So the whole ruling doesn't really make sense to me.

She basically says the NFL met all the necessary findings to show that Watson did what was accused. But then she credits Watson for following through "on the process" where she herself does not believe he was being credible or telling the truth? I totally get that a defendant does not have to incriminate themselves (even though SCOTUS actually said Miranda rights don't exist in the last session), but they shouldn't get leniency because they did not incriminate themselves. She then keeps referring to the incidents as allegations after that coming to the conclusion that sexual deviancy occurred.

She notes that there was such serial deviancy with 4 women being victimized the NFL's case that he is banned from using non team personnel masseuses, though it is unclear what would happen if he later on breaks that ban or how the NFL can ensure that he follows it. But it does not seem to take into account the "serial"-ness of the accusations when comparing the punishment to other players who were punished/banned. It is basically saying because you were not caught and punished after the first incident then the fact that I (the judge) know there are at least 3 more separate victims doesn't matter? So the NFL has to in advance have written CBA language that if the first punishable act is actually 4 separate punishable acts, then the punishment can be doled out in multiples?

Then she keeps referring to incident as non-violent as if that exonerates the act? In most instances of sexual harassment/abuse the emotional/psychological nature of is consider the major factor, not the lack of violence. If there had been violence against the multiple women, then the charge would have been sexual assault --a different charge- and Watson have would have already have faced an indefinite ban on the commissioners list, lost his pay for last season of the Texans on that list, and likely faced criminal prosecution. Yes, there should be a sliding a scale of the for the punishment depending on the severity of the crimes/accusations but it the lack of violence doesn't mean there should be leniency.

Then she keeps trying to use past punishments as precedents? If that was the path forward, why do we need her at all. The whole point of the arbiter and the new "court like proceeding" was to establish a new line of precedents. This whole line of argumentation didn't make sense. She and the new arbitrator were brought in to create a new line of precedent, not follow line of precedents that based on an older different system and that most have decried and forced an entirely new system.

Perhaps all of these inconsistencies, and frankly contradictions, are a result of poorly worded CBA that ties Judge's hands, but in that case why wouldn't the Judge just come out and say that? It is as if she goes out of her way to not say that directly but instead make opaque garbs about the CBA instead.

---