Deshaun Watson suspension expected to be 6 games - NFL appealing (edit)

[Myles]

14 hours ago, waterdog said:

Of course you're correct, and I was just trying to keep hope alive.

Deshaun Watson is a liar.

He should have just told the truth and, for me, his creepy lying is worse than the 'misconduct'.

I hope the NFL appeals, and that Appellant Judge Goodell suspends Watson 'indefinitely'.

 

 

 

 

Some of the masseuse lady's may have preferred a lie

 

I'm guessing a longer sentence follows.   Maybe 8-10 games.

[Nadine]

As a woman, the fact that a team was willing to hire him and fans are willing to watch him is disturbing.

It seems pretty clear he's a predator

 

I don't know, but perhaps beef up the conduct policy or just chuck it and hire anybody

 

 

[throwing BBZ]

11 minutes ago, Nadine said:

As a woman, the fact that a team was willing to hire him and fans are willing to watch him is disturbing.

It seems pretty clear he's a predator

 

I don't know, but perhaps beef up the conduct policy or just chuck it and hire anybody

 

 

 

  He should be treated for sexual addiction and probably a few other things.

[DougDew]

My position has always been that the NFL, or any company, should never have personal conduct policies.  Sorry, even employees as visible as football players don't sign up to be indentured servants 24/7 that never have a personal life.  Here we have the NFL conducting some sort of (professional and competent?) investigation into a personal situation that took place on personal time on personal property, was not deemed a crime, and then applies their version of a moral code to levee discipline.  Just a sign of the times where large companies get way out of their swim lanes to control people's behavior 24/7.

 

Each person can have their own moral judgement about DW, and I would agree with most.  But a company to levee discipline under a vague moral code seems fraught with potential bias and inconsistencies that could put them into bigger trouble than just ignoring stuff.  And its just plain wrong, IMO.

[Nadine]

30 minutes ago, DougDew said:

My position has always been that the NFL, or any company, should never have personal conduct policies.  Sorry, even employees as visible as football players don't sign up to be indentured servants 24/7 that never have a personal life.  Here we have the NFL conducting some sort of (professional and competent?) investigation into a personal situation that took place on personal time on personal property, was not deemed a crime, and then applies their version of a moral code to levee discipline.  Just a sign of the times where large companies get way out of their swim lanes to control people's behavior 24/7.

 

Each person can have their own moral judgement about DW, and I would agree with most.  But a company to levee discipline under a vague moral code seems fraught with potential bias and inconsistencies that could put them into bigger trouble than just ignoring stuff.  And its just plain wrong, IMO.

Would you watch a team of Watsons?

Would you cheer for him?

[Nadine]

I started watching a documentary on the boy scouts last night

They talked about it's origins, it's moral code

And they talked about it's descent into lying for money and hiding pedophiles

It was all about the benjamins

 

 

[Myles]

59 minutes ago, DougDew said:

My position has always been that the NFL, or any company, should never have personal conduct policies.  Sorry, even employees as visible as football players don't sign up to be indentured servants 24/7 that never have a personal life.  Here we have the NFL conducting some sort of (professional and competent?) investigation into a personal situation that took place on personal time on personal property, was not deemed a crime, and then applies their version of a moral code to levee discipline.  Just a sign of the times where large companies get way out of their swim lanes to control people's behavior 24/7.

 

Each person can have their own moral judgement about DW, and I would agree with most.  But a company to levee discipline under a vague moral code seems fraught with potential bias and inconsistencies that could put them into bigger trouble than just ignoring stuff.  And its just plain wrong, IMO.

I don't want to but in this case I do agree.   Even though there are many women, nothing has been proven to be true.  Did he just ask for a " in many of the instances?  

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Nadine said:

Would you watch a team of Watsons?

Would you cheer for him?

You mean if he was on the Colts?   I would certainly watch and cheer for our QB to make plays during a game no matter who he is.  I've said for years, I don't hold sports athletes up on a heroic pedestal, so if they play well for my team I cheer.  If he's not on the Colts?  Yes I would watch but not cheer, obviously. 

 

I mean, I never like the guy after he accused his employer, the HOU FO, of cultural racism in its failure to interview Eric Bienemy for HC, and he didn't get any discipline from the NFL for that unsubstantiated slander.  My not liking him or not cheering for him while on another team has really nothing to do with his personal life, but more about how he publicly treated his employer to gain leverage during an environment when such fabrications were accepted.  

