NFL Off-season 2022

[Roy H.]

Consider: The NFL spoke to just 10 victims out of the 24, and then only presented the cases of 4 of them to Robinson, their 'independent arbiter'. Does this sound like an organisation that is trying to get the 'right' judgement here?

I can't remember why the NFL didn't interview the other 24, but it could easily be that they didn't want to cooperate.

But, more importantly, what do you think the NFL should have done?  They're presenting a case and requesting punishment.  They focused on the four women who, in their opinion, were sexually abused.  If they determined the other six women were just put into an awkward situation without being abused, does that undercut their case?

I think it may change the narrative.  I mean the media is saying it is 24 cases of sexual assault, but maybe it is only 4 and of those 4, only 1 would actually have been defined as sexual assault in Texas (the others would have been misdemeanor assault at best).  And that sexual assault while a felony is certainly not the same as other sexual assaults that NFL players have committed.  I mean objectively what is worse coercing your masseuse to give you oral sex or forcibly raping someone in the bathroom of a bar?

This is a contract interpretation case and the NFL just didn't define the terms or the punishment in the actual contract.  That is why Robinson ruled the way she did.  If the NFL wants to beef up the punishment, then it needs to negotiate that into the CBA with the union. 

I expect the amount of games to be increased on the appeal, but it is a hard legal case because courts don't allow you to define things after the fact and then retroactively apply them.  Courts also don't allow you to create new precedent on punishment when you've already negotiated punishment into the CBA.


I think one of two things will happen:  1. Harvey maintains the 6 games but actually fines him like 20 million dollars and requires him to undergo treatment before reinstatement; or 2. Harvey increases the suspension to at least 12 games, and perhaps 17, while again requiring treatment prior to reinstatement.  The 2nd is far more likely, but if the NFL wants to maintain the appearance of a fair process, then keeping the 6 game suspension will do that, while ordering treatment and fining him massively increases the punishment to actually be financially meaningful and at least gives the appearances of fixing the addiction (or whatever ails Watson that makes him think what he did was ok).  That also might not create a situation where Watson appeals and plays while the case is pending.  I don't think the NFL cares about the appearance of a fair process though, so I expect a significant increase in the suspension, which of course will lead Watson to file suit and have this drag on into the season (which seems like a bad idea from a PR standpoint).

No you didn't?

Yup, you did. In your commitment to contrarianism, you just asked which type of rape is worse, oral or vaginal?

This is disgusting. I hope this thread gets locked. This is a terrible look for the website to be discussing such topics.

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. 

I think it's fine to point out if punishments are inconsistent, or if facts are different.  But the "which is worse" argument is distasteful and is a road others shouldn't go down.

But, in terms of precedent, the Ben R. case involved a non-cooperating victim.  The NFL made no findings of rape or sexual assault; they were confined to punishing him for buying underage women shots of alcohol.  Here, the NFL made findings of four separate sexual assaults, based upon the accounts of four cooperating victims.  That's different in kind.  In the first case, it was "we can't prove the allegations, but we're punishing you for making the NFL look bad."  In the second, it's "we proved the allegations, and you deserve greater punishment because it's clear you sexually assaulted four women."

It may be distasteful, but it is actually relevant.  Punishment is always based on the actual conduct.  The NFL is arguing for unprecedented punishment for conduct which is objectively not as bad as prior conduct of players.  That matters no matter how distasteful you think it is.

Well, no, because these forums don't have to permit discussion that the staff finds distasteful.

And, " conduct which is objectively not as bad as prior conduct of players" is just nonsense.  Watson sexually assaulted four women, according to factual findings.  There's no such finding against Ben Roethlisberger.   The only finding that was made against Ben R. is that he gave underage women alcohol, and he damaged the reputation of the NFL. 

[johnnygreen]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

[Roy H.]

Let's play with the facts just a second.  Let's assume that one of the masseuses was a child under the age of consent in the state where Watson was located.  He touches her with his penis and demands some version of sex.  That situation isn't spelled out in the CBA, either.  Do we buy that it's unfair to impose rarely imposed, or even unprecedented, discipline?  What if he touched four underage girls with his penis?  Still no specific CBA violation...  Are we still talking 6 games max?

