Jerry Jones: Deflategate and Ezekiel Elliott situations are different

[speedkilz88]

DREW DAVISON
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 12:31 AM
LINK

“[Deflategate] was about whether or not the player had misrepresented to the commissioner. We’ve got rules that say if you don’t tell the truth to the commissioner then you can get sanctioned,” Jones said. “Those are rules. That’s not the case here.

“Zeke gave them everything plus some that he needed to have here. These are different issues. This has really to do with what our league’s responsibility is given the privilege that we have as a league, then what is our responsibility to really do it in a very good and accurate or acceptable way. We certainly stand to be critiqued and examined in that area. Everybody else is. Everybody who has ever made a decision in law is.

“So why should it surprise us that when we adjudicate, or the equivalent of adjudicate, over a privilege that we’ve gotten in our relationship with players and we don’t do it in a fair way, why should it surprise anybody if we got slapped? It doesn’t surprise me. You have to be fair.”

 

[Nightman]

DREW DAVISON
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 12:31 AM
LINK

“[Deflategate] was about whether or not the player had misrepresented to the commissioner. We’ve got rules that say if you don’t tell the truth to the commissioner then you can get sanctioned,” Jones said. “Those are rules. That’s not the case here.

“Zeke gave them everything plus some that he needed to have here. These are different issues. This has really to do with what our league’s responsibility is given the privilege that we have as a league, then what is our responsibility to really do it in a very good and accurate or acceptable way. We certainly stand to be critiqued and examined in that area. Everybody else is. Everybody who has ever made a decision in law is.

“So why should it surprise us that when we adjudicate, or the equivalent of adjudicate, over a privilege that we’ve gotten in our relationship with players and we don’t do it in a fair way, why should it surprise anybody if we got slapped? It doesn’t surprise me. You have to be fair.”

Translator please...... that was confusing even for JJ

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Translator please...... that was confusing even for JJ

Essentially, Brady was suspended because he refused to cooperate with the commissioner. ZekeGate is about Goodell and Henderson violating the CBA by not providing a fair methodology of investigating EE because the NFL admitted that EE did not violate the personal conduct policy with his cooperation to the case.




YR

 

[Beast_from_East]

So JJ is saying the league rail roaded Zeke where Brady refused to cooperate.

 

[robbieruff]

Once it was essentially discovered that the league office was involved in suppressing evidence (I'm calling it that based on the judge's ruling last week, chastising the league FO on attempting to hide testimony as well as not allowing x-examination of key players in the case...namely the accuser as well as the "punisher"), it became a different case and no longer about the "commissioner having ultimate authority to blah blah blah"...this case became laser focused on the "fairness" issue (notice how in his interview last night Zeke used the term "fair" in responses to reporters...that was very intentional)...I think the league's appeal today is weaker than the Giants Oline protecting Eli last night.

 

[Gameover]

And Tom Brady was 100% guilty of breaking a league rule.

 

[robbieruff]

And Tom Brady was 100% guilty of breaking a league rule.

Quite honestly...in my re-read of that case (in light of this current one), I am changing my view on the whole deflategate issue (and mind you, I was completely convinced of the Pats' guilt, esp. given the history). Now...given how the league FO operates (suppression of evidence), I'm not so sure. Goddell flat out lied when x-examined about Brady's appeals hearing testimony, which should tell us everything we need to know given what's happening with Zeke.

At least I am more of a neutral spectator on it now...

 

[robbieruff]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/jerry-...-goodell-ezekiel-elliotts-case-060807085.html

Great read on this topic...Dan breaks it down...

 

[manster4ever]

I'm with ya JJ, but you are starting to look like the crypt keeper brah. Old age sucks.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

Essentially, Brady was suspended because he refused to cooperate with the commissioner. ZekeGate is about Goodell and Henderson violating the CBA by not providing a fair methodology of investigating EE because the NFL admitted that EE did not violate the personal conduct policy with his cooperation to the case.




YR

 

[CCBoy]

For those who always complain about a 'mumbling' Jerry...just get a life of your own.

 

[coogrfan]

Essentially, Brady was suspended because he refused to cooperate with the commissioner. ZekeGate is about Goodell and Henderson violating the CBA by not providing a fair methodology of investigating EE because the NFL admitted that EE did not violate the personal conduct policy with his cooperation to the case.

Question: an attorney buddy of mine, who is familiar with the CBA because he was involved in a lawsuit filed by an ex-Texans player against the team, told me this morning that he thinks the league is ultilmately going to win because "I have seen nothing in the CBA which guarantees due process".

Thoughts?

 

[Ghost12]

Quite honestly...in my re-read of that case (in light of this current one), I am changing my view on the whole deflategate issue (and mind you, I was completely convinced of the Pats' guilt, esp. given the history). Now...given how the league FO operates (suppression of evidence), I'm not so sure. Goddell flat out lied when x-examined about Brady's appeals hearing testimony, which should tell us everything we need to know given what's happening with Zeke.

