News: PFT: Federal judge reinstates Ezekiel Elliott suspension

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
This. Blame the NFLPA for agreeing to such a ludicrous CBA in the first place.
Article 46 has been in the CBA for about 50 years now. It isn't really all that ludicrous when men of honor hold the office of the commissioner, nor is it all that ludicrous when it is applied to what it was originally intended: dealing with a player gambling scandal that arose in the mid to late 60's. Hence the phrase "public confidence in the NFL."

Problem is the league has morphed from men of decency to the current crop of 32 corrupt owners and 1 corrupt commissioner.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
53,646
Reaction score
32,023
I just did some of that reading. Wow. Corruption seems likely. The NFL going overboard to get this court involved makes prefect sense.

Some parts of capitalism are not great.
And the Texas judge wasn't bias either?
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
Lawyer here. The chances of Zeke winning an appeal of a TRO denial are exceedingly small. Same with an allegation of conflict of interest by judge. We all need to accept that this is likely over for Zeke and us. Unlike the Brady case, where the trial judge ruled in Brady's favor on the TRO and the merits of the lawsuit, the judge here has ruled against Zeke on the TRO and essentially already said that she will rule against Zeke on the merits. This is over.
I agree. I thought he would be able to stall for a full season but I never once thought he would ultimately prevail. Despite what many in here think, this case is virtually identical to Brady and the 2nd District already made their opinion known in that instance.
 
Messages
6,238
Reaction score
9,250
I agree. I thought he would be able to stall for a full season but I never once thought he would ultimately prevail. Despite what many in here think, this case is virtually identical to Brady and the 2nd District already made their opinion known in that instance.

At the end of the day, serving the suspension this year may be the best thing. Only if our FO is aggressive in FA next year and puts some talent on the field on D. Downside, is that Zeke is one more false DV accusation away from a lifetime ban.
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
On a side note, this ruling basically green lit the commissioner to do whatever the hell he wants unhindered.
Well it was actually the Brady ruling that did that.... I am wondering how much, if any, outrage this forum showed when that ruling was issued....
 

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,533
Reaction score
60,409
At the end of the day, serving the suspension this year may be the best thing. Only if our FO is aggressive in FA next year and puts some talent on the field on D. Downside, is that Zeke is one more false DV accusation away from a lifetime ban.


I freaking hate when fans put this spin on it. I really do.

As a fan I don’t ever want to concede games. This whole “play for next year” mindset is bullcrap. No guarantees the team next year is any good either.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,564
Reaction score
34,414
Lawyer here. The chances of Zeke winning an appeal of a TRO denial are exceedingly small. Same with an allegation of conflict of interest by judge. We all need to accept that this is likely over for Zeke and us. Unlike the Brady case, where the trial judge ruled in Brady's favor on the TRO and the merits of the lawsuit, the judge here has ruled against Zeke on the TRO and essentially already said that she will rule against Zeke on the merits. This is over.

Well, one can hope it becomes a PR disaster for the NFL and court system regarding big business buying the law of what you say is the case..

And Jerry takes a flamethrower to Goodell’s job..
 

strongarmqb

Well-Known Member
Messages
235
Reaction score
319
Lawyer here. The chances of Zeke winning an appeal of a TRO denial are exceedingly small. Same with an allegation of conflict of interest by judge. We all need to accept that this is likely over for Zeke and us. Unlike the Brady case, where the trial judge ruled in Brady's favor on the TRO and the merits of the lawsuit, the judge here has ruled against Zeke on the TRO and essentially already said that she will rule against Zeke on the merits. This is over.

Sorry guy- you aren’t much of a lawyer if you don’t think Judge Failla has a conflict of interest if she is indeed married to a partner in a law firm that represented the NFL in the last CBA. She should have recused herself.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,564
Reaction score
34,414
Well it was actually the Brady ruling that did that.... I am wondering how much, if any, outrage this forum showed when that ruling was issued....

