No its not unless the woman would've said she minded. At that point it would've been more than that IMO if she went to the authorities. Otherwise this is morality stuff and I'm not for punishment based on other morality on this issue. Now if they said the punishment now was for this other than the DV less people would say something because when you're financially successful some people think you should be held to a different standard than others. I don't but wouldn't complained about the suspension but I don't think its worth a game for pulling a girls top down who had no problem with it. People are making it seem like he was reported for assault on this lady.
That is completely disgusting.
quite frankly, the way it looks now, if they wanted to suspend him 2 games for that and used that as the reason they would have been better off than this crazy DV stuff.
He's arrogant. He thinks nobody can touch him.
This is exactly the problem with the shirt incident suspension people for better or worse are going to start checking who else did similar and who did or didn't get suspended. Once they find that out it is then going to lead to questions unless everybody got suspended which we know isn't the case of why that is so. We all know one of the first things some people are going to say. I wouldn't necessarily disagree either with it unless I hear some groundbreaking reason on what is so different. I don't know if the gronk thing is true(never saw it but I assume someone has as much as its mentioned) but if it is most of us know where this is headed as far as perception.
Seriously, if this goes to court, are the NFL Lawyers going to try to argue that even though they said it was a factor, they really meant it was and now it should be factored in officially?So they "lied" to me in their own report? Now who's being "naive"?
The NFL's backs are against the wall and they are taking the time-honored position of deny, deny, deny. Rarely do you see one party in a dispute man-up and admit they made a mistake. And, I don't think it will happen here.
No, but they can say, okay jk suspension for this but 2 games for that. They didn't close the path, they left room to still punish.
Sorry I gave you more credit than you're willing to accept. Will keep in mind. I hold this board to a higher standard, honestly.
All I'm trying to say is Elliott should get one game. If he doesn't, that's despicable. The bold is definitely true, but they made the mistake of thinking they would get away with giving Elliott 6 games. I'm not arguing they didn't put their foot in their mouths, but I also am not naive enough to believe his other transgressions didn't hurt his case.
