Did Henderson help Zeke?

[erod]

Because of good faith. Normal People understand that there is give and take. NFLPA unfortunately has learned a valuable lesson. Don't trust anyone.

98% of the league's players aren't affected by this policy and don't care. They want their money before it's over. They don't put themselves in these positions.

You think Sean Lee or Tyron Smith are worried about Article 46?

 

[HanD]

98% of the league's players aren't affected by this policy and don't care. They want their money before it's over. They don't put themselves in these positions.

You think Sean Lee or Tyron Smith are worried about Article 46?

to some extent every player should be because this opens up all players to blackmail and the nfl siding with someone shaking you down for money or being vindictive.

 

[superonyx]

98% of the league's players aren't affected by this policy and don't care. They want their money before it's over. They don't put themselves in these positions.

You think Sean Lee or Tyron Smith are worried about Article 46?

Yes.
I think every player sees the way this was handled by the league and feels some concern.

Just like my friends who are Eagles and Ravens fans see this and now have concern.

It's like the old poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Of course they 'Knew' but to the extent as to how their doing it probably never entered their minds. Josh gets a game for admitting it.......Ezee gets 6 and he didn't do it.

Yah......I'm sure everybody saw that coming.

C'mon man. The level of corruption the NFL is currenty utilizing, it would've been a wildest dreams/conspiracy theory talk at that point.

Timing is very relevant here. When the whole Josh Brown thing happened (I'm assuming this is who you are talking about), the NFL had not implemented the mandatory 6 game suspension for Domestic Violence. In fact, that Josh Brown case is why the NFL adopted the mandatory 6 game policy.

I would also point out that I have not heard anybody say Elliott didn't do it. What I have heard is that the DA did not find enough evidence to charge him with. That's a different thing then, he did nothing.
Having said all of this, I am not here to say that the NFL is fair with how they do things or that Zeke is guilty of criminal behavior, with regards to DV issues. He may or he may not be, I don't know. What I am here to say is that the NFL and the Commissioner are not here to hand out legal justice. They are here to protect the Shield and the Owners interests. Two completely different things. This is more of a labor dispute then it is a legal issue, to be honest. This is what people just do not seem to get. This really has nothing, at all, to do with the law. This is about violating a contract and what the employer wants to do to the employee, to change the behavior. When it's all said and done, that's what this is. People trying to attach the law to this situation are simply not getting it, IMO. Has nothing to do with the law or burden of proof IMO.

 

[erod]

Yes.
I think every player sees the way this was handled by the league and feels some concern.

Just like my friends who are Eagles and Ravens fans see this and now have concern.

It's like the old poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

But here's the problem. Most players play 3-4 years and make a total of less than a million dollars ($500K after taxes). Then, they're done.

They don't have time on their side. A strike costs them one of those 3-4 years, maybe the whole career because they're relatively replaceable anyway.

Are they going to risk their short window over an issue that only affects a very small handful of players?

 

[BlindFaith]

You kinda like to put words in other peoples mouths huh.

For the record, this is not about what the law dictates and I have said this over and over and over again. I do not know what the NFL or the Commissioner uses as a standard for penalty in these situations but I'm assuming that they believe Zeke reached it. You just literally DO NOT GET IT. This has nothing to do with what I think. It has less to do with what you think. This is about what the NFL can do and if they followed specified procedure. That's it. If you don't like what the players or the NFLPA agreed to, then maybe you should go to the players and tell them you can do a better job.

I did not vote for anything. I was not the one who agreed to the terms of the CBA. You trying to ask me if I think xyz or if I agree with xyz is completely pointless and a waste of time. Doesn't matter what any of us think. Figure it out.

I have figured it out. You, just like Goodell, see Zeke as guilty. You dont care that there are no facts to back it up. You dont care that the accusor has lied. You dont care about figuring out what happened.
You've made some accusations that Zeke has a history if this.
You, like Goodell, think he needs to be punished. Even though you cant prove he did anything. But you just know he had to of done something and you just cant let him get away with it.
But what if he is 100% innocent? Never did anything and you and Goodell are just flat wrong? And that's the verdict law enforcement made along with the verdict the flimsy "evidence" leads.
But you're ok with that because the NFLPA agreed to fair and honest reviews and arbitration of DV cases.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Good faith and the expectation of fairness are legal terms that do apply in this case. If Goodell's over-reaching crosses the line where we are talking about fundamental issues that touch on the country's labor laws, then there is are grounds to fight it. It may seem like the powers given to Goodell are limitless, but they are not.