Brady destroyed evidence... Awan Payton got suspended a year, Bill Bellichek went on coaching. 4 losses with Brady is not the same thing as Bellichek not being allowed to coach the team. The impacts aren’t even close to same.

the NFL in this case of Zeke destroyed the evidence.. like it did for Spy-gate..
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
Too bad the league can’t take a flamethrower to Jerry who continues to speak out for his own team and not in the best interest of the leagues policies.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
53,646
Reaction score
32,023
The Holiday Inn lawyers aside, why is anyone surprised by this outcome?
The courts are very reluctant to get involved in matters governed by collective bargaining agreements.
As far a higher court appeal, Zeke's just wasting his time. The higher the appeal, the less likely the courts are going to intervene.
And the U.S. Supreme Court will likely reject this case outright.
Zeke fought the "good" fight. But he's going to serve his suspension.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
37,339
Reaction score
34,464
The NFL haven’t convicted him of a crime only violation of the Personal Conduct Policy.

The Policy which was agreed upon is the core issue.

The violation of the personal conduct policy was for allegedly hitting a woman, so yes, they did convict him of a crime. You can couch it however you want, but the league would not have suspended him if it did not believe he had committed that offense. It took this woman, who the lead investigator found to be unbelievable, and believed her, with Elliott's suspension serving as his punishment for a crime that he has not been convicted of in a court of law.

This was what NFL.com posted when the league suspended him:

Editor's note: The following is a statement released by the NFL announcing a six-game suspension for Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott.

Ezekiel Elliott of the Dallas Cowboys was notified today by the NFL that he will be suspended without pay for the team's first six 2017 regular-season games for violating the league's Personal Conduct Policy.

Over the course of the last year, the league conducted an extensive investigation. League investigators interviewed more than a dozen witnesses, including Ms. Tiffany Thompson, who had alleged multiple instances of physical violence in July 2016, and Mr. Elliott. The league also consulted with medical experts. League investigators examined all available evidence, including photographic and digital evidence, thousands of text messages and other records of electronic communications.

Pursuant to the Personal Conduct Policy, Commissioner Goodell sought the views of four external advisors (see below) to assist him in evaluating potential violations. These experts range in experience from law enforcement, judicial and public service, and other specialized subject areas.

The advisors participated in a meeting on June 26, 2017 in New York City with Elliott, who was represented by his legal team and the NFL Players Association. The group also reviewed the league's investigative reports and materials, the expert medical reports, and multiple NFL Players Association submissions on Elliott's behalf.

In a letter to Elliott advising him of the decision, Todd Jones, the NFL's Special Counsel for Conduct, said these advisors "were of the view that there is substantial and persuasive evidence supporting a finding that [Elliott] engaged in physical violence against Ms. Thompson on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016."

After reviewing the record, and having considered the views of the independent advisors, the commissioner determined that the credible evidence established that Elliott engaged in conduct that violated NFL policy.

Elliott may appeal this decision within three days. If he does not appeal, Elliott's suspension will begin September 2, the day of final roster reductions for NFL teams. He is eligible to participate in all preseason practices and games. Elliott will be eligible to return to the team's active roster on Monday, October 23 following the Cowboys' Sunday, October 22 game against the San Francisco 49ers.

Everything about the NFL's statement says that Elliott was found by the league to be a woman beater. It ignored its lead investigator, used indeterminate evidence, ignored testimony by others and relied primarily on testimony of someone the lead investigator found untrustworthy to draw the conclusion that Elliott violated the personal conduct policy in this way.

If I'm Elliott, I fight this as far as I can go because it's not simply about some mythical violation but a specific crime that the league convicted him of committing. I protest this as vehemently as possible in the court of public opinion ... unless I committed what I'm accused of.

This isn't just an employer/employee policy issue, this is a guilty/innocent issue.
 
Last edited:

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
53,646
Reaction score
32,023
Which Texas judge had bias?
The one who ruled in Zeke's favor.
I don't believe the Texas judge or this judge had bias or was corrupt.
My point is you can look into either judge's background, location or affiliation and argue bias or he/she was out to get or exonerate Zeke.
 

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,045
Reaction score
6,665
Because he's not working on the case? Because his firm is well-known and popular, which means it probably has legal tentacles in many different cases?
Because his wife made the ruling and not him?
So if he was a lawyer in her courtroom working on the NFL's side, it would be, but because he's not, though he works in a law firm (where he's a partner I believe) that currently represents and is paid the client, it wouldn't be?

How so?
 
Top