Thread by @DrewDavenportFF

Ok thanks for your patience everyone. I've read the decision handed down today by the Hon. Sue Robinson (Ret.) in the Deshaun Watson case and I found it to be pretty interesting on several levels.

Let's dive into an #FFLegalUpdate on the decision and its repercussions.

1/

The main question I keep getting is a version of the same thing: Won't Goodell simply give him more games on appeal? Goodell can do whatever he wants right?

Not really, no. That's a narrative that has got legs but isn't entirely accurate.

#FFLegalUpdate

2/

The crux of the question on appeal will be whether or not the punishment was appropriate with respect to the violations found.

We are all still feeling our way through this, but my understanding is that Goodell is still bound by the findings of fact from Robinson's decision.

3/

He can't unilaterally change things without sufficient showing of why he's changing it or how Robinson's finding somehow missed the mark.

This is important to remember because Robinson is acutely aware of that fact and has done her best to nail down all corners of the case.

4/

I'm going to go through the decision and point out what stood out to me. I'll try to refrain from quoting the whole decision, but there is a lot of important language that I think matters to the overall interpretation of what happened.

5/

First, a few boring things.

We found out that my guess as to the Burden of Proof was correct. They used the standard of Preponderance of the Evidence (civil burden) and the burden was on the NFL.

The NFL argued that Watson had violated 3 provisions of the policy.

6/

1 - sexual assault
2 - genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another
3 - undermining or putting at risk the integrity of the NFL

Robinson found that Watson had violated ALL THREE provisions based on the evidence presented.

#FFLegalUpdate
7/

It's important to point out here that in the decision Robinson herself defined her role, and among those roles she is responsible for issuing "binding findings of fact".

Notice the word binding here. The NFLPA was setting up this issue last night before the decision.

8/

They argued for this process in the CBA to give players due process. Neither the players nor the NFLPA wants to accept an immediate appeal of the first decision where the independent process is neutered. That destroys the point. They drew that line in the sand.

9/

Robinson found that Watson had violated the personal conduct policy on all three counts, and she listed reasons why she found that way. It would take too long to recount them, but here are some things I found interesting.

#FFLegalUpdate

10/

First, she made it a point to mention all the common behaviors I've been talking about for a year:
- using Instagram
- asking for privacy
- asking for work on his glutes and groin
- using his status as an NFL QB
- using a small towel instead of normal draping

11/

Second, she specifically pointed out that in Watson's statements about the allegations she found his categorical denials not credible.

"It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial
when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators..." (pg 7)

12/

She juxtaposed those two against each other by saying that the totality of the evidence pointed to what actually happened and "it is more probable than not" that he made inappropriate sexual contact with these women.

#FFLegalUpdate

13/

So if he violated all three clauses, and Robinson thinks he did what the NFL said he did - why only 6 games?

This is where the decision gets interesting.

Robinson chose to go to prior NFL punishment decisions for her own decision.

14/

I am surprised by this because I thought this new process would set a new standard. But she did this for a specific reason: She wanted to make a statement that sets precedent for these things going forward.

15/

That statement is this: The NFL cannot unilaterally change their punishment decisions without giving proper notice to those affected. She found that the NFL had not handled this properly.

So their request to jump up to a year ban was, in her eyes, unacceptable.

16/

This is one of those moments where her words do better than I can:

"While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct, I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary...

17/

...change this position portends for the NFL and its players." (pg 13-14)

But Robinson didn't stop there. She cited the Ray Rice case to further take a shot across the NFL's bow. She said that the only reason the NFL acted on that case was because of the public outcry.

18/

She further argued that this case is similar - that the NFL is trying to jump the suspension up there as yet another reaction to public outcry.

19/

"Defining prohibited conduct plays a
critical role in the rule of law, enabling people to predict the consequences of their behavior. It is
inherently unfair to identify conduct as prohibited only after the conduct has been committed...

20/

...just as it is inherently unjust to change the penalties for such conduct after the fact." (pg 14)

Further, "the NFL is attempting to
impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to...those in the NFL subject to the Policy." (pg 16)

21/

So while she found the NFL lacking in it's process, she still found Watson to be in violation.

As to his punishment she considered:
- his lack of remorse
- his tardy reporting of the first suit
- that he is a first-time offender
- his record in the community prior

22/

She came to the conclusion that she is imposing the harshest punishment ever given to a non-violent offender involving sexual conduct and that his conduct was more egregious than "any before reviewed by the NFL."

#FFLegalUpdate

23/

Can Watson be given time served for sitting last year?

Robinson closed the door on that argument noting that he was not placed on the exempt list for which he could receiving credit against any punishment.

Will the NFL appeal?

The short answer is: we don't know

24/

There are two schools of thought on the appeal:

- the NFL wants to be done, so they'll accept the independent decision
OR
- they need to appeal to continue to play the PR game to seek harsher punishment

The NFL itself may not even know what they are doing yet.

25/

They have 3 days to appeal, and then the opposing party has 2 days to respond.

We will know very soon.

Keep in mind I discuss all these cases in more detail on my show found right here.

26/
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/auc…

If you are here still reading thank you for the support.

If you found this helpful please consider Retweeting the first tweet in the thread.

Thanks for your time if you read this far and questions are always welcome.

Have a great week!

#FFLegalUpdate

27/fin