News: PFT: Federal judge reinstates Ezekiel Elliott suspension

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,563
Reaction score
34,395
If Kraft did not whip out his flamethrower, what makes you believe that Jerry Jones will?

Because PR was against the Patriots and Goodell and the NFL had to make it look like they weren’t favoring he Patriots.

You think Bellichek wasn’t deflating footballs and had no idea? The whole organization? Since when has Bellichek gotten suspended like Sean Payton? Very little attention was paid to the FUMBLING rate and balls, just Brady preferring them as if WRs don’t touch those same footballs and hold on to them..

Bellichek was getting grilled when it first happened regarding his legacy and Spygate..
 

links18

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,892
Reaction score
19,427
This team will still finish 9-7 or 10-6 at worst.

Let's not forget we have a very good OL with a QB and passing game that can get big chunks or small chunks like running plays. I think the playoffs are still very very much in play.

I doubt it.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
53,646
Reaction score
32,023
You don't even need an actual conflict of interest, just the appearance of one is enough to warrant a recusal. Simply amazing...
I don't believe that's correct. If her husband argued the case, yes.
If his law firm, that handles hundreds of legal cases, has an attorney other than her husband argue the case, then no.
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
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.
Like I said.... show me one team that gets screwed and I'll show you 31 teams who don't care (or approve).

The above is the exact type of thing I am talking about.
 

ksg811

Well-Known Member
Messages
896
Reaction score
1,720
You don't even need an actual conflict of interest, just the appearance of one is enough to warrant a recusal. Simply amazing...

Simply showing conflict of interest is not enough. You have to prove that her thought process was impacted by said relationship. The person in question is an insurance partner with the firm, not on the financial/legal side that would have worked on the CBA. It's actually fairly difficult to prove conflict of interest.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,563
Reaction score
34,395
Like I said.... show me one team that gets screwed and I'll show you 31 teams who don't care (or approve).

The above is the exact type of thing I am talking about.

Actually quite a few people in the media have been treating this differently and fans of other teams as well.. normally they blast the accused when it comes to DV, but Zeke has been getting quite a few people on his side.

Whether it’s as you say a bunch of fans of other teams not caring, your right. But a lot of that is based on perception as related by the media anyways. If they knew the full facts many of them would turn..
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
The Holiday Inn lawyers aside, why is anyone surprised by this outcome?
I am surprised he didn't get the injunction continued but I am not even remotely surprised by the outcome. If you read the filings, he was making identical arguments as Brady. Once CA5 tossed him to the 2nd district, it was really just a matter of time.
 

links18

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,892
Reaction score
19,427
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.

I am surprised (well, not really--outraged maybe) that this particular judge came to a totally different conclusion than the two previous judges on the basis of the same facts after a few hours of deliberation, when issuing the injunction would not have harmed anyone's interests. I am flabbergasted that Zeke has to argue this three times due to blatant forum shopping and the NFL gets what they want the third time. The whole thing reeks.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
53,646
Reaction score
32,023
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?
If he's a partner, that's a bit different.
If he's just an attorney, then, no, it's not a conflict of interest because the law firm handles hundreds of cases so you can't pinpoint merely one case to highlight bias.
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
Because PR was against the Patriots and Goodell and the NFL had to make it look like they weren’t favoring he Patriots.
If you think PR across the league favors the Cowboys here, well I have some bad news for you..... There is nobody upset about this ruling outside Dallas.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
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:



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 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.
Being guilty of DV under the NFL PC Policy is not necessarily being called a “ women beater” as might be defined under the criminal justice system.

Basically the decision by the commissioners office is there was enough evidence to determine a violation which has a wide latitude.

I don’t assume he’s a women beater. I only assume there was enough evidence something happened to come to a conclusion it violated the policy.
 

links18

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,892
Reaction score
19,427
I don't believe that's correct. If her husband argued the case, yes.
If his law firm, that handles hundreds of legal cases, has an attorney other than her husband argue the case, then no.

I am well versed in judicial ethics, thanks. She should have recused herself. I would have. Its up to her, but this just reeks of hubris and stupidity.
 

Reverend Conehead

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,918
Reaction score
11,787
Goodell MUST go! The players also need a better CBA. It's absurd that the league can suspend a player with no proof he did anything wrong. Now if any player's girlfriend gets pissed off at him, she can just make up a story about him supposedly assaulting her and get him suspended.

Thanks for letting the league be run by feminazis instead of running it yourself, Goodell.

Come back, Rozelle!
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
53,646
Reaction score
32,023
I am surprised (well, not really--outraged maybe) that this particular judge came to a totally different conclusion than the two precious judges on the basis of the same facts after a few hours of deliberation, when issuing the injunction would not have harmed anyone's interests. I am flabbergasted that Zeke has to argue this three times due to blatant forum shopping and the NFL gets what they want the third time. The whole thing reeks.
Judges see the world through a particular perspective as we all do. Just witness the 2000 election controversy between Al Gore and George Bush.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,563
Reaction score
34,395
If you think PR across the league favors the Cowboys here, well I have some bad news for you..... There is nobody upset about this ruling outside Dallas.

I never said it does.. reread what I stated in my other comments regarding media..
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,563
Reaction score
34,395
If he's a partner, that's a bit different.
If he's just an attorney, then, no, it's not a conflict of interest because the law firm handles hundreds of cases so you can't pinpoint merely one case to highlight bias.

He’s a partner... financial interests in the ruling can be tied to him.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
53,646
Reaction score
32,023
I am well versed in judicial ethics, thanks. She should have recused herself. I would have. Its up to her, but this just reeks of hubris and stupidity.
So what principle do you cite to support your opinion she should have refused herself?
 

Seven

Messenger to the football Gods
Messages
19,293
Reaction score
9,878
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.
This explains nothing, IMO.

With what we know there is no way she could've come to this conclusion legitimately, ethically or morally.
 
Top