 

Everybody has skeletons in their make up of what they do in their personal lives, and I certainly don't follow their personal lives as much as others might to a have an informed opinion of it.  Seems kinda like ambulance chasing to me.  I just tend to see the football related stuff when it comes to the football players.  When the NFL gets out of that swim lane, the league becomes less interesting and less unique, giving us just more of the same stuff we hear about outside of football, IMO.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I don't want to but in this case I do agree.   Even though there are many women, nothing has been proven to be true.  Did he just ask for a " in many of the instances?  

I don't follow the details.  I would feel like I was out to judge him one way or the other over his personal life if I paid more attention to the details.  

 

Certain things are immoral are also illegal, from theft to murder and all in between.  So if the professionals in the judicial system don't see where the moral transgression was severe enough or evident enough to judge him worthy of discipline, I don't feel that I have the expertise.  I certainly think that an employer doing that is rife with conflict.

 

I think its pretty clear the guy has some weird sexual attractions.  But to go there would be to lecture on what is "normal" and what is "off", and we're supposed to be told how to think about that, right?   I only listen to my family, friends, and pastor to sort that out, not my employer.

[jvan1973]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

My position has always been that the NFL, or any company, should never have personal conduct policies.  Sorry, even employees as visible as football players don't sign up to be indentured servants 24/7 that never have a personal life.  Here we have the NFL conducting some sort of (professional and competent?) investigation into a personal situation that took place on personal time on personal property, was not deemed a crime, and then applies their version of a moral code to levee discipline.  Just a sign of the times where large companies get way out of their swim lanes to control people's behavior 24/7.

 

Each person can have their own moral judgement about DW, and I would agree with most.  But a company to levee discipline under a vague moral code seems fraught with potential bias and inconsistencies that could put them into bigger trouble than just ignoring stuff.  And its just plain wrong, IMO.

Most every commercial and public appearances these guys do they are wearing the gear of the team they play for.   Their off field transgressions have an impact on their employers.   They sign contracts with such language.    He paid settlements.   He has admitted to some fault.   The NFL  has every right to discipline him.   If I owned a company and one of my employees was wearing a uniform with my companies name on it and committed a crime,  he/ she would get fired

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Most every commercial and public appearances these guys do they are wearing the gear of the team they play for.   Their off field transgressions have an impact on their employers.   They sign contracts with such language.    He paid settlements.   He has admitted to some fault.   The NFL  has every right to discipline him.   If I owned a company and one of my employees was wearing a uniform with my companies name on it and committed a crime,  he/ she would get fired

AFAIK, DW has not been convicted of a crime.  I'm not talking about crimes.  Apologies if that wasn't clear.  I'm talking about being disciplined by an employer because the employer thought an employee's personal behavior was creepy.  What exactly should the definition of creepy behavior be?  I can think of a lot of behavior that I would call creepy that others might think of as normal. 

 

Sure, the personal conduct policy and the contract signed thereunder gives the NFL the right to discipline him.  I wasn't questioning their right.  I was questioning the concept of having a personal conduct policy that allows disciplining an employee for conduct when they are NOT wearing the uniform and NOT representing their team.   Goodness, being judged 24/7 on personal behavior is akin to indentured servant status.

 

The idea that employees are always representing the company no matter when and where they are, and that their behavior somehow always impacts the Company is just a false assumption created to facilitate this backhanded behavior control tactic, IMO.  I don't support it.

 

Even with a celebrity status like NFL players, I think personal conduct policies should be able to allow any body to have a personal life free from employer/Company judgment, even when the media and paparazzi churn stuff up.  Again, what he did was not illegal, apparently. just creepy.  It seems odd for the NFL to want to have the power to discipline creepy personal behavior, and I would hope that you would not want that power if you ever ran a company.

[csmopar]

8 hours ago, Nadine said:

As a woman, the fact that a team was willing to hire him and fans are willing to watch him is disturbing.

It seems pretty clear he's a predator

 

I don't know, but perhaps beef up the conduct policy or just chuck it and hire anybody

 

 

A rare moment that we agree. 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

AFAIK, DW has not been convicted of a crime.  I'm not talking about crimes.  Apologies if that wasn't clear.  I'm talking about being disciplined by an employer because the employer thought an employee's personal behavior was creepy.  What exactly should the definition of creepy behavior be?  I can think of a lot of behavior that I would call creepy that others might think of as normal. 

