The one thing missing from Ezekiel Elliott's response

[Bigdog]

The one thing missing from the NFL......... evidence

You can still have evidence but it would not matter. Josh Brown comes to mind. The one thing missing is integrity.

 

[waldoputty]

I'm absolutely sure his legal team wrote that.

My point is, why isn't Elliott denying he did anything? I can maybe understand the legal strategy of denying it before the NFL issued their ruling, but now that he has been found guilty in the eyes of the NFL, especially of domestic violence which is a very hot topic now for all types of media, not just sports media, most people would be adamantly and publicly denying they did what they were accused of, if for no other reason to protect his reputation and brand.

EE needs to shut up and let his lawyers handle this.
His idiotic childish stuff have put him behind the 8 ball.

 

[erod]

One thing about Michael Irvin. When he was accused of rape back in the 90's and even recently he proclaimed his innocence to anyone that would hear it. That's how I knew he was innocent.

Lol, because that was the ONLY thing he wasn't guilty of.

 

[LocimusPrime]

Sean Lee never gets into trouble

 

[vaturkey]

EE better let his lawyers handle everything and provide the classic "No comment and I refer any questions about this incident to my legal council. I'm focused on playing for the Dallas Cowboys and supporting our fans". PS. He better have a good legal team, because the young lady involved in all of this will be seeking damages via a legal lawsuit. That's just the way the world rolls these days.

 

[Cowboys22]

Disagreeing with their findings is a clear denial.

 

[Reality]

One thing about Michael Irvin. When he was accused of rape back in the 90's and even recently he proclaimed his innocence to anyone that would hear it. That's how I knew he was innocent.

Exactly! It would be different if he was accused of shoplifting or something. But domestic violence is a hot-topic social issue right now, so while Elliott is disagreeing with the findings and saying he'll work to be a better person, media sites everywhere (and I'm talking all media, not just sports) are writing article after article about his suspension further condemning him in the court of public opinion. By the time this is over, even if he were cleared of everything, the NFL rescinded the suspension completely, etc., many people will always remember him as the guy who attacked the accuser.

 

[xwalker]

I do not have an opinion on what he did or did not do. That said, there is one thing that is missing from his response .. and that is ... a denial.


So, he disagrees with their findings. Most people, who are accused of doing something they didn't do, would be professing their innocence to anyone who would listen at this point. Why isn't he saying, "I never laid a hand on her!"? Why isn't he saying, "She lied about all of this, I didn't do it!"?

He disagrees with the NFL's findings. What suspended player has ever agreed with the NFL's findings? He is sorry for the distraction and disruption it has caused everyone around him. Why? If he did nothing wrong, it would not be his fault. He admits he's far from perfect and plans to work hard to mature. That sentence alone makes it sound like he's guilty of something.

Again, I do not have an opinion because forming one without all of the facts is pointless. It just is really surprising that he's not outright denying any of it. He has downplayed whatever happened up until now, and after the ruling, he disagrees with the "findings", admits he's not perfect and will work to mature. That sounds more like someone who did something wrong, and they only disagree with the punishment.

Hopefully, more details will come out at some point. I just hope they do a better job of declaring his innocence than Elliott has.

I think to publically proclaim innocence would be hard when he did drive 100 mph, pull the girl's top down, etc..

The time to proclaim innocence about the DV was back when the accusation happened which I think he did.

 

[Reality]

Disagreeing with their findings is a clear denial.

Let's say you were accused of killing two people, but in reality, you only killed one of them. You can't say you didn't kill anyone because you did. You can't say you didn't kill the second person, because then everyone would ask why you weren't denying you killed the first person. So, what would you say? You would say you don't agree with the findings while a completely innocent person would be professing that innocence to anyone who would listen, just like Michael Irvin was doing.

 

[DMX690]

One thing about Michael Irvin. When he was accused of rape back in the 90's and even recently he proclaimed his innocence to anyone that would hear it. That's how I knew he was innocent.

How is he still employed by the NFL. Shouldn't he be fired for sexually assaulting his friend. I mean it doesn't matter if the court of laws dismiss the case.

 

[Reality]

I think to publically proclaim innocence would be hard when he did drive 100 mph, pull the girl's top down, etc..

The time to proclaim innocence about the DV was back when the accusation happened which I think he did.

I'm not referring to the other events, just the domestic violence event. Everyone saw the video with him pulling down the shirt. He already pleaded no contest to high speed driving. The bar fight involved guys, so the media was less interested in it.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

How is he still employed by the NFL. Shouldn't he be fired for sexually assaulting his friend. I mean it doesn't matter if the court of laws dismiss the case.

Yep...shouldn't have put himself in that situation. Thank God this wasn't going on back in the 90's. I wonder how many of our players would have lost playing time back then?

 

[Cowboys22]

Let's say you were accused of killing two people, but in reality, you only killed one of them. You can't say you didn't kill anyone because you did. You can't say you didn't kill the second person, because then everyone would ask why you weren't denying you killed the first person. So, what would you say? You would say you don't agree with the findings while a completely innocent person would be professing that innocence to anyone who would listen, just like Michael Irvin was doing.