From the NFL? Yeah, if they think they can get away with it and if the player is good enough. They don't care about people who don't make them money.

I'll say it again. The NFL is 'presenting a case and requesting a judgement' in the absolute flimsiest way possible to absolve themselves of any blame until they can adequately gauge the public reaction to the 'judgement'. They will then re-calibrate the 'actual' punishment based on that feedback regardless of the existing judgement.

This is, we would assume not very controversially, bad.

The NFL essentially kept Watson out all of last year, and they asked for an indefinite suspension -- with a minimum of a full season -- this time. 

And, your cynicism aside, you're making affirmative statements agreeing with the judge's reasoning, etc.  I'm not asking you what the NFL *would* do, I'm asking you what they should do.  Your argument seems to be that -- consistent with the arbitrator's ruling -- if conduct isn't specifically prohibited, then it's fundamentally unfair to punish players on that basis, and it's certainly unfair to punish them in an unprecedented way.  Do you agree, particularly in the context of "non-violent" sexual assault committed against minors?

And, of course, the punishments aren't unprecedented.  We've seen players miss seasons due to drug violations, due to dog-fighting, etc.  Pacman Jones got suspended a season for his role in a strip club shooting.  Donte Stallworth missed a year due to manslaughter.  Ray Rice and Vontaze Burflict received 12 game suspensions.  Chris Henry and Antonio Brown got 8 games.  Mychal Kendricks got 8 games for insider training.

So, the idea that anything beyond 6 games is unforeseeable and unfair is just simply not true.

[Roy H.]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

None.

Of course, Robert Kraft isn't accused of sexually assaulting four women, either.  Watson is receiving the same punishment (no fine, no suspension) for the other 20 women he got "massages" from.

[Celtics2021]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

None.

Of course, Robert Kraft isn't accused of sexually assaulting four women, either.

Certainly, but Kraft still warranted more punishment than he received for harming the NFL’s reputation.

[Roy H.]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

None.

Of course, Robert Kraft isn't accused of sexually assaulting four women, either.

Certainly, but Kraft still warranted more punishment than he received for harming the NFL’s reputation.

I don't disagree, but that stuff gets tricky.  If there's no complaining witness, the tape is destroyed, and Kraft doesn't cooperate, what evidence is there to make a factual finding (a precursor of any punishment)? 

[Kernewek]

I'm not asking you what the NFL *would* do, I'm asking you what they should do.

I already answered this, you just chose to gloss over it by quoting something else that I said and treating it as if that was the sum of my point.

[Roy H.]

I'm not asking you what the NFL *would* do, I'm asking you what they should do.

I already answered this, you just chose to gloss over it by quoting something else that I said and treating it as if that was the sum of my point.

You haven't.  Here's your answer:

From the NFL? Yeah, if they think they can get away with it and if the player is good enough. They don't care about people who don't make them money.

I'll say it again. The NFL is 'presenting a case and requesting a judgement' in the absolute flimsiest way possible to absolve themselves of any blame until they can adequately gauge the public reaction to the 'judgement'. They will then re-calibrate the 'actual' punishment based on that feedback regardless of the existing judgement.

This is, we would assume not very controversially, bad.

That's non-responsive.

[Goldstar88]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

None.

Of course, Robert Kraft isn't accused of sexually assaulting four women, either.

Certainly, but Kraft still warranted more punishment than he received for harming the NFL’s reputation.

I don't disagree, but that stuff gets tricky.  If there's no complaining witness, the tape is destroyed, and Kraft doesn't cooperate, what evidence is there to make a factual finding (a precursor of any punishment)?

So the police had videos of Kraft paying for sex acts at the massage parlor on consecutive days, but the judge ruled it to be inadmissible and then they were destroyed. I don't see how that doesn't damage the NFL's image and he should have been punished regardless.

