One of the most common questions raised in response to Judge Sue L. Robinson’s decision to suspend Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson for six games stems from a fairly obvious set of comparisons. How Watson, who faced 24 allegations of sexual harassment during massage therapy sessions, was suspended just six games when Cardinal wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins was suspended six games for trace amounts of a PED he claims he didn’t know he ingested and Falcons wide receiver Calvin Ridley suspended for an entire season for making $1,500 in parole bets? On the surface, the answer is easy. These three players were suspended under three completely different policies: Personal Conduct, PEDs, and Gambling. There is a more subtle explanation. PED policies and gambling policies directly address the integrity of the game, whether cheating on it or betting on it. The Personal Conduct Policy relates to off-duty conduct, conduct that has nothing to do with the league’s core business interests. The vast majority of American employers do not, will not, and cannot police the privacy of their employees. If an employee is facing multiple civil lawsuits unrelated to their workplace conduct and/or if they have been investigated but never charged with a crime, the employer has no reason to do anything. The NFL has reason to do something about players like Watson because the league and the NFL players union have agreed that the NFL can and should investigate and discipline players who get in trouble away from the job. Despite inherent flaws (such as the inability to compel non-employees of the league or its teams to cooperate), the NFL has the right — and feels an obligation t0 — to take action against employees who have gotten into certain types of trouble. And remember this. First, the NFL only focused on four cases, not 24. Second, the NFL has the right to appeal the decision to the NFL (check notes) and in turn impose a much longer suspension than Judge Robinson’s six games . So while the comparisons are understandable, there is a reason for the differences in the treatment of Watson and Hopkins/Ridley. For many, however, these subtleties will be irrelevant.