 

Sure, the personal conduct policy and the contract signed thereunder gives the NFL the right to discipline him.  I wasn't questioning their right.  I was questioning the concept of having a personal conduct policy that allows disciplining an employee for conduct when they are NOT wearing the uniform and NOT representing their team.   Goodness, being judged 24/7 on personal behavior is akin to indentured servant status.

 

The idea that employees are always representing the company no matter when and where they are, and that their behavior somehow always impacts the Company is just a false assumption created to facilitate this backhanded behavior control tactic, IMO.  I don't support it.

 

Even with a celebrity status like NFL players, I think personal conduct policies should be able to allow any body to have a personal life free from employer/Company judgment, even when the media and paparazzi churn stuff up.  Again, what he did was not illegal, apparently. just creepy.  It seems odd for the NFL to want to have the power to discipline creepy personal behavior, and I would hope that you would not want that power if you ever ran a company.

Well in normal person land, it’s entirely normal for anyone accused of sexual assault these days to be suspended, depending on the company, with or without pay, or even terminated even if they aren’t convicted. This usually happens as soon as they are accused. 

 

watson, the judge has said that there’s evidence to confirm Watson did such behaviors. Therefore, he needs to pay a hefty price. Not a 6 week paid vacation. 

[csmopar]

9 hours ago, Myles said:

 

Some of the masseuse lady's may have preferred a lie

 

I'm guessing a longer sentence follows.   Maybe 8-10 games.

They’re not appealing to get two or three more games, the league wants him out at least a year. I think that’s what they’ll get. Being Goodell himself gets to make the call now

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

AFAIK, DW has not been convicted of a crime.  I'm not talking about crimes.  Apologies if that wasn't clear.  I'm talking about being disciplined by an employer because the employer thought an employee's personal behavior was creepy.  What exactly should the definition of creepy behavior be?  I can think of a lot of behavior that I would call creepy that others might think of as normal. 

 

Sure, the personal conduct policy and the contract signed thereunder gives the NFL the right to discipline him.  I wasn't questioning their right.  I was questioning the concept of having a personal conduct policy that allows disciplining an employee for conduct when they are NOT wearing the uniform and NOT representing their team.   Goodness, being judged 24/7 on personal behavior is akin to indentured servant status.

 

The idea that employees are always representing the company no matter when and where they are, and that their behavior somehow always impacts the Company is just a false assumption created to facilitate this backhanded behavior control tactic, IMO.  I don't support it.

 

Even with a celebrity status like NFL players, I think personal conduct policies should be able to allow any body to have a personal life free from employer/Company judgment, even when the media and paparazzi churn stuff up.  Again, what he did was not illegal, apparently. just creepy.  It seems odd for the NFL to want to have the power to discipline creepy personal behavior, and I would hope that you would not want that power if you ever ran a company.

Yeah,  they can have a personal life.   All players do.   They can do what ever they want.  Except committ crimes.  He admitted some guilt by settling with some of the ladies.  This isn't exclusive to high profile folks.   The company I work for can terminate my employment for certain crimes

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, csmopar said:

Well in normal person land, it’s entirely normal for anyone accused of sexual assault these days to be suspended, depending on the company, with or without pay, or even terminated even if they aren’t convicted. This usually happens as soon as they are accused. 

 

watson, the judge has said that there’s evidence to confirm Watson did such behaviors. Therefore, he needs to pay a hefty price. Not a 6 week paid vacation. 

To me, defining what sexual assault is should be left up to the courts, and anything that falls short of that isn't really sexual assault then (or something similar).  Its just creepy behavior.

 

It then comes down to an employer judging personal behavior.  I can't believe that folks think its okay for the people who sign your paychecks that allow you to buy food and heat your home also can determine if you should continue to get paid based upon your personal behavior on your personal time and personal property.   I could fire anybody who ever smoked a joint in their own home then, because I think that's really creepy personal behavior.  Getting arrested for it would be the result of laws that are vetted via the election process.  Getting fired for it would be because of unelected power people getting to tell others how to live their personal lives.  Sounds like the acceptance of tyranny to me.  The principal gets muddied with the nature of DWs egregious behavior, but that principal is still at the the root of this disciplinary action, IMO.  (Agreed upon contracts aside)

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Yeah,  they can have a personal life.   All players do.   They can do what ever they want.  Except committ crimes.  He admitted some guilt by settling with some of the ladies.  This isn't exclusive to high profile folks.   The company I work for can terminate my employment for certain crimes

You keep referring to crimes when personal conduct policies are more expansive than that.  I don't think DW is being punished by the NFL because he admitted to committing an actual crime, but I'm not following the details of this situation.

