Did Henderson help Zeke?

[BlindFaith]

All of this may, or may not be true but, again, the language that was agreed to clearly gave the Commissioner that power. Either the Players or the NFLPA should have know this. I don't understand how anybody comes to the conclusion that the "Expectation" would not be that the NFL would use every bit of power they were granted. When has that ever been the case, that somebody doesn't use the power they were given?

As to stopping this now, well, a little late. This should have been stopped long ago. Our fan base should have reacted this way, on behalf of Hardy or some other team's player but we didn't. It's too late for stopping anything now, IMO. That ship has sailed, gone round the world and has come safely back home to port. I just don't think anybody is really very big on overturning this thing. I think most football fans like it.

No one is saying that they cant use every bit of their power. But with great power comes great responsibility. They ignored the police findings and dismissal of charges. They predetermined a guilty verdict and took 13 months to communicate that. And even when doing so, conducted an arbitration that was glaringly void of fair process. Do you really think that's what the NFLPA thought they would be getting? Do you think if they new Goodell would simply lie, cheat and predetermine outcomes based on whatever he wanted that they would still have agreed?

And you are right about Hardy. He wasn't found guilty either. They probably should have fought that harder. But even the NFL dropped it down to 4 games. And from what I recall, there seemed to be more actual evidence provided. There is no tangible evidence in the Zeke case other than some very controversial photos and contradictory testimony.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Of course they went for money but fair play is part of the equation . You are asking why the nflpa agreed to this, the answer is that you are expecting a fair and reasonable process to get to a just decision

In this case it is quite apparent that was not the case

I'm really not asking why the NFLPA agreed to this. I'm asking why people aren't outraged over the Players/NFLPA, rather then the NFL. They voted for this and for the record, fair play has never been a part of any of this. I don't even know how you can come to that conclusion. Each side will take advantage of every advantage available to them. The Owners are not interested in fair play. They are interested in protecting the product because that's money in their pockets. The players and the Union aren't interested in fair play. If they were, they would have never signed the current CBA. They too are only interested in money. It's always been that way and I doubt it will ever change.

 

[Tenkamenin]

Yeah, I don't agree with this. Zekes reputation has been on the line with these kinds of accusations since he was at OSU.

Not buying it.

Zeke has a reputation of beating women?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No one is saying that they cant use every bit of their power. But with great power comes great responsibility. They ignored the police findings and dismissal of charges. They predetermined a guilty verdict and took 13 months to communicate that. And even when doing so, conducted an arbitration that was glaringly void of fair process. Do you really think that's what the NFLPA thought they would be getting? Do you think if they new Goodell would simply lie, cheat and predetermine outcomes based on whatever he wanted that they would still have agreed?

And you are right about Hardy. He wasn't found guilty either. They probably should have fought that harder. But even the NFL dropped it down to 4 games. And from what I recall, there seemed to be more actual evidence provided. There is no tangible evidence in the Zeke case other than some very controversial photos and contradictory testimony.

None of that has been proven, as yet. I think the courts will have the final say on this but I'll just say that I don't think Zeke or the Players or the NFLPA is going to win this one.

I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[ABQcowboyJR]

I get that and I pretty much agree but our fan base, seems to think that there might be wide support for overturning the NFL's decision here. The question of legalities is a different matter and that will eventually play out but the idea that there is a ground swell of support for Zeke is, IMO, inaccurate. That's just my opinion.

The only case to be made IMO is that they intentionally ignored evidence, that their own process uncovered, to condemn Zeke. In which case the courts likely tell the NFL to do the whole dance over again and fix the process errors. I know the board doesn't want to here it but this is the situation that the players signed up for whether they did or didn't think it could turn out this way.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Zeke has a reputation of beating women?

Among other things apparently.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The only case to be made IMO is that they intentionally ignored evidence, that their own process uncovered, to condemn Zeke. In which case the courts likely tell the NFL to do the whole dance over again and fix the process errors. I know the board doesn't want to here it but this is the situation that the players signed up for whether they did or didn't think it could turn out this way.