Add the tin-foil territory of what looks like the hands of Giants fan intervening to change a decision and fans have plenty of reason to be angry. As much as blaming Mara and Friel is speculation, there are actual events that make such speculation far less outlandish than the run of the mill conspiracy theory. The NFLPA has even used conspiracy in it PR.

You may be right Erik, but I've the feeling that you are going to find that none of the above are applicable. Good faith only applies to the application of the process. It does not apply to how the NFL adjudicates in such matters.

The labor laws that govern most working Americans don't really apply here. NFL players sign personal services contracts. Very different deal.

Goodell holds all the cards IMO. It's really only a matter of if the NFL did things according to process.

 

[superonyx]

Timing is very relevant here. When the whole Josh Brown thing happened (I'm assuming this is who you are talking about), the NFL had not implemented the mandatory 6 game suspension for Domestic Violence. In fact, that Josh Brown case is why the NFL adopted the mandatory 6 game policy.

I would also point out that I have not heard anybody say Elliott didn't do it. What I have heard is that the DA did not find enough evidence to charge him with. That's a different thing then, he did nothing.
Having said all of this, I am not here to say that the NFL is fair with how they do things or that Zeke is guilty of criminal behavior, with regards to DV issues. He may or he may not be, I don't know. What I am here to say is that the NFL and the Commissioner are not here to hand out legal justice. They are here to protect the Shield and the Owners interests. Two completely different things. This is more of a labor dispute then it is a legal issue, to be honest. This is what people just do not seem to get. This really has nothing, at all, to do with the law. This is about violating a contract and what the employer wants to do to the employee, to change the behavior. When it's all said and done, that's what this is. People trying to attach the law to this situation are simply not getting it, IMO. Has nothing to do with the law or burden of proof IMO.

I agree with some of your points.
I agree the DA. (2 different ones in different cities and a league paid investigator) didn't say he didn't do it...because those are words you will never hear from a DA. They don't say a person is innocent they just say there is insufficient evidence to prove them guilty.

I agree the commissioner is hired to protect the brand of the NFL. His handling of almost every DV case so far has hurt the brand more than protected it...but that's for another conversation.

Where this becomes grey and messy is defining what's a fair hearing, trial, case, investigation to determine if an employer can take away an employees wages etc.

People are attaching law to this because now it will become about the law and what an employer has to prove to discipline an employee and what legal recourse does the employee have. It gets messier than a regular job because it's in the public eye and ther are endorsement contracts to consider so the damage isn't just lost wages. Also the league puts out public statements that may need to be considered when deciding a burden of proof.

I believe this needs to happen to get these lines drawn. I personally feel uncomfortable with Power than can go unchecked.

 

[superonyx]

But here's the problem. Most players play 3-4 years and make a total of less than a million dollars ($500K after taxes). Then, they're done.

They don't have time on their side. A strike costs them one of those 3-4 years, maybe the whole career because they're relatively replaceable anyway.

Are they going to risk their short window over an issue that only affects a very small handful of players?

Time will tell. I agree with you and your thought process.
The other side of this is that most young players who are 22-25 don't feel that a year will cause them to lose 1 of only 3 years of their careers because any player who is good enough to play at this level doesn't believe their careers are only going to last 3 years.

I would imagine it's the veteran players who carry the voting weight in these situations. The majority of the players will defer to their union reps and the advice of the union.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I still think asking about the process that went into determining Josh Brown's 1-game suspension is important not just in Elliott's case but for the NFLPA & all players in general..

If the issue is about fairness of the process or if protocols were followed, I'd like to see Zeke's legal team ask Goodell/NFL if they believe there are varying severities of domestic violence that deserve varying severities of punishment.

Are 3 alleged incidents of DV worse than 20+ admitted incidents of DV and do they deserve a more severe punishment?

I dunno, I still think the league has enforced the policies very unevenly, not really sticking to any legit standard.

Though I have believed that the NFL was trying to right its ship with the Zeke case and use IT as the standard to measure future DV incidents/punishments.