[Roy H.]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

None.

Of course, Robert Kraft isn't accused of sexually assaulting four women, either.

Certainly, but Kraft still warranted more punishment than he received for harming the NFL’s reputation.

I don't disagree, but that stuff gets tricky.  If there's no complaining witness, the tape is destroyed, and Kraft doesn't cooperate, what evidence is there to make a factual finding (a precursor of any punishment)?

So the police had videos of Kraft paying for sex acts at the massage parlor on consecutive days, but the judge ruled it to be inadmissible and then they were destroyed. I don't see how that doesn't damage the NFL's image and he should have been punished regardless.

For what conduct, that is proven how?

[Kernewek]

I'm not asking you what the NFL *would* do, I'm asking you what they should do.

I already answered this, you just chose to gloss over it by quoting something else that I said and treating it as if that was the sum of my point.

You haven't.  Here's your answer:

From the NFL? Yeah, if they think they can get away with it and if the player is good enough. They don't care about people who don't make them money.

I'll say it again. The NFL is 'presenting a case and requesting a judgement' in the absolute flimsiest way possible to absolve themselves of any blame until they can adequately gauge the public reaction to the 'judgement'. They will then re-calibrate the 'actual' punishment based on that feedback regardless of the existing judgement.

This is, we would assume not very controversially, bad.

That's non-responsive.

I've bolded the bit that should have indicated this wasn't the right thing to quote.

My answer was in the first response. If you skimmed it that's fair, it was long:

So what do I want the NFL do? Well, actually caring about women would be a start, but in terms of actual achievable things:

1 - Stop relying on advisory third parties operating within a very tight remit to whitewash the fact that they (still) want to get away with punishing the players as lightly as possible, they just don't want the PR hit associated with it.
 
2- Expand the conduct policy to include punishments that are not in the remit of suspensions from games (for example: therapy, community service, or even harsher punishments decoupled from existing NFL precedent). This is going to have to be negotiated with the NFLPA, but it's certainly feasible - though the league wouldn't do it).

[Moranis]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

None.

Of course, Robert Kraft isn't accused of sexually assaulting four women, either.

Certainly, but Kraft still warranted more punishment than he received for harming the NFL’s reputation.

I don't disagree, but that stuff gets tricky.  If there's no complaining witness, the tape is destroyed, and Kraft doesn't cooperate, what evidence is there to make a factual finding (a precursor of any punishment)?

So the police had videos of Kraft paying for sex acts at the massage parlor on consecutive days, but the judge ruled it to be inadmissible and then they were destroyed. I don't see how that doesn't damage the NFL's image and he should have been punished regardless.

For what conduct, that is proven how?

If the question is conduct that damages the league, I'm sure the hundreds (if not thousands) of articles written about it would suffice.  It isn't like they need admissible evidence to prove criminal guilt in this instance, and as we've seen in the Watson case, the NFL can just change the definition and rules whenever they want. 

[Roy H.]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

None.

Of course, Robert Kraft isn't accused of sexually assaulting four women, either.

Certainly, but Kraft still warranted more punishment than he received for harming the NFL’s reputation.

I don't disagree, but that stuff gets tricky.  If there's no complaining witness, the tape is destroyed, and Kraft doesn't cooperate, what evidence is there to make a factual finding (a precursor of any punishment)?

So the police had videos of Kraft paying for sex acts at the massage parlor on consecutive days, but the judge ruled it to be inadmissible and then they were destroyed. I don't see how that doesn't damage the NFL's image and he should have been punished regardless.

For what conduct, that is proven how?

If the question is conduct that damages the league, I'm sure the hundreds (if not thousands) of articles written about it would suffice.  It isn't like they need admissible evidence to prove criminal guilt in this instance, and as we've seen in the Watson case, the NFL can just change the definition and rules whenever they want.

What's the evidence in front of the NFL, period? 

When the NFL says "Kraft's conduct damaged the league", Kraft has a right to a hearing to say "what conduct"?  Without Kraft, the video, or a complaining witness, what evidence is there to put in front of an arbitrator at all?