[NewColtsFan]

The NFL rules on personal conduct are very clear.   There does not have to be an actual crime committed for the Commish to be able to hand down punishment.   Anything that does not reflect we’ll know the NFL can get the Commish to hand down a suspension.   
 

Now multiply that times x23.    23 cases of unwanted sexual harassment, or inappropriate sexual contact or behavior and Goodell has had his hand forced.   He has no choice.   Once embarrassing private behavior became public, Goodell had no choice.   I just hope he ultimately prevails. 

[EastStreet]

DW deserves whatever he gets, but the NFL just made it's new arbitration process a joke. 

They wanted to get out of the judgement business given all the criticism they've received in years past...

And now they totally blow up what I believe is the first arbitrator ruling from the 2020 CBA... lol..

 

Still a clown show. 

 

The NFL reportedly offered a 12 game suspension and a 10M fine. Will be interesting to see if they now go for more than that. 

[csmopar]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

To me, defining what sexual assault is should be left up to the courts, and anything that falls short of that isn't really sexual assault then (or something similar).  Its just creepy behavior.

 

It then comes down to an employer judging personal behavior.  I can't believe that folks think its okay for the people who sign your paychecks that allow you to buy food and heat your home also can determine if you should continue to get paid based upon your personal behavior on your personal time and personal property.   I could fire anybody who ever smoked a joint in their own home then, because I think that's really creepy personal behavior.  Getting arrested for it would be the result of laws that are vetted via the election process.  Getting fired for it would be because of unelected power people getting to tell others how to live their personal lives.  Sounds like the acceptance of tyranny to me.  The principal gets muddied with the nature of DWs egregious behavior, but that principal is still at the the root of this disciplinary action, IMO.  (Agreed upon contracts aside)

Whether or not I agree with it is moot. It’s just what is happening. Most states are at will employment states. They could fire you for any reason if they wanted. 

[csmopar]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

You keep referring to crimes when personal conduct policies are more expansive than that.  I don't think DW is being punished by the NFL because he admitted to committing an actual crime, but I'm not following the details of this situation.

Did you read the ruling from the arbitrator? Sue found there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Watson had committed sexual assault. 
 

now before you go bringing up the no charges filed thing, keep in mind, the burden of proof is much harder and stricter on the criminal side than it is civil side like this arbitrator is on. It is very difficult in cases like these where there is lacking physical evidence due to the length of time between the event and the allegation coming out to get an indictment let alone a conviction.

 

 

Either way, this saga likely isn’t over just yet. As someone who once wanted Watson on the Colts, I’m glad he’s not now. Who knows what kind of shape he will be in after missing 23-34 games

[csmopar]

4 hours ago, EastStreet said:

DW deserves whatever he gets, but the NFL just made it's new arbitration process a joke. 

They wanted to get out of the judgement business given all the criticism they've received in years past...

And now they totally blow up what I believe is the first arbitrator ruling from the 2020 CBA... lol..

 

Still a clown show. 

 

The NFL reportedly offered a 12 game suspension and a 10M fine. Will be interesting to see if they now go for more than that. 

I think this has more to do with the scrutiny the league is under after the light way it has dealt with these things in the recent past. Especially with being investigated by the government for allegedly covering up sex crimes. Goodell just spent hours getting raked over the coals by Congress from both sides over it.he’s under some pressure on this topic for sure.

 

the arbitrator used past punishments for similar events to get to the 6 games. The league quite obviously wants to be tougher than that. They had offered 12 in a settlement, but my guess is they’ll go full season now to prove the point maybe toss in a fine or two

[Chrisaaron1023]

Wow what a mess lol. But didn't DW already miss a year? I thought 6 games was funny at first. But then I thought, well he already sat out a year..

 

Man they always taught us growing up, not to be messing around with woman it becomes a slippery slope quickly. It's about to be two years Watson, because you wanted to be touched.... And who's to say he'll even come back the same player after all the time off? Not everyone is Michael Vick

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, csmopar said:

Whether or not I agree with it is moot. It’s just what is happening. Most states are at will employment states. They could fire you for any reason if they wanted. 

