The NFL botched the Ezekiel Elliott probe, but won't admit it

[CowboysRule]

The letter sent to Zeke mentions the parade incident directly and also mentions they interviewed the girl that he was with. So... YES HE IS!

It also mentions that that incident was in no way contributed to his suspension.

 

[dogunwo]

It also mentions that that incident was in no way contributed to his suspension.

I wonder if the NFL wants a mulligan on this one. They could have suspended him under the conduct policy and given him 2-3 games and been done with it. Cowboys fans would still be upset, but the proof is there for that. I would have been fine with it.

 

[TheCount]

It may not be a court case yet, but I feel that it soon will be.

And I believe that it will come down to the NFL vs the 6th amendment to the Constitution, in which an individual is "innocent until proven guilty".

That is specifically what is attempted to be circumvented here.

If you truly believe that, then I don't know what to tell you, Stash.

Sean Payton was suspended for a year and I don't believe I saw anyone bringing up the consitution then.

 

[Doomsday101]

I wonder if the NFL wants a mulligan on this one. They could have suspended him under the conduct policy and given him 2-3 games and been done with it. Cowboys fans would still be upset, but the proof is there for that. I would have been fine with it.

True but then any punishment handed down to Zeke is punishment for something he claims he did not do and would affect him greatly in terms of reputation and of course endorsements which can add up to a lot more money than a football contract alone.

 

[EGTuna]

The only thing is--maybe that there was some evidence that couldn't be explained in the Brady case like the cell phone and the inflator guy.

This case seems to have very little credible evidence at all. When you take into account all the affidavits and her plotting to blackmail him, and her being in a fight the night in question. Among other things

I agree with you 100%. I doubt the NFL will.

 

[CyberB0b]

I've heard some other people say that too. But I don't see where anyone could have given the league anything that contradicts innocent until proven guilty.

I also can't find where this "discression" was agreed to, since the Ray Rice incident occurred after the latest CBA was agreed to.

We're certainly going to find out either way.

Innocent until proven guilty is your right under a criminal investigation. This is contract law. Completely different.

Everyone should welcome their day in court to be heard. It's a constitutional right in this country. Elliott's shouldn't be taken away, not by anybody.

And I'm certain that Thompson will waive that right (to testify) because she can't possibly reconcile all of he lies and inaccuracies.

That will separate the "offender" from the "victim" quite clearly.

Again, this has nothing to do with the Constitution.

 

[dogunwo]

True but then any punishment handed down to Zeke is punishment for something he claims he did not do and would affect him greatly in terms of reputation and of course endorsements which can add up to a lot more money than a football contract alone.

All of thats correct, but I was referring to just the St. Patricks Day incident.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Even if all of that is true, he still could have done it.

Could have is not good enough, even for the almighty NFL.

 

[Doomsday101]

All of thats correct, but I was referring to just the St. Patricks Day incident.

Which is something the NFL has said has nothing to do with the suspension. I agree these are things Zeke has to stop and grow up because it does not reflect well on the league or the Cowboys and like it or not as a member of the NFL and the Cowboys it does matter.

 

[CowboysRule]

Could have is not good enough, even for the almighty NFL.

I'm pretty sure it is honestly. The NFLPA basically gave the commissioner the power to suspend anyone for any reason, even without actual facts.

 

[Stash]

If you truly believe that, then I don't know what to tell you, Stash.

Sean Payton was suspended for a year and I don't believe I saw anyone bringing up the consitution then.

No offense taken. I may be completely wrong on this. I just don't see how any corporation can establish rules that trump the US Constitution.

 

[Stash]

Innocent until proven guilty is your right under a criminal investigation. This is contract law. Completely different.



Again, this has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Texas_Pete]

From Mike Florio:

With NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell choosing Harold Henderson to handle the Ezekiel Elliott appeal hearing, the next question becomes this: What will the appeal hearing look like?

