http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...ekiel-elliotts-suspension-and-what-comes-next
The NFL has suspended Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott for the first six games of this season, the result of a yearlong investigation into allegations of domestic violence.
How did we get here and what happens next? Let's take a closer look.
What exactly did Elliott do?
Perhaps the more precise question is this: What does the NFL believe he did?
OK. What does the NFL believe he did?
According to a letter commissioner Roger Goodell sent to Elliott, the league determined that Elliott used physical violence "multiple times" against a woman he had an "intimate relationship" with in July 2016 while in Columbus, Ohio. These findings violated the NFL's personal conduct policy, which was updated in December 2014 to allow six-game suspensions on the first offense of domestic violence. That baseline can be increased or decreased based on mitigating circumstances.
That's the policy put in place after the Ray Rice incident?
Yes. The NFL was embarrassed when it saw the video of Rice -- a Baltimore Ravens running back at the time -- punching his then-fiancé in an elevator. Prior to the video's widespread release, Goodell had suspended Rice only two games -- the standard first-offense penalty at the time.
Huh. What sort of legal trouble is Elliott facing?
None. In September 2016, the Columbus city attorney's office announced it would not pursue charges, citing "conflicting and inconsistent information."
No charges? Does the NFL know more than the justice system?
Not necessarily. It does not need to meet the same legal threshold. The league employs its own investigative structure. In this case, it used an advisory panel made up of two attorneys, a retired player (Hall of Famer Ken Houston) and the CEO of The Women of Color Network (Tanya Lovelace).
The investigation yielded what the NFL found to be credible photographic and digital evidence of domestic violence. The league has the institutional right to penalize players regardless of the legal outcome
Really? I'd like to see that in writing.
The NFL's personal conduct policy states in part: "[E]ven if your conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, if the league finds that you have engaged in conduct [prohibited by the policy], you will be subject to discipline."
What about the accuser? How does the NFL know she is telling the truth? How does the NFL know that Elliott caused the injuries in the photographs?
In his letter, Goodell acknowledged the concerns expressed by Elliott's representatives about the credibility of the accuser and "alternative causation." However, Goodell wrote, "there has been no persuasive evidence presented on your behalf with respect to how [the accuser's] obvious injuries were incurred other than the conjecture based on the presence of some of her bruising which pre-dates your arrival."
"No persuasive evidence presented on your behalf."
Yes. This line speaks to the NFL's lower threshold for discipline relative to the legal system. The city attorney cited "conflicting" information in deciding not to press charges. The NFL said Elliott didn't provide evidence to support a different explanation. In other words, Elliott was unable to prove his innocence. In court, he would have to be proven guilty. This is an issue that has arisen frequently in NFL discipline.