At least I am more of a neutral spectator on it now...

I respect the above statement, and respect that more people are seeing the league office for the lying POS's they are. They lied lied lied to the public (and participants) throughout deflategate and they lied lied lied to the public (and participants) with Elliott. They do everything they can to deceive, manipulate and outright lie to the media. Their tactics fool so many people because people are easily fooled into believing things they want to believe and/or things that fit their pre-conceived notions.

 

[Swanny]

And Tom Brady was 100% guilty of breaking a league rule.

I know off topic but I still find it amazing that Brady gets suspended for breaking this rule where as Aaron Rodgers admitted to over inflating his balls (against league rules) and there is absolute nothing in regards to Rodgers.

 

[Ghost12]

Question: an attorney buddy of mine, who is familiar with the CBA because he was involved in a lawsuit filed by an ex-Texans player against the team, told me this morning that he thinks the league is ultilmately going to win because "I have seen nothing in the CBA which guarantees due process".

Thoughts?

Your friend's interpretation is exactly what CA2 ruled last year. They set an obscenely low bar for fairness with regards to arbitration proceedings. They ruled Brady had no right of access to investigative files. They ruled Brady had no right to force testimony. They ruled that arbitrators do not need to comply with evidentiary rules and they "possess substantial discretion to admit or exclude evidence." In other words, they ruled against Brady in all the same arguments that Elliott is presenting.

A different district may come to a different conclusion. I believe at this point it is little more than a crapshoot, depending entirely on the (effectively) random draw of judges assigned to the appeal (meaning the appeal of the actual case itself coming next year, not the appeal of the injunction coming next week)

 

[robbieruff]

Question: an attorney buddy of mine, who is familiar with the CBA because he was involved in a lawsuit filed by an ex-Texans player against the team, told me this morning that he thinks the league is ultilmately going to win because "I have seen nothing in the CBA which guarantees due process".

Thoughts?

I don't think (personal opinion) the argument right now is about "due process"...whether it be a constitutional question OR a CBA-related issue. This conversation, based on the recent judge's ruling" is about FAIRNESS as it relates to balanced and transparent conduct of the league FO in the way it reaches decisions and doles out punishment. If you're involved in unfair practices that stack decks and (even worse) suppress evidence, you're gonna get nailed by the courts...no matter how much power your CBA gives you. This is borderline criminal conduct on behalf of the league FO...they tried to hide/suppress key witness testimony (in this case from their LEAD INVESTIGATOR) in order to paint a false picture on the fairness and justice of their final decision. They FOLLOWED the "due process" as outlined by the CBA in terms of the investigation, initial decision and player's appeal...that's not the problem...the problem is they acted in an underhanded and unethical matter (according to a US judge)...and no CBA allows for that.

 

[Galian Beast]

Question: an attorney buddy of mine, who is familiar with the CBA because he was involved in a lawsuit filed by an ex-Texans player against the team, told me this morning that he thinks the league is ultilmately going to win because "I have seen nothing in the CBA which guarantees due process".

Thoughts?

I don't think that due process is explicitly stated in the CBA, but it is implicit, which holds value.

The very fact that the NFLPA has stated in the contract an ability for a player to appeal a suspension implicitly would state that the process involved would need to be due and fair. You can't write everything out in a contract and some things are if deemed clear to a neutral observer as the spirit of the contract, it should/will win out in court.

 

[Galian Beast]

I don't think (personal opinion) the argument right now is about "due process"...whether it be a constitutional question OR a CBA-related issue. This conversation, based on the recent judge's ruling" is about FAIRNESS as it relates to balanced and transparent conduct of the league FO in the way it reaches decisions and doles out punishment. If you're involved in unfair practices that stack decks and (even worse) suppress evidence, you're gonna get nailed by the courts...no matter how much power your CBA gives you. This is borderline criminal conduct on behalf of the league FO...they tried to hide/suppress key witness testimony (in this case from their LEAD INVESTIGATOR) in order to paint a false picture on the fairness and justice of their final decision. They FOLLOWED the "due process" as outlined by the CBA in terms of the investigation, initial decision and player's appeal...that's not the problem...the problem is they acted in an underhanded and unethical matter (according to a US judge)...and no CBA allows for that.

Exactly. The CBA states Elliott is due an appeal, the inherently and implicitly means that that appeal needs to be fair, otherwise it isn't an appeal at all.