I think that is an oversimplification.  They can fire you for stuff that isn't job performance related, like being a stellar performer who constantly parks in the CEOs parking space, or slaps employees on the butt, and; fire you instead of someone else when they are in a downsizing mode, but firing you because you GF accused you of doing something to her she didn't like in a private home would probably not hold up in court even in an At Will state.  The employee would have to agree to those stipulations in their employment contract first....like NFL players MUST do (monopoly exemption here?).   

 

At the root of this corporate tyranny is the fake notion that one employee's tainted personal life is somehow going to materially impact a company with 500 or more employees.  Its a false narrative that's at the root of personal conduct policies.  Heck, if DW's actions aren't going to stop people from watching the NFL, how could your noncriminal behavior have any effect on your employer if its a big company.

[RollerColt]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think that is an oversimplification.  They can fire you for stuff that isn't job performance related, like being a stellar performer who constantly parks in the CEOs parking space, or slaps employees on the butt, and; fire you instead of someone else when they are in a downsizing mode, but firing you because you GF accused you of doing something to her she didn't like in a private home would probably not hold up in court even in an At Will state.  The employee would have to agree to those stipulations in their employment contract first....like NFL players MUST do (monopoly exemption here?).   

 

At the root of this corporate tyranny is the fake notion that one employee's tainted personal life is somehow going to materially impact a company with 500 or more employees.  Its a false narrative that's at the root of personal conduct policies.  Heck, if DW's actions aren't going to stop people from watching the NFL, how could your noncriminal behavior have any effect on your employer if its a big company.

I see what you're saying. But that's how corporate America works. As private companies, especially with Right to Work states, the corporation can terminate for a slew of reasons that have nothing to do with job performance. We see it in the education world all the time from private charter schools. 

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I see what you're saying. But that's how corporate America works. As private companies, especially with Right to Work states, the corporation can terminate for a slew of reasons that have nothing to do with job performance. We see it in the education world all the time from private charter schools. 

We're drifting from topic a bit, but school employment might be a different thing.  I mean, they have to guard against pedophiles (the term applicable to adults who are attracted to kids...not necessarily a criminal) wanting careers or jobs that bring them close to children on a daily basis, or addicts or other things that might be considered a bad influence, so I can see how personal behavior might be linked to bringing that element into the school and scare parents (customers).   Most other companies exist to sell product or services, not to mold children.

 

I think people accepting this general corporate behavior (cancel culture really) is based upon a misunderstanding of the At Will laws of a state...but I'm not an attorney.

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, csmopar said:

Did you read the ruling from the arbitrator? Sue found there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Watson had committed sexual assault. 
 

now before you go bringing up the no charges filed thing, keep in mind, the burden of proof is much harder and stricter on the criminal side than it is civil side like this arbitrator is on. It is very difficult in cases like these where there is lacking physical evidence due to the length of time between the event and the allegation coming out to get an indictment let alone a conviction.

 

 

Either way, this saga likely isn’t over just yet. As someone who once wanted Watson on the Colts, I’m glad he’s not now. Who knows what kind of shape he will be in after missing 23-34 games

No, I have not followed the case because what DW or masseuses do in Houston Texas doesn't really impact my life.  Other things rank higher.  I just know that the Grand Jury cleared him of any criminal misconduct a while ago.

 

If its not defined as a crime punishable by the State then it comes down to something else that's being defined by lesser standards.  I think its a bit bold for a noncriminal case to use a criminal term to describe what DW did.   To perhaps sell its decision to the audience?

 

I'm not defending DW and am not seeking to judge any punishment.  I'm saying that these things have a way of weaving a tangled web that the NFL feels like it must get in the middle of......under the false assumption that how they react to what DW did is going to have any material impact on fans watching football.  Its just dumb.

 

 

[Myles]

55 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think that is an oversimplification.  They can fire you for stuff that isn't job performance related, like being a stellar performer who constantly parks in the CEOs parking space, or slaps employees on the butt, and; fire you instead of someone else when they are in a downsizing mode, but firing you because you GF accused you of doing something to her she didn't like in a private home would probably not hold up in court even in an At Will state.  The employee would have to agree to those stipulations in their employment contract first....like NFL players MUST do (monopoly exemption here?).   

 

At the root of this corporate tyranny is the fake notion that one employee's tainted personal life is somehow going to materially impact a company with 500 or more employees.  Its a false narrative that's at the root of personal conduct policies.  Heck, if DW's actions aren't going to stop people from watching the NFL, how could your noncriminal behavior have any effect on your employer if its a big company.