I suppose the NFL could request that the police who illegally videotaped the massage parlor come in and tell them what they saw on the tape, but that's extremely weak evidence after a judge has already thrown out the fruits of the poisonous tree against Kraft.

Again, I would have loved to see punishment and then dared Kraft to publicly appeal it, but the case just wasn't that strong without physical or testimonial evidence.

[Goldstar88]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

None.

Of course, Robert Kraft isn't accused of sexually assaulting four women, either.

Certainly, but Kraft still warranted more punishment than he received for harming the NFL’s reputation.

I don't disagree, but that stuff gets tricky.  If there's no complaining witness, the tape is destroyed, and Kraft doesn't cooperate, what evidence is there to make a factual finding (a precursor of any punishment)?

So the police had videos of Kraft paying for sex acts at the massage parlor on consecutive days, but the judge ruled it to be inadmissible and then they were destroyed. I don't see how that doesn't damage the NFL's image and he should have been punished regardless.

For what conduct, that is proven how?

For repeatedly visiting a massage parlor that was involved in and closed down for sex trafficking. Kraft may not have been found guilty, but he was still involved in the police sting at the location. He apologized for being part of the investigation. I don't see how that doesn't make the league look terrible.


CNN
 —
New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft publicly broke his silence for the first time since charges of soliciting prostitution were brought against him in Florida.

“I am truly sorry,” Kraft said in a statement Saturday. “I know I have hurt and disappointed my family, my close friends, my co-workers, our fans and many others who rightfully hold me to a higher standard.”

Kraft, 77, was charged with two misdemeanor counts of soliciting prostitution last month. He was among the more than 100 people who were linked to several central Florida day spas and massage parlors suspected of being used for prostitution and targeted by law enforcement during a months-long investigation.

[Roy H.]

Can someone remind what punishment the NFL handed down on Robert Kraft for the massage parlor investigation.

None.

Of course, Robert Kraft isn't accused of sexually assaulting four women, either.

Certainly, but Kraft still warranted more punishment than he received for harming the NFL’s reputation.

I don't disagree, but that stuff gets tricky.  If there's no complaining witness, the tape is destroyed, and Kraft doesn't cooperate, what evidence is there to make a factual finding (a precursor of any punishment)?

So the police had videos of Kraft paying for sex acts at the massage parlor on consecutive days, but the judge ruled it to be inadmissible and then they were destroyed. I don't see how that doesn't damage the NFL's image and he should have been punished regardless.

For what conduct, that is proven how?

For repeatedly visiting a massage parlor that was involved in and closed down for sex trafficking. Kraft may not have been found guilty, but he was still involved in the police sting at the location. He apologized for being part of the investigation. I don't see how that doesn't make the league look terrible.


CNN
 —
New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft publicly broke his silence for the first time since charges of soliciting prostitution were brought against him in Florida.

“I am truly sorry,” Kraft said in a statement Saturday. “I know I have hurt and disappointed my family, my close friends, my co-workers, our fans and many others who rightfully hold me to a higher standard.”

Kraft, 77, was charged with two misdemeanor counts of soliciting prostitution last month. He was among the more than 100 people who were linked to several central Florida day spas and massage parlors suspected of being used for prostitution and targeted by law enforcement during a months-long investigation.

There needs to be proof of misconduct to punish. 

What if all of those media reports turned out to be based upon a police officer's lie?

If the NFL could see the tape, I'd agree with you, but it can't because a judge had it destroyed.  So, the proof that a arbitrator would rely upon to find that Kraft did something wrong is...  ?  Negative publicity is punishable, but only if that negative publicity is based upon proven negative conduct.

An arbitrator ruled that it was unfair to Watson to punish him beyond six games, because he couldn't have possibly known that sexually assaulting four women was prohibited conduct.  What would a similar arbitrator find if Kraft was fined $2 million and lost draft picks because there's proof he entered a massage parlor?  Because, that's about as much proof as the NFL had without the tape and without cooperating witnesses.