Browns case has no bearing on this because of when it happened. The standard for DV is 6 games. When Brown admitted to his improprieties, this policy was not in play. That's why he did not receive the 6 game standard. Now, I agree, it seems like the NFL runs fast and lose with this sometimes but in terms of Brown vs Zeke, totally different because of the timing.

I do agree with you, however, it's hard to understand how they could give Brown just 1 game. That doesn't seem right to me at all.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Really? You went to the "he didn't have to play in the NFL" argument...
And JFK wasn't the victim when the bullet ripped through his head either. He knew there was a chance a president could get shot...and come on, someone should have told him not to ride in a convertible..

I'm not sure Zeke knew by signing a contract he was exposing himself to an employer that would slander him to the world and call him a monster while robbing him of his rights to a reasonable defense just to cover for their own flaws in dealing with Ray Rice and Josh Brown.

Yep. I absolutely did because it's the truth, like it or not. He didn't have to sign the contract but he did. If you want to play in the NFL, then suck it up and accept that you play under the terms of the rules, according to the CBA.

I don't even know what you are complaining about. You are trying to use the argument that because he was not in the league when the current CBA was signed, that he should not be held responsible. That's like saying because I was not born when this country implemented a tax code, I should not be responsible for paying taxes. I mean, that's how weak that argument is. He has lawyers, agents, NFLPA representatives, NFL personnel, the Commissioner himself, that advise him of what he can and can't do when he joins the league but that's not enough. Really?

 

[Nightman]

Browns case has no bearing on this because of when it happened. The standard for DV is 6 games. When Brown admitted to his improprieties, this policy was not in play. That's why he did not receive the 6 game standard. Now, I agree, it seems like the NFL runs fast and lose with this sometimes but in terms of Brown vs Zeke, totally different because of the timing.

I do agree with you, however, it's hard to understand how they could give Brown just 1 game. That doesn't seem right to me at all.

What are you talking about?

Josh Brown was suspended last year and the new DV policy was put in 2014

You are way off and of course if matters that he only got 1 game as an admitted repeat offender and a NYG

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I disagree and all the legal opinions I've read have said that the league is obligated to make a fair decision. I believe his attorneys feel very confident that they can convince a judge that the league purposely ignored and shut down evidence that contradicts their decision.

I don't believe this will only be a case about protocol. I think this will be the case to define Goodells limits of absolute power.

Fair in terms of process. The rule is the rule. If you can show me what you are talking about, when you say, "legal opinions I've read", I would be in a much better position to discuss what you are commenting on, in this post.

 

[erod]

to some extent every player should be because this opens up all players to blackmail and the nfl siding with someone shaking you down for money or being vindictive.

There are 1,700 players in the NFL. They come and go. Gotta get it while you can. The players after you won't thank you anyway.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I can see the question being raised about Kia Roberts report and findings to Friel becoming an issue. The league can say Goodell knew and considered it...but since Kia was not alllowed in the room where the 4 outsiders discussed the case the question may be raised about what the people knew and what they were actually told from Friel. I don't know what legal obligation Friel has to report all the evidence and if she has the right to use only parts that help her position while leaving Kia's notes and opinions out of the room.

I'm interested and a judge may also be in finding out what length Friel and Goodell went to keep Kia's findings away from the 4 outsiders. It won't look good if a judge starts finding out only damning evidence was presented to them.

This is more along the lines of what I think can be contested. This is about process. The other stuff, that's just noise IMO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have figured it out. You, just like Goodell, see Zeke as guilty. You dont care that there are no facts to back it up. You dont care that the accusor has lied. You dont care about figuring out what happened.
You've made some accusations that Zeke has a history if this.
You, like Goodell, think he needs to be punished. Even though you cant prove he did anything. But you just know he had to of done something and you just cant let him get away with it.
But what if he is 100% innocent? Never did anything and you and Goodell are just flat wrong? And that's the verdict law enforcement made along with the verdict the flimsy "evidence" leads.
But you're ok with that because the NFLPA agreed to fair and honest reviews and arbitration of DV cases.

No, I don't think you have.

