Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RavingManiac

Ezekiel Elliott Case

31 posts in this topic

I don't understand how the NFL can suspend a player for wrongdoing after a police investigation decided there was not enough evidence or that there were too many inconsistencies with the accuser. Furthermore, the NFLs lead investigator decided herself there was not enough evidence and came up with the conclusion to not suspend the guy at all. That is two investigations, one done by the NFL itself, with both declaring not enough credible evidence, and the league disregards both investigations and still suspends him. I just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RavingManiac said:

I don't understand how the NFL can suspend a player for wrongdoing after a police investigation decided there was not enough evidence or that there were too many inconsistencies with the accuser. Furthermore, the NFLs lead investigator decided herself there was not enough evidence and came up with the conclusion to not suspend the guy at all. That is two investigations, one done by the NFL itself, with both declaring not enough credible evidence, and the league disregards both investigations and still suspends him. I just don't get it.

I agree.  I don't understand how the NFL decides these things either.   And it is becoming a huge point of contention between the players union and management.  The NFL seems to have there own criteria for assessing guilt that does not match the rest of the world.   Years ago they suspended Roethlisberger for 6 games, reduced to 4, when no charges were filed in his case.  They suspended Brady for 4 games even though they also had no proof.  Now Elliott gets suspended 6 games even though there appears to be little evidence in the case.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cprenegade said:

I agree.  I don't understand how the NFL decides these things either.   And it is becoming a huge point of contention between the players union and management.  The NFL seems to have there own criteria for assessing guilt that does not match the rest of the world.   Years ago they suspended Roethlisberger for 6 games, reduced to 4, when no charges were filed in his case.  They suspended Brady for 4 games even though they also had no proof.  Now Elliott gets suspended 6 games even though there appears to be little evidence in the case.   

Evidence 

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article171203267.html

 

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2017/08/17/everything-need-know-nfls-investigation-cowboys-rb-ezekiel-elliott-assault-allegations

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elliott has lost the appeal. His suspension will begin in Week 2, meaning he can play in Dallas' season opener.

Link

Elliott and his legal team are expected to continue their lawsuit against the NFL, but I wouldn't give much for their chances at this point. Courts are typically loathe to overturn an arbitrator's decision.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

elliot is an embarrassment to the league....he is an immature trainwreck waiting to happen.....he should have gotten a suspension for his assault on a women at a St Pagtrick's day party....elliot has a history of doing DUMB things....

the NFL has the right to suspend players even if the police find no criminal activity and don't press charges...

this suspension is more about appearances than actual crimes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, can you hear me now! said:

elliot is an embarrassment to the league....he is an immature trainwreck waiting to happen.....he should have gotten a suspension for his assault on a women at a St Pagtrick's day party....elliot has a history of doing DUMB things....

the NFL has the right to suspend players even if the police find no criminal activity and don't press charges...

this suspension is more about appearances than actual crimes....

Would agree except the woman at St pattys day was someone he knew and was sleeping with including that evening 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, can you hear me now! said:

elliot is an embarrassment to the league....he is an immature trainwreck waiting to happen.....he should have gotten a suspension for his assault on a women at a St Pagtrick's day party....elliot has a history of doing DUMB things....

the NFL has the right to suspend players even if the police find no criminal activity and don't press charges...

this suspension is more about appearances than actual crimes....

Although it's being done, you can't suspend people for appearances. It's just not ethical. Every time a woman wants a 100 thousand dollars, she can just threaten a player with something phony and the player would have to pay her extortion money every single time. You would have to figure paying 100k is cheaper than a six game suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, RavingManiac said:

Although it's being done, you can't suspend people for appearances. It's just not ethical. Every time a woman wants a 100 thousand dollars, she can just threaten a player with something phony and the player would have to pay her extortion money every single time. You would have to figure paying 100k is cheaper than a six game suspension.

It may not be ethical but the way the policy is set up Zeke should have been more aware of what people are going to think every time he does the frat boy crap. What sucks is that there are women out there getting their asses kicked but for the ones that cry wolf or are looking for a money grab it mitigates their cries for help

 

im glad zeke got 6 not because of the allegations but damn it dude no better be better you know you have some woman trying to play you and you response is to get caught on camera exposing another chicks breast (even though they sleep together.... where is your circle where the hell is jerry or Tony or Jason or Dez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

Although it's being done, you can't suspend people for appearances. It's just not ethical. Every time a woman wants a 100 thousand dollars, she can just threaten a player with something phony and the player would have to pay her extortion money every single time. You would have to figure paying 100k is cheaper than a six game suspension.

