This. Bottom line, the NFLPA specifically negotiated the appeals process when it agreed to the CBA; the NFL has no right to appeal on liability, only on punishment (meaning that if the arbitrator says "not guilty" they can't appeal to Goodell, but if she says "guilty, 4 games ...
they can go to Goodell and have Goodell adjust the punishment to whatever he wants).
What the NFLPA and #Watson are signaling is they expect Robinson to find he violated the NFL's personal conduct policy but to give him a slap on the wrist
As I said a week or two ago, that's the NFL's worst nightmare, and they're just not going to leave a slap on the wrist alone, especially not when it will likely be based on "you didn't punish owners and FO people harshly enough when they violated the policy"
Which is why the NFLPA and Watson are starting to play the PR game. They want a groundswell of public opinion on the "it's not fair to punish him harshly when you let Dan Snyder/Bob Kraft/Etc. off lightly"
Guess what? That may well be true.
It's still no excuse for letting a serial sex pest back on the field any time soon. And Robinson's finding is likely to conclude that Watson is a serial sex pest
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Judge Robinson, who decided this case after being jointly appointed by the NFLPA and NFL is an extremely experienced former federal judge; she retired from the District of Delaware in 2017.
OK, folks. Republicans are insisting they voted against funding Veterans' healthcare last week because there was a secret 400M "slush fund" in the bill (that they somehow missed when they voted for it weeks earlier). So let's just read the bill.
Yes, all of it.
You can find it here. congress.gov/bill/117th-con…. I'm skipping the amendment to the short title ("This bill can be referred to as ...") and the table of contents
Start with sections 101 and 102. 101 is literally the "Short Title" and tells you how you can refer to the bill; it was amended from the "COVENANT ACT" to the "PACT ACT" in that amendment I skipped.
102 edits the definitions in 38 U.S.C. 1710. Let's take those 1 at a time
The NJ AG moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the Texas Ct granted it.
The 5th Circuit reversed.
The NJ AG then asked to transfer the case to NJ, where another similar case was pending. TX court granted it. Case was transferred and consolidated with the NJ case.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff asked the 5th circuit to order the judge to take the case back. And it did. Except, because the case had already been transferred, all it could do was order the Texas district court to ASK the NJ district court to send the case back
Twitter v. Musk (hearing on motion to expedite) starting up soon. tel:774-267-2687 if you're interested in listening in
OK, just back from a meeting. From what I can tell, Twitter's lawyer has been talking for about 15 minutes without interruption from the judge. Explaining why Twitter needs this expedited (including that Musk has a consent right holding up Twitter decisions)
Now arguing "number of spam accounts" isn't going to be an issue for trial, because that's not a basis for avoiding the merger.
"The claim that we represented there were no more than 5% spam accounts is just false."
A suspension in that range would be a disaster for the NFL, the worst possible outcome, because the CBA gives Goodell plenary authority to extend the suspension if he wants to. So this would be a finding of misconduct and a relatively light suspension for it (comparison: Bauer)
And per reports of the NFLPA's/Watson's approach in the hearing, the length of the suspension would be most reflective not of "violations like this only warrant a few games" but "well, you didn't punish owners and league execs harshly enough when THEY screwed up"
At that point, the pressure on Goodell and the NFL to do the right thing and say "we respect Judge Robinson, but we disagree that this is a sufficient punishment for the conduct she found, lack of remorse, and ongoing danger, so we're barring him indefinitely with a minimum 1yr"