Watson ban slap in face to decency

THE DESHAUN Watson case again raises the question as to why nothing can be what it is. It must come replete with political, racial, gender, financial and public relations considerations and intrigues. Matters of wrong versus right become matters of who and how much.

Sue Robinson, the judge assigned to recommend Watson’s punishment after he settled lawsuits with 23 women who accused him of sexual misconduct including assault — and after he signed a guaranteed $230 million deal to play QB for the Browns while the charges had not been adjudicated — determined that a six-game NFL suspension should do the trick.

Question for Her Honor: Had she settled even two or three cases of sexual misconduct filed against her, would she still have a bench to be suspended from? No, she’d be out, gone, disgraced — like most working folks who don’t play QB in the NFL.

The latest, most curious thing about this saga is that the NFLPA, which defends all rotten behavior by NFL players — even if their victims are other NFLPA members — seemed to know exactly what was coming against Watson. And that it would not be much.

So it issued a preemptive legal threat to the NFL just before Robinson’s anemic ruling became public:

“A former Federal Judge — appointed jointly by the NFLPA and NFL — held a full and fair hearing, has read thousands of pages of investigative comments and reviewed arguments from both sides impartially.

“Every player, owner, business partner and stakeholder deserves to know that out process is legitimate and will not be tarnished based on the whims of the League office.

“This is why, regardless of her decision, Deshaun and the NFLPA will stand by her ruling and we call on the NFL to do the same.”

Seems a case of betting the horse race after it was over.

Of course, the NFL, as a matter of public relations and commercial pressures — follow the money! — couldn’t possibly abide by such a farcical ruling, thus they appealed.

Roger Goodell, who panders rather than leads, should now hit Watson with what reflects 23 settled sexual malfeasance cases: an openended lifetime suspension subject to annual review. Then let the NFLPA take it to court.

While in court, an NFL lawyer could ask the NFLPA what it considers a fair punishment for a man who made financial settlements with 23 women who had accused him of sexual misconduct and/or assault.

And if the NFLPA’s answer is, “A six-game suspension,” the judge might threaten a contempt-of-court charge for such an absurd, disingenuous answer.