On Monday, August 1, the presiding NFL Disciplinary Officer issued her findings in the pending disciplinary action against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson. She issued a 6-game suspension for the embattled signal-caller and published a 16-page decision that explained her process. The case now waits for a decision on a possible appeal from the league. Here’s what the Honorable Judge Sue Robinson (Ret.) had to say in her findings.
The Process
Robinson took pains to explain her findings in the case and the process she believed she was supposed to follow to reach a decision. She began by explaining that process and what role she is to play in these types of proceedings.
After her ruling is handed down, the league and the player both have a right to appeal the decision. That appeal is then heard by Roger Goodell himself or his designee. The question naturally follows: Can’t Goodell make the suspension a full year like he wanted to? Why wouldn't he raise the suspension if he’s the final arbiter on appeal? There is one key thing to remember regarding Goodell’s role. While this process is new, and everyone is feeling their way through it, all indications are that Goodell is still bound by the findings of fact that Robinson puts in her decision. So it would seem he can’t unilaterally impose a drastic change in the suspension length without reason. Robinson goes so far as to hint at this herself when she says on page 2 of her decision that her job is “issuing ‘binding findings of fact,’ and ‘determining the discipline that should be imposed.’ “ Both this statement, and the NFLPA’s public commitment to not appealing the decision, seem to be aimed at making this new independent process work without the need for an appeal every time the Disciplinary Officer hears a case.
Now, with the decision entered into the record, the NFL has three days to appeal the decision. It is anyone’s guess whether the league will appeal or not, and it’s possible that the league itself doesn’t even know at this point.
The Finding
The NFL argued in the hearing that Watson violated three Personal Conduct Policy provisions. Those provisions were:
- Sexual assault
- Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person
- Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL
Robinson found that Watson had violated all three of these provisions and suspended Watson without pay for six games.
During her finding, she drew on prior instances of personal conduct policy violations to determine how she should come down on the length of the suspension. Ultimately, she says in her decision that her conclusion to impose six games represented “the most significant punishment ever imposed on an NFL player for allegations of non-violent sexual conduct.” She also found that “Mr. Watson’s pattern of conduct is more egregious than any before reviewed by the NFL.” (Page 16)
When deciding the case, she carefully noted Watson’s denials during the process. She stated, “It is difficult to give weight to a complete denial when weighed against the credible testimony of the investigators who interviewed the therapists and other third parties.” (Page 7).
But, in the end, she weighed positive mitigating factors in his favor, like his lack of prior history, his reputation in the community, his cooperation with the investigation, and his payment of restitution against his failure to show contrition and his tardiness in reporting the lawsuits.
She concluded that the totality of the circumstances warranted a six-game ban.
Due Process
Prior cases involving Tom Brady and Ezekiel Elliott gave rise to the players wanting to be afforded due process during the consideration of punishment from the league. Previously, Roger Goodell controlled the decisions. But now, the new Collective Bargaining Agreement has set up an independent method to return the due process to the players. Robinson took time to elaborate on this important part of her thought process.
In at least two spots, she chastised the league for attempting to impose a one-year or indefinite ban when prior instances of this type of conduct were rarely punished with more than a few games suspension. She decided that asking for such a long suspension was inappropriate given the lack of notice that Watson, and all NFL personnel, had of such a change in suspension policies.
Robinson expressed this idea when she said:
“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 change this position portends for the NFL and its players…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, just as it is inherently unjust to change the penalties for such conduct after the fact. (Pages 13-14).
But Robinson wasn’t done there. She went on to state there was a parallel between how the NFL handled the Ray Rice case and the Watson case. Namely, she thought the NFL’s decisions were reactionary to public outcry. And in this instance, the lack of any notification of this change meant that they were “attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice.” (Page 16)
Clearly, the Disciplinary Officer wanted Due Process to be a central point in her finding.
Conclusion
The only thing left to happen in this case is to see whether or not the NFL appeals, and if they do, it will set up a final confrontation to determine the number of games Watson will be forced to sit. The decision issued in this case was a momentous opening salvo in the new era of NFL punishment with a new process emphasizing letting players have a fair hearing. Stay tuned for the final results in this case.
Follow @DrewDavenportFF