The publics perception of a company can be huge as a gain or a loss for a company.   What you do in your personal time can and will affect the company you work for if it becomes public knowledge.  People know that they cannot badmouth the company on social media and expect to keep their job.   They cannot brag on social media about doing something against the law. 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I think that is an oversimplification.  They can fire you for stuff that isn't job performance related, like being a stellar performer who constantly parks in the CEOs parking space, or slaps employees on the butt, and; fire you instead of someone else when they are in a downsizing mode, but firing you because you GF accused you of doing something to her she didn't like in a private home would probably not hold up in court even in an At Will state.  The employee would have to agree to those stipulations in their employment contract first....like NFL players MUST do (monopoly exemption here?).   

 

At the root of this corporate tyranny is the fake notion that one employee's tainted personal life is somehow going to materially impact a company with 500 or more employees.  Its a false narrative that's at the root of personal conduct policies.  Heck, if DW's actions aren't going to stop people from watching the NFL, how could your noncriminal behavior have any effect on your employer if its a big company.

Happens all the time. And yes, unless it’s a union job, courts have upheld it. Time and time again. Companies can even fire you for posts made on social media, off the clock, on your private page, from your private device. That is the reality we live in. And no, I’m not okay with it. But there’s not much anyone can do and they(employers) know it. 

[csmopar]

3 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Wow what a mess lol. But didn't DW already miss a year? I thought 6 games was funny at first. But then I thought, well he already sat out a year..

 

Man they always taught us growing up, not to be messing around with woman it becomes a slippery slope quickly. It's about to be two years Watson, because you wanted to be touched.... And who's to say he'll even come back the same player after all the time off? Not everyone is Michael Vick

He sat out a year on his own. Not as a punishment, he sat out in the way Levon Bell did, he wanted traded and or a better contract. All that started prior to the sexual allegations he’s dealing with now

[RollerColt]

54 minutes ago, DougDew said:

We're drifting from topic a bit, but school employment might be a different thing.  I mean, they have to guard against pedophiles (the term applicable to adults who are attracted to kids...not necessarily a criminal) wanting careers or jobs that bring them close to children on a daily basis, or addicts or other things that might be considered a bad influence, so I can see how personal behavior might be linked to bringing that element into the school and scare parents (customers).   Most other companies exist to sell product or services, not to mold children.

 

I think people accepting this general corporate behavior (cancel culture really) is based upon a misunderstanding of the At Will laws of a state...but I'm not an attorney.

Yes. It's also different at the public level. I'm a teacher at a public school, so naturally there is more scrutiny. Corporate wise there is a lot of grey area in this whole mess. 

 

It's also noteworthy having a public official (judge) deliver a penalty to a player in a private corporation. Seems to kind of step over the boundary of a private company's sovereignty, but that's a discussion for another day... 

[Chrisaaron1023]

17 minutes ago, csmopar said:

He sat out a year on his own. Not as a punishment, he sat out in the way Levon Bell did, he wanted traded and or a better contract. All that started prior to the sexual allegations he’s dealing with now

Ahh ha! Thank you.

 

He messed up a good thing

[2006Coltsbestever]

I still don't see him getting a year. I can see now at least 10 games as both sides will fight it out. I initially said/predicted 8 games. I think had that judge made it 8 games, both sides would have went along with it. 6 games just wasn't enough. 8 games + like a 5 Million dollar fine would've made most people satisfied IMO. No criminal charges were filed but his conduct was morally wrong and he has made the NFL look bad. A lot of women out here are not happy either. 6 games and no fine is a slap on the wrist  . Goodell was probably like this after he heard 6 games and no fine 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

The publics perception of a company can be huge as a gain or a loss for a company.   What you do in your personal time can and will affect the company you work for if it becomes public knowledge.  People know that they cannot badmouth the company on social media and expect to keep their job.   They cannot brag on social media about doing something against the law. 

I agree.  You're using examples that are different from this situation though. 

 

Giving unattractive opinions to the public of the culture of the company formed by an inside position, or elevating a personal action to a crime are two things that I said are fireable.  Its why I said that I do not like DW for badmouthing the HOU FO by calling them his opinion of them as being racists in public over performing a noncriminal act privately that he never intended anybody to know about if it wasn't for the paparazzi.  

