PFT: NFL declines to release Elliott investigative report, transcript of hearing

[JJHLH1]

Goodell needs to read it before it is released to the public.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I don't think Elliott is accepting it. He will appeal. Can he win in court?

I don't think he can stop the suspension because of the CBA but he can win the public battle. Maybe if he can prove that the NFL slandered him that would be a big victory and the NFL would have to reduce it. I think that's the best he can hope for right now. If he does nothing that woman is going to sue him in civil court too. You know that's coming. The NFL decision helps her case too.

 

[bigbob]

Did they ever show the public how they knew Brady deflated footballs?

Good point.

 

[LandryFan]

I didn't get that by maybe I missed it. In the decision section of the letter they specifically talk about the DV policy and how it calls for 6 games mandatory.

After going back and reading the league's statement again, this paragraph stuck out:
Under the terms of the NFL's personal conduct policy, players found by the league to have committed domestic violence are subject to "a baseline suspension without pay of six games" regardless of whether "the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction."
I was under the impression that the Personal Conduct policy and the DV policy were separate. Looking at the quote above, it seems that DV is a sort of "subsection" of the "Personal Conduct" policy, which would explain why both were referenced.

 

[haleyrules]

I don't think he can stop the suspension because of the CBA but he can win the public battle. Maybe if he can prove that the NFL slandered him that would be a big victory and the NFL would have to reduce it. I think that's the best he can hope for right now. If he does nothing that woman is going to sue him in civil court too. You know that's coming. The NFL decision helps her case too.

Interesting. What if he loses in court?

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

After going back and reading the league's statement again, this paragraph stuck out:
Under the terms of the NFL's personal conduct policy, players found by the league to have committed domestic violence are subject to "a baseline suspension without pay of six games" regardless of whether "the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction."
I was under the impression that the Personal Conduct policy and the DV policy were separate. Looking at the quote above, it seems that DV is a sort of "subsection" of the "Personal Conduct" policy, which would explain why both were referenced.

I was under that same impression. This makes sense given what happened.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Interesting. What if he loses in court?

Well then at least he tried. I think more evidence will have to come in a court case and we'll feel better in supporting him. If he's guilty than he should just admit it and apologize. There is no sense fighting it if he knows the NFL has evidence against him. But I tell you from what I'm hearing about that woman it sounds like she was stalking him. lol

 

[tyke1doe]

Read the first paragraph of the decision section.

The letter states that the policy is clear for violations of physical force against a woman. First violations are a mandatory 6 games unless there are mitigating factors. The letter says there are no mitigating factors here and as such, he gets the 6 game suspension for first time DV violators. There is no nebulousness here. The policy is clear AND the NFL letter states the policy is clear. If you commit a DV (under their findings), you are suspended 6 games mandatory.

So let me get this straight. The letter clearly states he broke the DV policy but yet they aren't saying that he did hit the girl?

Your move.

You gave me a paraphrased version. Please cite the section where it says that Zeke beat his ex.

Your move.

Nevermind. Plankton provided what I was looking for.

 

[tyke1doe]

Page 3 of the letter sent to him indicates otherwise:

"Based on the entire record, the credible evidence establishes that on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016, you used physical force against Ms. Thompson, resulting in her injury, specifically as follows...."

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/08/11/ezekiel-elliott-suspension-letter-nfl

Thank you.
Then I stand corrected.

 

[tyke1doe]

They referred to him as a "woman beater." Defamation of character.

As our resident lawyer pointed out, he likely can't use for defamation because he's a celebrity and has to prove malice. That's near impossible.

 

[tyke1doe]

LOL the reason why they aren't releasing they probably don't have any information about the investigation. The Panel, just like Goddell, probably already made up their minds on how to punish Elliiott and never even bothered to seek information from the Ohio prosecutors.

Maybe so. But that's not what I'm arguing.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Bad thing is the players did it to themselves...or the NFLPA should I say. They entered into the agreement that gave him virtually unlimited power in these situations.

I seem to recall Jerry being monumental on getting the deal done. That's kind of ironic.

Yep they sure did. They are paying him 30 plus million a year.

 

[tyke1doe]

I doubt the league weighed in in whatever decision they laid on Elliott.