Someone mentioned that the appellate court could remand this back to arbitration, but I think if there is any question of fairness, the idea that this could go back to arbitration would mean that Elliott could not get a fair hearing. Similar to his suspension, I believe this is an all or nothing deal. Either the NFL was fair or it wasn't, and if they weren't how can you expect them to be going forward?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Question: an attorney buddy of mine, who is familiar with the CBA because he was involved in a lawsuit filed by an ex-Texans player against the team, told me this morning that he thinks the league is ultilmately going to win because "I have seen nothing in the CBA which guarantees due process".

Thoughts?

I'm not an attorney. I did study some law in college, but that and a token will get you a ride on the subway.

I have discussed this with some friends of mine that are attorneys, one of whom works extensively in labor law and unions in Pennsylvania.

The CBA does not guarantee the same rights that you would get under the court of law. However, it does guarantee that in the case where the player is not convicted or even arrested, there must be credible evidence for the NFL to suspend the player. The problem was that the credible evidence the NFL used was:

1. Tiffany Thompson's testimony.
2. The doctors the NFL hired as expert witnesses
3. Whatever notes that the NFL had with regards to the subject

The NFLPA argues...along with Judge Mazzant is that Thompson was perceived as not credible by Kia Roberts and Lisa Friel basically neglected Roberts' analysis of the situation and recommendation (no suspension). And that the NFLPA wasn't allowed to cross examine Thompson to better determine how credible she was. And the forensic pathologist the NFLPA brought forth showed that the doctors the NFL hired were essentially making things up with regards to where the bruises came from and when they happened. And I believe Judge Mazzant was probably none too happy with Dr. Thanning faking an illness to bet out of being deposed by the NFLPA.

Judge Mazzant also stated that since the NFLPA wasn't allowed to look at the notes the NFL had on the case, there was no way to cross examine evidence.

'Due process' in this case would be more along the lines of being innocent until proven guilty. The NFLPA doesn't guarantee that. But they do guarantee a certain fairness and guidelines and Mazzant basically ruled that he did not feel that the NFLPA was afforded that fairness and that Goodell and Henderson violated the CBA.

In the end, my gut tells me that the NFL will end up winning. My thinking is that along the lines of 'due process', the NFL could argue that because they didn't find EE credible, that is all that matters in warranting a suspension. Their claims of not finding EE credible are a little ridiculous as they claim that it was mainly based off of:

1. EE saying TT wasn't his girlfriend. But he freely admitted they had a sexual relationship and he paid for her rent and co-signed on her car. As the NFLPA argued...EE didn't lie as much as there is a different interpretation of what constitutes a 'boyfriend/girlfriend' relationship from EE versus how Friel interprets it.


2. EE couldn't explain away her bruises that she allegedly received on the 18th. Again, this was 'guilty until proven innocent' investigating and we don't know how credible the meta-data evidence is.


3. EE stated that on the night of the 21st Tiffany Thompson wasn't ignoring him but they showed a text where EE asked TT why she was ignoring him. While the texts point that out...I don't find it to be damning that a guy that is asked several months later may have forgotten about that whether somebody was ignoring him or not.


4. According to the NFL, none of the witnesses came forward to back up EE. But this is assuming that the NFL made a good faith effort to contact these witnesses and these witnesses did give a sworn affidavit which has legal repercussions for lying and the NFL has no legal power to go after a citizen that lies to them. And the NFLPA was able to get some of these witnesses to come forward in the appeal which makes me think that the NFL didn't make a good faith effort to get ahold of some of these witnesses. And the other witnesses that didn't come forward may have just not wanted to be a part of the hysteria and hooplah of this organization. The NFL has no problem protecting Tiffany Thompson, but innocent citizens are the ones they want to go after.

In the end, my objections don't really matter because the again...as long as the NFL doesn't find EE credible...even as screwy as their logic may be and how full of crap they may be...that may be enough for this to get overturned and for EE to serve the suspension.

That's why I think EE and his team really need to go out and fight the court of public opinion. The only thing that matters to the NFL is the PR game. And if you show that the PR is against them, then that is the only chance you have of getting the NFL to drop it because they don't want to look bad.





YR

 

[sean10mm]

The fundamental problem with the punishment process in the NFL is that it's so arbitrary you could use it as a random number generator for physics experiments.

Just look at what Goodell did to the Patriots. Spygate was a huge deal and he helped to cover it up by literally destroying evidence. Deflategate was a stupid equipment violation for babies (if it even happened at all), and they went berserk. Beating women is worth anything between a 1 game suspension and infinity, smoking too much weed gets an indefinite ban while literally cheating with drugs that actually improve performance might get you 4 games. Like half the Seahawks used adderall as a masking agent for PEDs and got nothing, Peyton used his wife as an HGH mule and got nothing, but hoooly smokes if you're a Browns receiver who likes wacky tabaccy you're going to get the HAMMER.

It's staring into a dimension of pure chaos that puts The Twilight Zone to shame. Nothing makes sense and nothing matters.