 

The issue of what the NFL is disciplining him for and the issue they are not disciplining him for is simply 180 degrees the opposite of correct.  They can't treat the two issues MORE backwardly.  And these people are supposed to be smart billionaires who should be able to see the difference.

 

They should get out of the personal disciplining business because its obvious they do not know what they are doing, or are biased, or use discipline actions or nonactions to promote narratives.  That's a huge fan turnoff more than anything, IMO.

 

What you do in your personal time can and will affect the company you work for if it becomes public knowledge. 

 

I still contend that neither DW's determined-to-be noncriminal personal private actions will in anyway impact the fans desire to watch football games, and your position in a 100 employee company will have no impact on how other people perceive the company. 

 

If you are a Boy Scout scoutmaster, yes, depending upon if it compromises the company's trust towards young people and parents (does he get disciplined for accusations of tax evasion?).  But most situations are not that.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, RollerColt said:

Yes. It's also different at the public level. I'm a teacher at a public school, so naturally there is more scrutiny. Corporate wise there is a lot of grey area in this whole mess. 

 

It's also noteworthy having a public official (judge) deliver a penalty to a player in a private corporation. Seems to kind of step over the boundary of a private company's sovereignty, but that's a discussion for another day... 

I don't follow your last comment.  The judge, even in a civil suit, renders discipline based upon the person being a citizen or a member of the general population.  The person's employment status doesn't matter.  Maybe I'm not following.

[RollerColt]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I don't follow your last comment.  The judge, even in a civil suit, renders discipline based upon the person being a citizen or a member of the general population.  The person's employment status doesn't matter.  Maybe I'm not following.

You're fine. I veered off into a different tangent. More of a philosophical argument in terms of who has the right to punish: the corporation the employee belongs to or the public court. It doesn't help I'm exhausted so maybe everything I'm saying on here makes no sense. 

[csmopar]

ESPN is reporting that the League will be informing Watson he will be out a minimum of one full season… minimum. Rapport on tv also just said that the league fully expects the union to sue, however, the league is citing that in past events of such nature, while the punishment has been 6 games plus fines and counseling,, that was involving a single victim, where as Watsons involves at a minimum 5- up to 30…. So they will argue in court that a full season plus fines and treatment requirements is more than warranted given the sheer number of alleged victims. 
 

 

 

Im paraphrasing but that’s the just of what was just said on ESPN News at 12

 

 

wow just wow.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, RollerColt said:

You're fine. I veered off into a different tangent. More of a philosophical argument in terms of who has the right to punish: the corporation the employee belongs to or the public court. It doesn't help I'm exhausted so maybe everything I'm saying on here makes no sense. 

Okay.  I get it.  Well, the way I look at it is that laws are made by the people, via the voting process of elected representatives.  And the judicial system applies those laws back onto the people based upon its understanding of what the people mean when they create the law.  A violation of a law is essentially a violation of the people's will.

 

So when something doesn't rise to the level of a crime, the people do not (philosophically) care enough about what just happened to punish the accused.

 

Yet here are private company's limiting paychecks because they think that the people do care enough.  Obviously the people don't or else the action mated to the laws (people's code of conduct) would have DW in jail. 

 

The NFL's position makes no sense.

[RollerColt]

14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Okay.  I get it.  Well, the way I look at it is that laws are made by the people, via the voting process of elected representatives.  And the judicial system applies those laws back onto the people based upon its understanding of what the people mean when they create the law.  A violation of a law is essentially a violation of the people's will.

 

So when something doesn't rise to the level of a crime, the people do not (philosophically) care enough about what just happened to punish the accused.

 

Yet here are private company's limiting paychecks because they think that the people do care enough.  Obviously the people don't or else the action mated to the laws (people's code of conduct) would have DW in jail. 

 

The NFL's position makes no sense, and these guys are supposed to be thought of as smart.

I guess the best question to ask is: should private organizations be allowed to create their own rules and regulations beyond those set by our government? 

[DougDew]

24 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I guess the best question to ask is: should private organizations be allowed to create their own rules and regulations beyond those set by our government? 

As it pertains to personal actions; philosophically, no.  At least there should be strict limits, IMO.  They are punishing people for personal conduct beyond what the people laid out in the law.  So those policies tend to supersede the will of the voters.  That's called tyranny enabled by oligarchy, IMO.  One company does it because the other company does it, because there is nobody speaking for the average person. 

 

Way off topic.  I'll stop now on this.  Good convo though.