Like it or not, the league is fully within its rights to suspend Elliott for conduct detrimental to the league, even though he wasn't formally charged for any crime. It should also be noted, however, that Ohio law stipulates domestic violence charges may only be filed if the couple in question were indeed living together. Since authorities could not determine whether Elliott and the woman in question actually co-habitated, no such charges were brought about.

The NFL's conduct policy is not subject to the same burden of proof as the legal system. Since these are not criminal but internal matters, the NFL does not have to abide by the niceties of the Constitution when meting out discipline. The personal conduct policy says that “persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.”

Where the league does have a public relations problem, however, is the manner in which it handles such cases. There's very little consistency in terms of punishment.

 

Edited by mdrunning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mdrunning said:

Like it or not, the league is fully within its rights to suspend Elliott for conduct detrimental to the league, even though he wasn't formally charged for any crime. It should also be noted, however, that Ohio law stipulates domestic violence charges may only be filed if the couple in question were indeed living together. Since authorities could not determine whether Elliott and the woman in question actually co-habitated, no such charges were brought about.

The NFL's conduct policy is not subject to the same burden of proof as the legal system. Since these are not criminal but internal matters, the NFL does not have to abide by the niceties of the Constitution when meting out discipline. The personal conduct policy says that “persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.”

Where the league does have a public relations problem, however, is the manner in which it handles such cases. There's very little consistency in terms of punishment.

 

I understand everything you said but how is it ethical for the NFL itself conduct their own full investigation and have the lead investigator rule in favor of Elliott but suspend him anyway? Why even have an investigation if you plan on suspending him regardless of the investigation?

it sounds like Goodell was afraid of the bad publicity that would occur if he didn't punish Elliott for domestic violence since he so badly screwed up the Ray Rice case. I thought the arbitrator would look at all this and overturn the suspension. He didn't, which tells me I'm missing the boat somewhere along the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mdrunning said:

Like it or not, the league is fully within its rights to suspend Elliott for conduct detrimental to the league, even though he wasn't formally charged for any crime. It should also be noted, however, that Ohio law stipulates domestic violence charges may only be filed if the couple in question were indeed living together. Since authorities could not determine whether Elliott and the woman in question actually co-habitated, no such charges were brought about.

The NFL's conduct policy is not subject to the same burden of proof as the legal system. Since these are not criminal but internal matters, the NFL does not have to abide by the niceties of the Constitution when meting out discipline. The personal conduct policy says that “persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime.”

Where the league does have a public relations problem, however, is the manner in which it handles such cases. There's very little consistency in terms of punishment.

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

I understand everything you said but how is it ethical for the NFL itself conduct their own full investigation and have the lead investigator rule in favor of Elliott but suspend him anyway? Why even have an investigation if you plan on suspending him regardless of the investigation?

it sounds like Goodell was afraid of the bad publicity that would occur if he didn't punish Elliott for domestic violence since he so badly screwed up the Ray Rice case. I thought the arbitrator would look at all this and overturn the suspension. He didn't, which tells me I'm missing the boat somewhere along the line.

^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying it for years now... and am frankly surprised it hasn't already spilled over in to nuclear war between the two sides... but I still think there will be a point during a CBA negotiation where the player's union takes a hard-line stand on league punishment for "non-football related matters" that don't include real world legal system actions / punishments.

Frankly I think it would be cleaner for all parties, P.R. issues be darned.  The league can and should dole out punishments for wrong-doings on and off the field that related to personal competitive advantage, or team competitive advantage.  It's legitimately a part of the credibility of the product that fans actually spend money for.

But if a guy does something off the field that has nothing to do with football... it seems reasonable and justifiable for the league to say "We have to wait for the legal system to run it's course before deciding on a punishment of our own".  There are many examples, but I'll use the Roethlisberger example.  Selfishly, I'm not going to cry or whine much about the league choosing to suspend him.  But from his perspective, to be suspended for accusations that never warranted prosecution, that's a tough one to defend in my opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ravens2006 said:

I've been saying it for years now... and am frankly surprised it hasn't already spilled over in to nuclear war between the two sides... but I still think there will be a point during a CBA negotiation where the player's union takes a hard-line stand on league punishment for "non-football related matters" that don't include real world legal system actions / punishments.