I agree. Basically, the only thing the NFLPA can bring charges on is if the NFL followed the proper procedures. I can't say that I know if they did or if they didn't but I'm guessing they think they are covered here or they would not have taken it as far as they have.

 

[BourbonBalz]

I guess I just have a really difficult time understanding the bitterness towards the NFL. I mean, the process is one sided to be sure. However, the players knew all of this when they voted for the new CBA. The NFLPA allowed them to do this so it's really the fault of the players and the NFLPA IMO. I remember discussing this when the CBA was signed. Now the NFL is the problem and the Commissioner is the problem. Well, this is the deal they signed up for. How do you fault the NFL for using the power the players voted to give them and the power they, basically, bought and paid for? If it were me, I would take advantage of every benefit any given contract provided for me. I think that most people would. sucks for the players but honestly, they were just interested in the money.

I don't understand why fans don't have more outrage over the Players or the NFLPA.

The outrage is in the fact that the NFL has completely ignored the evidence in the case, including information and recommendations from their own investigator. They knew the outcome of this before they started. They have the power to make these types of decisions, but fairness and honesty still have to carry the day.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The outrage is in the fact that the NFL has completely ignored the evidence in the case, including information and recommendations from their own investigator. They knew the outcome of this before they started. They have the power to make these types of decisions, but fairness and honesty still have to carry the day.

I don't know that this is accurate. I mean, they may have ignored some of the findings but there were more then just that one investigator involved.

Do you believe that we are a Country of Laws?

 

[Silver Surfer]

... I'm asking why people aren't outraged over the Players/NFLPA, rather then the NFL. .......

More people identify with employees rather than with management. Its that simple. Most everybody believes, at some point in their lives, they've been subjected to arbitrary and capricious behavior by someone in power. This looks like another example of it.

I think the NFL is being foolish with their power. They're so worried about pandering and virtue signaling to a portion of their customers that they're setting themselves up for a labor strike - which will mean either 1) a work stoppage or 2) replacement players and a lower quality of product..... neither of which will help their sales/profitability.

 

[khiladi]

I reacted this way with Hardy. A few others did as well.

 

[ABQcowboyJR]

More people identify with employees rather than with management. Its that simple. Most everybody believes, at some point in their lives, they've been subjected to arbitrary and capricious behavior by someone in power. This looks like another example of it.

I think the NFL is being foolish with their power. They're so worried about pandering and virtue signaling to a portion of their customers that they're setting themselves up for a labor strike - which will mean either 1) a work stoppage or 2) replacement players and a lower quality of product..... neither of which will help their sales/profitability.

The interesting aspect in all of this is has the NFL damaged enough of their current fan base in the process of appealing to those on the fringes. They clearly don't think its a problem, but it is an interesting idea to ponder. They have attacked two of the largest fan bases now with the boys and pats.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Legally, it doesn't matter what your expectations are. Legally, it only matters what you agree to. What they agreed to was not a jury of their peers so that really isn't even valid. I don't understand why you don't understand. What am I missing?

Wrong. The rules regarding fairness and good faith apply in these types of agreements regardless what you signed.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

More people identify with employees rather than with management. Its that simple. Most everybody believes, at some point in their lives, they've been subjected to arbitrary and capricious behavior by someone in power. This looks like another example of it.

I think the NFL is being foolish with their power. They're so worried about pandering and virtue signaling to a portion of their customers that they're setting themselves up for a labor strike - which will mean either 1) a work stoppage or 2) replacement players and a lower quality of product..... neither of which will help their sales/profitability.

This is a good post IMO. I agree with almost all of this. The only thing I might not agree with is the last part, about profitability. I mean, in the short term, I absolutely agree with you but long term, it's probably more important that they maintain the control they currently have, in terms of profitability.