I don't disagree but he has maintained his innocence all along and now has a legalese statement put out by his lawyers disagreeing with what the league concluded. He is saying he didn't do it in the only way his lawyers will allow him to at this point. There will be more forceful denials to come at appropriate times and places as dictated by his lawyers.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

He's denied it throughout and his response clearly implies a denial.

 

[gimmesix]

I don't disagree with this at all. Based purely on what we, the public, know about this, everyone should be wondering how in the world he was found guilty of anything.

That's my point though .. at this point, the NFL has levied their punishment, his appeal will not get his suspension removed. At best, he will get his suspension reduced to 2-4 games. Maybe that's his legal team's strategy. Maybe they have accepted he will be suspended, so they're trying not to tick off Goodell or the NFL any further so they can get them to reduce his suspension.

Again, I am not saying he's guilty of anything. There are no public facts that would prove he's guilty of anything. What we have is an accuser that is saying, "He did it!" and a defendant that is saying, "I disagree with the findings and I know I'm not perfect so I will work to be a better person".

We have a city attorney we have to deal with here who is always overly careful how he says things, to the point that you never get a simple answer from him. A lot of lawyers seem to be this way, and it would appear to me that that's what is being done here. If don't think he can come out and deny all evidence, because there is some evidence. This is carefully worded to simply say that he doesn't feel the findings are correct. It keeps him from specifically denying aspects of the case that might be correct.

Obviously, something took place, so there is an extent of truth. How much of what the league found is truth and how much of it was speculation is going to be at the heart of this. It appears to me that the DA not pursuing the case would show that there were a lot of question marks that the league chose to ignore in rendering this judgment. I think Zeke's statement is accurate in expressing his displeasure in the league ignoring those question marks.

I think we'd all rather him come out and say he didn't do anything, but that leaves him open to even minor details that could get thrown in his face.

 

[Chuck 54]

I'm absolutely sure his legal team wrote that.

My point is, why isn't Elliott denying he did anything? I can maybe understand the legal strategy of denying it before the NFL issued their ruling, but now that he has been found guilty in the eyes of the NFL, especially of domestic violence which is a very hot topic now for all types of media, not just sports media, most people would be adamantly and publicly denying they did what they were accused of, if for no other reason to protect his reputation and brand.

Because he did do something, however minor he may view it. He's done several things that look bad for Dallas and the NFL. He was correct to apologize. Too many fans are acting like this suspension is Armageddon. This is sports entertainment. It is not life changing for anyone. Zeke has been immature, has shown poor judgment, and at minimum has shown a lack of respect for women, along with a lack of consideration for the STAR and his teammates.

He will serve a suspension. The Cowboys will win at least half of those games, probably more, possibly all. He will return and play. He could sprain an ankle and miss 4 games. I am not troubled at all by this. He could be banned for the year, and I wouldn't lose a minute's peace. A great RB is not the equal of a great QB....period. I love the Cowboys, and I expect everyone associated with the team to stay focused on the season. Elliott will be out of sight and out of mind until he returns.

 

[xwalker]

I'm not referring to the other events, just the domestic violence event. Everyone saw the video with him pulling down the shirt. He already pleaded no contest to high speed driving. The bar fight involved guys, so the media was less interested in it.

Yes, but this suspension seemed to infer that it was not just the DV that caused the decision.

If he posts about the DV on social media, he'll get blasted about all of the other issues.

I think the time for denial comes later when things have died down and social media mighr not be the right place to do it.

Greg Hardy refused to apologize or show remorse and he's out of the league.

I think PR experts would advise against denial until the issue settles down for a few days or weeks.

If Greg Hardy had said he understands the seriousness of DV, had contributed money publically the cause and generally followed the lead of PR experts, he would still be in the league. Instead all he did was give a complete denial and paint himself as a victim.

 

[Vtwin]

I read his statement as a clear denial worded in a way to try and give the appearance of a man who denies the most serious charges yet still understands that he needs to do a better job of representing himself, the team and the league.

Flatly stating "I didn't do it!" is more direct but has no positive PR value and could be used as negative PR by those just itching to do so.

 

[bark]

I'm sure his lawyer wrote that.

If this is an example of his legal teams expertise then he might as well go ahead and accept his punishment.
I'm with reality on this.
If I'm wrongly accused, well my first words are going to be just that. I Didn't Do This.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm absolutely sure his legal team wrote that.

My point is, why isn't Elliott denying he did anything? I can maybe understand the legal strategy of denying it before the NFL issued their ruling, but now that he has been found guilty in the eyes of the NFL, especially of domestic violence which is a very hot topic now for all types of media, not just sports media, most people would be adamantly and publicly denying they did what they were accused of, if for no other reason to protect his reputation and brand.

Why hasn't Elliott not been saying anything to the press at all? Why does Elliott like chicken more than fish?

Incredulity is not an argument. Not all people act like you would or want them to.