Frankly I think it would be cleaner for all parties, P.R. issues be darned.  The league can and should dole out punishments for wrong-doings on and off the field that related to personal competitive advantage, or team competitive advantage.  It's legitimately a part of the credibility of the product that fans actually spend money for.

But if a guy does something off the field that has nothing to do with football... it seems reasonable and justifiable for the league to say "We have to wait for the legal system to run it's course before deciding on a punishment of our own".  There are many examples, but I'll use the Roethlisberger example.  Selfishly, I'm not going to cry or whine much about the league choosing to suspend him.  But from his perspective, to be suspended for accusations that never warranted prosecution, that's a tough one to defend in my opinion.  

May be. But it's in the CBA, and there's really no debate about it. If the players don't agree with that power, don't sign the CBA. Once you sign the CBA you're bound by the CBA. The only thing to be determined by an arbitrator or a court is whether or not the commissioner acted arbitrarily. They don't even have the power to determine if he was right or wrong -- just whether or not he acted arbitrarily. Is it a bad deal? Sure it is. But they signed it, and they're bound by it, regardless of whether or not it's fair or a good or bad deal -- it's the deal they signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

Although it's being done, you can't suspend people for appearances. It's just not ethical. Every time a woman wants a 100 thousand dollars, she can just threaten a player with something phony and the player would have to pay her extortion money every single time. You would have to figure paying 100k is cheaper than a six game suspension.

actually the NFL can and does.....it is what it is.....the NFL thinks there is enough wrongdoing to warrant a suspension....

my advice to mr elliot would be let the big one control what you do, not the little one as appears to be the case....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bleedingorangeandblack said:

Would agree except the woman at St pattys day was someone he knew and was sleeping with including that evening 

you still can't yank her top down and expose her boobs in public....well those guys with manners and sense wouldn't....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ravens2006 said:

I've been saying it for years now... and am frankly surprised it hasn't already spilled over in to nuclear war between the two sides... but I still think there will be a point during a CBA negotiation where the player's union takes a hard-line stand on league punishment for "non-football related matters" that don't include real world legal system actions / punishments.

Frankly I think it would be cleaner for all parties, P.R. issues be darned.  The league can and should dole out punishments for wrong-doings on and off the field that related to personal competitive advantage, or team competitive advantage.  It's legitimately a part of the credibility of the product that fans actually spend money for.

But if a guy does something off the field that has nothing to do with football... it seems reasonable and justifiable for the league to say "We have to wait for the legal system to run it's course before deciding on a punishment of our own".  There are many examples, but I'll use the Roethlisberger example.  Selfishly, I'm not going to cry or whine much about the league choosing to suspend him.  But from his perspective, to be suspended for accusations that never warranted prosecution, that's a tough one to defend in my opinion.  

It is the nuclear option and it will spill over into the negotiations for the next contract.  Some of the more outspoken players and the NFLPA reps have already stated there will be no deal with the same dynamic in place.  This time I don't think they will cave even if it means putting the season in jeopardy.  I expect that management will cave on this one to get something else they want.  I think even management realizes that allowing the commissioners office the final say with no input from anyone else is not working out the way they thought it would.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, can you hear me now! said:

you still can't yank her top down and expose her boobs in public....well those guys with manners and sense wouldn't....

Agreed 

Sadly some think its cute 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NFL players actually take a hard line stance over the unfettered powers of the commissioner in the next collective bargaining talks, they will ultimately lose. Unlike baseball, football owners have the leverage and both sides are keenly aware of that fact. Furthermore, while this issue might be a vexing problem for the players, it isn't a central one.

It's hard to imagine the players staying fired up for any long period over such a nebulous issue, particularly since most players will never have to go through the process. If I were an NFL player with no prior history of any off-field transgressions, it'd be one of the last things I'd worry about.

If the players want to reduce the disciplinary power of the commissioner (which, by the way, has been in the CBA before Goodell; it was just never an issue since he has pursued punishments much more aggressively than his predecessor), then they're going to have to cede something from their side in order to temper Goodell's power. What exactly would that be? Would they be willing to accept a smaller percentage of revenues (and the resultant lower salary cap, which affects all players) just to benefit a few players who can't seem to stay out of trouble? Not likely. Would they take a more relaxed position on working conditions, benefits or injury protections settlements just so miscreants like Ezekiel Elliott or Greg Hardy can have a more democratic disciplinary process? Wouldn't be advisable.