I believe Florio has a point. That the commissioner decides first on the outcome. And then tries to justify it working backgrounds. That doesn't seem like someone caring whatever legal ramifications comes its way.

I don't disagree. But the conduct policy is very broad, and I believe that's by legal design.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Yeah, to prove defamation they'd have to be able to prove that the league knew without any doubt that he was innocent and made that statement anyway. Short of the league having a signed confession that the ex was making everything up and there was no other evidence - all before they ruled - it ain't happening.

 

[Stash]

The people in that comment section is exactly why this decision against zeke is wrong. Because of the NFL's decision, everybody assumes that zeke is a wife beater because they're all too stupid and lazy to do some basic fact checking.

Exactly. Nobody can be bothered to do their homework or think for themselves. Too much effort.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I don't disagree. But the conduct policy is very broad, and I believe that's by legal design.

Well the conduct policy states that you don't have to be convicted. However, in Elliotts case it didn't even go to court. This whole thing is moot because the policy states he has to be charged and brought to a trail. Zeke's case was thrown out and never went to trail. Thus the conduct policy doesn't apply to Zeke and should be thrown out.

I believe he will serve 0 game suspension from all of this.

Here is one of the sentences from the conduct policy:

Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this Policy) are subject to discipline. But even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

• Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence;
• Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses;
• Violent or threatening behavior toward another employee or a third party in any workplace setting; Stalking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation;
• Illegal possession of a gun or other weapon (such as explosives, toxic substances, and the like), or possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting;
• Illegal possession, use, or distribution of alcohol or drugs;
• Possession, use, or distribution of steroids or other performance enhancing substances;
• Crimes involving cruelty to animals as defined by state or federal law;
• Crimes of dishonesty such as blackmail, extortion, fraud, money laundering, or racketeering;
• Theft-related crimes such as burglary, robbery, or larceny;
• Disorderly conduct;
• Crimes against law enforcement, such as obstruction, resisting arrest, or harming a police officer or other law enforcement officer;
• Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and  Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

 

[Pants]

NFL = NO PROOF, LOGIC
to how they make decisions
#Marasucks

 

[tyke1doe]

Well the conduct policy states that you don't have to be convicted. However, in Elliotts case it didn't even go to court. This whole thing is moot because the policy states he has to be charged and brought to a trail. Zeke's case was thrown out and never went to trail. Thus the conduct policy doesn't apply to Zeke and should be thrown out.

I believe he will serve 0 game suspension from all of this.

Here is one of the sentences from the conduct policy:

Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this Policy) are subject to discipline. But even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:

• Actual or threatened physical violence against another person, including dating violence, domestic violence, child abuse, and other forms of family violence;
• Assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses;
• Violent or threatening behavior toward another employee or a third party in any workplace setting; Stalking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation;
• Illegal possession of a gun or other weapon (such as explosives, toxic substances, and the like), or possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting;
• Illegal possession, use, or distribution of alcohol or drugs;
• Possession, use, or distribution of steroids or other performance enhancing substances;
• Crimes involving cruelty to animals as defined by state or federal law;
• Crimes of dishonesty such as blackmail, extortion, fraud, money laundering, or racketeering;
• Theft-related crimes such as burglary, robbery, or larceny;
• Disorderly conduct;
• Crimes against law enforcement, such as obstruction, resisting arrest, or harming a police officer or other law enforcement officer;
• Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and  Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

Thanks for the information, but I didn't see where it said the player has to be charged. Did I missed that part in your post?

 

[drawandstrike]

Never cared for Florio, but on this issue I'm glad he's pushing the NFL to come clean. He apparently has a usefulness after all.

Florio's team is the Commanders, I think that's obvious. But on many issues he's tried to be fair and keep his bias in check. He did a good post here covering this.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Thanks for the information, but I didn't see where it said the player has to be charged. Did I missed that part in your post?

Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this Policy) are subject to discipline. But even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline. Prohibited conduct includes but is not limited to the following:


The policy is based on those that actually are accused of DV and presently on trail. Zeke never went to trail or was never arrested or went to court regarding DV.

Because there was no conviction or any type of prosecution to try and convict Zeke, I don't think this suspension won't hold water if Zeke and the Cowboys wish to fight it tooth or nail.