The players clearly can't be trusted to stay out of trouble. The majority of them probably can but because you only need a few to screw up and have the press create stories around them, makes it impossible to ignore said behavior. The NFL is going to protect their profits and the players are going to get in trouble. The players should have access to a neutral third party but the reality is that they could have negotiated for this instead of as much money but they didn't.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wrong. The rules regarding fairness and good faith apply in these types of agreements regardless what you signed.

Where is that written, if I may ask?

 

[BourbonBalz]

Where is that written, if I may ask?

They apply to ALL collective bargaining issues. It's the foundation upon which collective bargaining was founded. Do some research.

 

[speedkilz88]

I don't think you are wrong here. I think most people on the board would have done the same thing the players and PA did in the last CBA. Who wants to lose money over the 1% of players who will find themselves in this situation.

The only thing the NFLPA needs to renegotiate is for appeals to be heard by a true 3rd party.

I believe that is the agreement, but when Goodell used a true 3rd party in the Rice decision the nfl lost. After that it was either himself (lol) or one of his stooges.

 

[EPL0c0]

No. If he wanted to help Zeke he could have done his job. His decision exposed the entire appeal process as completely meaningless.

Henderson said that his job was not to second-guess the league/Commissioner's decision(s).

Yet, by reducing suspensions in other cases, that's exactly what he's done.

Specifically speaking, Henderson reduced Greg Hardy's suspension from 10-games to 4-games.

"I find that the conduct of Hardy clearly violates the letter and spirit of any version of the (personal conduct policy) since its inception, and of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws long before then. The egregious conduct exhibited here is indefensible in the NFL. However, ten games is simply too much, in my view, of an increase over prior cases without notice such as was done last year, when the 'baseline' for discipline in domestic violence or sexual assault cases was announced as a six-game suspension."

If the baseline for DV was 6-games, then why was Hardy's suspension reduced to 4-games? Why not reduce the suspension to 4-games (or fewer) in the Elliott case?

Domestic Violence seems like an absolute: either it happened or it didn't. I don't see how you mitigate a suspension for DV. It's not like there's lesser forms of DV...it's all DV.

If they're going to suspend for DV fine, but it seems a stretch to defer to "personal conduct code" to give a lesser punishment for some DV and not others.

Again, the inconsistancy of punishments by the league is a problem in itself.

 

[Silver Surfer]

This is a good post IMO. I agree with almost all of this. The only thing I might not agree with is the last part, about profitability. I mean, in the short term, I absolutely agree with you but long term, it's probably more important that they maintain the control they currently have, in terms of profitability.

The players clearly can't be trusted to stay out of trouble. The majority of them probably can but because you only need a few to screw up and have the press create stories around them, makes it impossible to ignore said behavior. The NFL is going to protect their profits and the players are going to get in trouble. The players should have access to a neutral third party but the reality is that they could have negotiated for this instead of as much money but they didn't.

You may be right about the long term profitability. My concern is that, by their actions, they've poisoned the well and the players will make league discipline a major point of contention moving forward. As many have stated elsewhere, the league should stay clear of legal/political matters and stick to its core business: entertainment.

 

[Cowboys22]

Legally, it doesn't matter what your expectations are. Legally, it only matters what you agree to. What they agreed to was not a jury of their peers so that really isn't even valid. I don't understand why you don't understand. What am I missing?

I think you are missing the fact that there are labor laws that govern all CBAs and those labor laws speak to things like fair process. No matter what is in a CBA, those making rulings under them cannot violate the labor laws that govern CBAs. Yes, Goodell was given a crapload of power and may eventually prevail but there are plenty of issues with what the NFL has done here that could give a judge the room to rule in Zeke's favor. Its an uphill battle for sure but the judge gave some clear indications that he has serious problems with the NFL in this case. He said it was different from the Brady case, said they withheld evidence, said it was unfair not to be able to question the accuser, and said he could not ignore procedural problems with the NFLs investigation.