The players can talk tough all they want and draw as many lines in the sand as they wish, but the bottom line is the NFLPA would be foolish to recommend a work action over this because they'd get steamrolled faster than cavalry against a panzer division. You don't expend negotiating capital over something that only impacts a very small percentage of your overall constituency. I doubt if the players are going to withstand a long and protracted strike (and missed paychecks) over the power of the commissioner. 

Edited by mdrunning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mdrunning said:

If the NFL players actually take a hard line stance over the unfettered powers of the commissioner in the next collective bargaining talks, they will ultimately lose. Unlike baseball, football owners have the leverage and both sides are keenly aware of that fact. Furthermore, while this issue might be a vexing problem for the players, it isn't a central one.

It's hard to imagine the players staying fired up for any long period over such a nebulous issue, particularly since most players will never have to go through the process. If I were an NFL player with no prior history of any off-field transgressions, it'd be one of the last things I'd worry about.

If the players want to reduce the disciplinary power of the commissioner (which, by the way, has been in the CBA before Goodell; it was just never an issue since he has pursued punishments much more aggressively than his predecessor), then they're going to have to cede something from their side in order to temper Goodell's power. What exactly would that be? Would they be willing to accept a smaller percentage of revenues (and the resultant lower salary cap, which affects all players) just to benefit a few players who can't seem to stay out of trouble? Not likely. Would they take a more relaxed position on working conditions, benefits or injury protections settlements just so miscreants like Ezekiel Elliott or Greg Hardy can have a more democratic disciplinary process? Wouldn't be advisable.

The players can talk tough all they want and draw as many lines in the sand as they wish, but the bottom line is the NFLPA would be foolish to recommend a work action over this because they'd get steamrolled faster than cavalry against a panzer division. You don't expend negotiating capital over something that only impacts a very small percentage of your overall constituency. I doubt if the players are going to withstand a long and protracted strike (and missed paychecks) over the power of the commissioner. 

I'm not so sure Goodell will play such hardball during the next CBA negotiations. I agree he will use it as a bargaining chip but with the way he has screwed up things lately, I wonder if he is going to be more than willing to give up some disciplinary power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's a better suggestion-- behave like an adult....don't do things that are wrong or morally questionable....fairly simple rules to live by...

Edited by can you hear me now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, can you hear me now! said:

here's a better suggestion-- behave like an adult....don't do things that are wrong or morally questionable....fairly simple rules to live by...

Amen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RavingManiac said:

I'm not so sure Goodell will play such hardball during the next CBA negotiations. I agree he will use it as a bargaining chip but with the way he has screwed up things lately, I wonder if he is going to be more than willing to give up some disciplinary power. 

Whether Goodell does or doesn't want to cede some of his disciplinary power (and absolute monarchs do not surrender authority willingly) is a peripheral issue at best. Who really cares? The point is the players have much bigger problems over which they could go to the mats; the disciplinary power of the commissioner doesn't even rate an asterisk. The players got absolutely destroyed during the last collective bargaining talks, and it has nothing to do with Goodell flexing his muscles.

As a result of the current CBA, not only have rookie contracts been slashed (and they can't even renegotiate until after their third season), but veterans, to whom the savings on rookies were supposed to trickle down, are also being squeezed out. So what the NFLPA succeeded in doing was slashing rookie pay by almost half while at the same time pushing veterans out of the game. Where's the benefit to the players?

To be sure, the union did secure better post-retirement benefits for the players--such as medical care, pensions and transition programs to help players adjust to a life without football. And they also did get a $620 million legacy fund for pre-1993 players, which was certainly a plus. Players also have shorter off-season programs, stricter guidelines on contact practices, and the complete elimination of two-a-days in training camp. But the truth is, the owners were probably more than happy to yield ground on these issues. Not only does it give the appearance of them actually caring about their players, but it also helps them fend off lawsuits. 

Then again, which do you think a player would rather have: A few more thousand dollars in pension money 30 or 40 years down the road or a couple of million more in the bank right now? I think we both know the answer.

The truth is, the players have never been able to engage in hardball negotiations because they simply cannot sustain a unified front. Their careers are too short and they're too stratified pay-wise by position to ever survive a protracted labor dispute. Worst of all, they're stuck with this deal for the next three years because their is no re-opener escape hatch.

The NFLPA would be wise to fight battles it can win when the CBA comes up again. Maybe some modifications of the rookie payscale would be in order, as would a revisiting of the franchise tag. But again, what would they have to give up to induce the owners to make concessions in these and other areas? Regardless of which fronts on which they choose to fight, if the union decides to take a hardline approach, they will lose. . .again.

 

 

 

Edited by mdrunning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0