The CBA doesn’t provide much guidance. And by not much, I mean none. Article 46 says nothing at all about the legal standard that applies, the rights of the player to present evidence or confront witnesses, and/or the duty of the NFL to affirmatively prove its case.


The league office tells PFT that the Commissioner’s decision will be reviewed under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, which means that it would be overturned only if deemed to be (duh) arbitrary and/or capricious. This implies that the question will simply be whether the Commissioner got it sufficiently wrong that it seems random and without rhyme or reason.

It’s unclear what Elliott will be able to do to prove that. Appeals in a court of law typically occur based on a record of evidence that is closed and completed. But the NFL often takes testimony during these hearings, which makes them instantly different from appeals pursued in the justice system.

For Elliott, the real question is whether Henderson will attempt to resolve the credibility of the witnesses, which is something Goodell didn’t do in making the original decision. This presumes that the NFL will actually be introducing its evidence, including testimony from Tiffany Thompson.

It’s unclear whether Thompson or Elliott ever have told their stories under oath. Thompson, whose text exchange with a friend shows a clear financial incentive as it relates to Elliott, has yet to sue Elliott for bodily injury and emotional distress arising from it. She still can; once she does, she’ll eventually be required to testify under oath.

More at LINK: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/08/18/how-will-the-ezekiel-elliott-appeal-hearing-unfold/

 

[TheCount]

If a judge happens to feel this way the NFL is going to pay big time...

"At best the process and subsequent decision reeks of gross negligence, and at worst it bears the appearance of malicious intent with a potential goal of striking a huge public relations win in the realm of domestic violence."

They are going to be guilty of slander and libel if a judge feels there was gross negligence or malicious intent!!

Maybe.

I've seen judges say similar things and then rule in favor of the person they directed that sort fo statement against because their hands were tied by binding contracts and/or precedent.

 

[Cowboys22]

Could have is not good enough, even for the almighty NFL.

Could of and might have is all they had on Brady and they said that met their standard of proof.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I've heard some other people say that too. But I don't see where anyone could have given the league anything that contradicts innocent until proven guilty.

I also can't find where this "discression" was agreed to, since the Ray Rice incident occurred after the latest CBA was agreed to.

We're certainly going to find out either way.

Zeke's DV case is different from all the others because it didn't even go through a court of a law. Not many people really knew about the details of this case until the league decided to suspend him.

How can the NFL charge him for something which he didn't do? The league doesn't have that range of power and certainly the CBA doesn't give that type of power to the commissioner.

Innocent until proven guilty stands for something in this country. If it didn't, than the league can accuse anyone of anything. Like Zeke is a child molester and a rapist. This is not like the Brady case because his was nothing more than a conduct policy. This is a DV policy and it should be proven in court that Zeke did something before the league level any charges against a player.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Innocent until proven guilty is your right under a criminal investigation. This is contract law. Completely different.



Again, this has nothing to do with the Constitution.

The constitution is the law of the land. Everyone has to abide by it including the NFL.

 

[Stash]

Zeke's DV case is different from all the others because it didn't even go through a court of a law. Not many people really knew about the details of this case until the league decided to suspend him.

How can the NFL charge him for something which he didn't do? The league doesn't have that range of power and certainly the CBA doesn't give that type of power to the commissioner.

Innocent until proven guilty stands for something in this country. If it didn't, than the league can accuse anyone of anything. Like Zeke is a child molester and a rapist. This is not like the Brady case because his was nothing more than a conduct policy. This is a DV policy and it should be proven in court that Zeke did something before the league level any charges against a player.

That's exactly my position on it and just what I think the court case will ultimately focus on. No business entity has the authority to supersede the Constitution of the United States.

 

[odog422]

You are right, the problem is, what is the conduct that led to the decision? Domestic violence? Ok. Now what proof do you have that was involved in said conduct?

Exactly.

 

[BRoni]

Sean Payton was suspended for a year and I don't believe I saw anyone bringing up the consitution then.

If we can suspend Jason Garrett for 6 games instead I'm ok with it.