 

[JoeKing]

Henderson only displayed how deep the rabbit hole of corruption in on this deal. It should have been easy to see this suspension ruling was bogus but instead of doing his due diligence with the information he was given by Zeke's defense team, he didn't even consider half of the evidence and just bowed to the commish's marching orders to uphold the suspension. The Texas Judge is going to rip the NFL a new anal passage when he rules on this case. Zeke will be cleared of these DV allegations.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with some of your points.
I agree the DA. (2 different ones in different cities and a league paid investigator) didn't say he didn't do it...because those are words you will never hear from a DA. They don't say a person is innocent they just say there is insufficient evidence to prove them guilty.

I agree the commissioner is hired to protect the brand of the NFL. His handling of almost every DV case so far has hurt the brand more than protected it...but that's for another conversation.

Where this becomes grey and messy is defining what's a fair hearing, trial, case, investigation to determine if an employer can take away an employees wages etc.

People are attaching law to this because now it will become about the law and what an employer has to prove to discipline an employee and what legal recourse does the employee have. It gets messier than a regular job because it's in the public eye and ther are endorsement contracts to consider so the damage isn't just lost wages. Also the league puts out public statements that may need to be considered when deciding a burden of proof.

I believe this needs to happen to get these lines drawn. I personally feel uncomfortable with Power than can go unchecked.

I agree with your statement on power. I don't ever think it's a good idea to have absolute anything, for the most part. But that's what the players signed up for, in spite of the fact that a lot of people said it was a mistake. They did this to themselves. This isn't even really about what I think personally. This is what is IMO.

Sucks but that's the deal here and in the spirit of full disclosure, I will say this. I don't think Zeke is completely innocent here. I think he has done stuff that he should not have. Did he beat up this girl, I don't think there is sufficient proof of anything, at this point. So you have to say that legally, he is not guilty but because of the CBA that doesn't really matter. I also think that Goodell is the arm of the owners and he doesn't really care about fair. He cares about the owners best interests and if that means playing dirty to get something done, he will do it. He's not a good guy either. That's what I think but like I say, what I think personally doesn't really matter.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What are you talking about?

Josh Brown was suspended last year and the new DV policy was put in 2014

You are way off and of course if matters that he only got 1 game as an admitted repeat offender and a NYG

Really? I thought that went into effect in 2016. If it really is 2014, then yeah, I would have to agree.

 

[Nightman]

Browns case has no bearing on this because of when it happened. The standard for DV is 6 games. When Brown admitted to his improprieties, this policy was not in play. That's why he did not receive the 6 game standard. Now, I agree, it seems like the NFL runs fast and lose with this sometimes but in terms of Brown vs Zeke, totally different because of the timing.

I do agree with you, however, it's hard to understand how they could give Brown just 1 game. That doesn't seem right to me at all.

Here is the NFL's reply to Brown's one game suspension....it doesn't back up what you are arguing at all...... it was about Mrs Brown's lack of cooperation as a witness...... that was the mitigating factor

So if a woman lies to protect her husband who admits repeated abuse = one game
If she lies to convict him = 6 games


"In May 2015, the NFL was informed by the New York Giants of Josh Brown's arrest for an incident in his home involving his then wife. We began an investigation into the incident and circumstances surrounding it.


In the course of the League’s investigation, our investigators became aware that his wife had filed a statement with the county court alleging previous altercations between the spouses. However, despite multiple attempts to speak with her about this incident and her previous statements, she declined to speak with us. We understand that there are many reasons that might have affected her decision not to speak with us, but we were limited in our ability to investigate these allegations.


Over the course of the 10-month investigation, we also made numerous requests—as late as this spring—to local law enforcement officers for information on the case and previous allegations. They declined those requests for information.


As a result of these factors, our investigators had insufficient information to corroborate prior allegations. In addition, no criminal charges were brought forward regarding the incident in question or prior allegations. The NFL therefore made a decision based on the evidentiary findings around this one incident as provided to us by the District Attorney.


The NFL made a finding that Mr. Brown had violated the Personal Conduct Policy. We did so based on the evidence of this one incident as presented in the police report, Mr. Brown and his wife’s statements to police that evening, and his statements in interviews with the NFL.


The NFL Personal Conduct policy allows for discipline to be imposed even when criminal charges are not presented. It further allows for us to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors regarding discipline for domestic violence.


After reviewing the evidence in this one incident, we imposed a one-game suspension for violation of the personal conduct policy.


Mr. Brown and the NFLPA appealed this discipline, but the decision was upheld by a hearing officer."