). It would be illegal for the NFL to even obtain the video evidence, and I have zero doubt that Kraft would prevail in a lawsuit against the NFL if they tried to act against him on the basis of illegal video footage.

 

Local authorities decided to go after the sex workers in that case, while Kraft was rescued by legal technicalities (like the pesky 4th Amendment). Setting aside one's personal feelings about prostitution, it's connections to trafficking, and personal choice, from a legal standpoint, I don't think it's similar, and was never presented similarly. One major, pertinent difference: consent.

 

And I say this as someone who has zero affection for Robert Kraft.

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/robert-kraft-massage-parlor-arrest-sex-worker-fined-1098303/

 

Vanity Fair has a better article if you're interested with a lot more detail.

 

I agree the sex trafficking part fell apart, but what they did find was that the owner targeted more or less undocumented and/or desperate Asian women via adds across the country. 

 

But overall, the description of the initial complaint/tip (health inspector saw a huge supply of condoms, +++) that led to the warrant, seemed very valid, at minimum for a prostitution sting. 

 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

Vanity Fair has a better article if you're interested with a lot more detail.

 

I agree the sex trafficking part fell apart, but what they did find was that the owner targeted more or less undocumented and/or desperate Asian women via adds across the country. 

 

But overall, the description of the initial complaint/tip (health inspector saw a huge supply of condoms, +++) that led to the warrant, seemed very valid, at minimum for a prostitution sting. 

 

 

I think I read the VF article back when. Will have to revisit it. 

 

And yeah, a lot of those seedy, underhanded places have some connection to exploited women from other countries. But none of that had any legs once the dust cleared. Especially compared to the initial reports that were basically 'Kraft solicits prostitution from a trafficking ring.' It still speaks to what "consent" actually involves. And whether true consent can be given from an exploited individual. 

 

But ultimately the Kraft situation hits different notes from the Watson situation. 

[EastStreet]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I think I read the VF article back when. Will have to revisit it. 

 

And yeah, a lot of those seedy, underhanded places have some connection to exploited women from other countries. But none of that had any legs once the dust cleared. Especially compared to the initial reports that were basically 'Kraft solicits prostitution from a trafficking ring.' It still speaks to what "consent" actually involves. And whether true consent can be given from an exploited individual. 

 

But ultimately the Kraft situation hits different notes from the Watson situation. 

I agree there are absolutely different notes.

 

But at minimum, Kraft engaged in prostitution. He even went back after he got a call from the Spa lol. 

The fact he got off (I guess 3 times total lol) largely due to his legal team, is fine. 

But the fact he got zero from the NFL, who do not need to rely on court of law findings, wreaks of hypocrisy. Fruits of a poison tree doesn't apply here. 

 

What Watson has done is at best icky/disturbing. At worst it's harassment and misdemeanor assault. But he was never even charged after a long investigation and grand jury. So both escaped legal troubles. One so far has escaped NFL troubles. 

 

And personally, I'd be more than fine if they made things like weed and prostitution legal. Where it is legal, it's regulated. Where it's not, it happens anyway. But if you're somewhere where it's illegal, I have no sympathy for those busted. It's a choice.