Wallach: The NFL filed an appeal with 5th circuit appeals before the other judge ruled

[Hoofbite]

...After a Texas federal judge issued an injunction based in large part on his contention the process enacted by the league denied Elliott “fundamental fairness” the league has filed an appeal to that ruling. Rather than their stated reasoning being part of a process to address what the judge and most Americans can clearly see the NFL made attempt to paint the itself as a victim with no example or explanation of why they feel they would be “irreparably harmed” if the injunction were not lifted. The “Trust Me” appeal.

Huh?

It has become increasingly clear the NFL is not concerned with the Domestic Violence Epidemic nor the guilt or innocence of Dallas Cowboys RB Ezekiel Elliott. Rather the NFL’s actions loudly proclaim the league’s punishment of Elliot is for him being in a situation that “may” put the NFL in a bad public relations light. Guilt, innocence, they mean nothing. The league seemingly cares only that the executives and owners who live in a bubble of pomp and privilege can continue to do whatever they want, to whomever they want, in order to respond to what they think the public desires. This keeps ratings high and the samolians rolling in...

http://profootballtalkline.com/nfl/.../nfl-focus-ezekiel-elliot-becomes-clear.html/

Um, that's literally the definition of the "Personal Conduct Policy". Always has been. That concern and that policy (or the DV policy) is not the issue, and I have no problem with either policy. The concern here is that the punishment process appears to have been unjust. Criminal guilt has never been a prerequisite for punishment and it doesn't have to be.

Of course the NFL is worried about its image. What multi-billion dollar company isn't?

If the complete picture is taken into consideration in an unbiased fashion, the policies are fine. Those are the terms of employment. In this case it seems like pieces of information were either chosen or omitted to produce a desired outcome. The purpose of the Personal Conduct Policy has always been the same. It's a catch-all to punish things that make the league look bad. That hasn't changed. What appears to have changed is the manner in which it is enforced. In this case, it seems to be enforced in a predetermined manner.

 

[CCBoy]

Um, that's literally the definition of the "Personal Conduct Policy". Always has been. That concern and that policy (or the DV policy) is not the issue, and I have no problem with either policy. The concern here is that the punishment process appears to have been unjust. Criminal guilt has never been a prerequisite for punishment and it doesn't have to be.

Of course the NFL is worried about its image. What multi-billion dollar company isn't?

If the complete picture is taken into consideration in an unbiased fashion, the policies are fine. Those are the terms of employment. In this case it seems like pieces of information were either chosen or omitted to produce a desired outcome. The purpose of the Personal Conduct Policy has always been the same. It's a catch-all to punish things that make the league look bad. That hasn't changed. What appears to have changed is the manner in which it is enforced. In this case, it seems to be enforced in a predetermined manner.

Gee Willikers, that must mean something like there still isn't any way to do the wrong thing...shoot.

I guess if one changes the words around, that throws the whole deal out...go figure!

Where is Bat Man when Robbin is in trouble...?

See clause 37...(coughing) thanks for the clarifictions.

 

[Cowboys22]

Wasn't a ruling from Mazzant expected yesterday or at least the NFL told him that was their deadline for him to rule before they filed with the 5th circuit? He didn't rule and they filed anyway. How long could he hold off? There's no way the 5th circuit can rule before he does so I'm wondering if the NFL hasn't pissed him off enough to hold his ruling off just enough to upset the timing of everything. To me, he is either taking his time on purpose or is writing another scathing ruling.

 

[75boyz]

Um, that's literally the definition of the "Personal Conduct Policy". Always has been. That concern and that policy (or the DV policy) is not the issue, and I have no problem with either policy. The concern here is that the punishment process appears to have been unjust. Criminal guilt has never been a prerequisite for punishment and it doesn't have to be.

Of course the NFL is worried about its image. What multi-billion dollar company isn't?

If the complete picture is taken into consideration in an unbiased fashion, the policies are fine. Those are the terms of employment. In this case it seems like pieces of information were either chosen or omitted to produce a desired outcome. The purpose of the Personal Conduct Policy has always been the same. It's a catch-all to punish things that make the league look bad. That hasn't changed. What appears to have changed is the manner in which it is enforced. In this case, it seems to be enforced in a predetermined manner.

Very good summary

 

[Pants]

The NFL is getting "noticed" by people that would not normally look at their brand, so in that respect, the Zeke Zaga is aiding them...but, to seemingly use an arbitrary thought process to include what they want and dismiss important information makes them look foolish...as Cowboy fans, this looks VERY deliberate and biased (and it may be), but in reality, the NFL brand is being spoken of in houses across the country because the commissioner labelled Zeke a woman-beater...the clowmissioner is once again taking bullets for the league....Zeke needs to continue fighting this so he can clear his name...a 1-game suspension means that he agrees to guilt...

fight this Zeke

 

[diefree666]

Wasn't a ruling from Mazzant expected yesterday or at least the NFL told him that was their deadline for him to rule before they filed with the 5th circuit? He didn't rule and they filed anyway. How long could he hold off? There's no way the 5th circuit can rule before he does so I'm wondering if the NFL hasn't pissed him off enough to hold his ruling off just enough to upset the timing of everything. To me, he is either taking his time on purpose or is writing another scathing ruling.

I think the Judge is REALLY pissed off at the NFL. And is working on an EVEN MORE scathing ruling.

The NFL even last time with Brady showed a lack of common sense in dealing with Judges. Pissing them off unnecessarily. They were lucky in that the Brady case did not have any of the problems this one does.

Fundamental Fairness- that is the issue here. So many so called experts and lawyers have not yet realized that.

Its something that no CBA can take away; its such a natural right.

As long as Kessler keeps pounding away at that I think Zeke has a good shot at winning in the end.

 

[MeTed]

He's right here.

The league wins regardless of the outcome. If they get smacked in court they can point to the fact they wanted to ban him for 6 games but it was the legal system that undermined them.

A lot of people have come to the realization that the NFL runs a kangaroo court. That is not a win for the NFL. Most (objective) Americans are going to support the legal system over the NFL's system.

 

[links18]

This thread reminds me that college football is far superior to the NFL.

Yeah, no its not. I mean they have better bands, but there generally isn't much defense.

 

[MRV52]

Judge is working real hard this weekend to embarrass the NFL even more.



http://i884.***BLOCKED***/albums/ac47/rat2k14/giphy_zps1h5wceyw.gif

 

[TheHerd]

I hope he plays October 1st. This is gonna be my first Cowboy game in about 7 years, and my first in AT&T Stadium.

Take the tour.

 

[TheHerd]

Only if Mazzant or the 5th Circuit allow it. Mazzant would not have ruled the way he did if he was going to turn around and vacate the case. The 5th Circuit could but nearly everyone thinks that is highly unlikely. It may have been filed early but it became ripe in the middle of the initial hearing. I doubt a Texas court is going to give the case up knowing it will go the a NY court.

But I heard right here that it doesn't matter where the court is located since all courts just rule on the law.

 

[TheHerd]

Um, that's literally the definition of the "Personal Conduct Policy". Always has been. That concern and that policy (or the DV policy) is not the issue, and I have no problem with either policy. The concern here is that the punishment process appears to have been unjust. Criminal guilt has never been a prerequisite for punishment and it doesn't have to be.

Even in the adjusted (read non-arbitrated) wording, the league can't just arbitrarily suspend anyone:

“In cases where you are not charged with a crime, or are charged but not convicted, you may still be found to have violated the Policy if the credible evidence establishes that you engaged in conduct prohibited by this Personal Conduct Policy.”

This can be tough because credible evidence isn't defined in the document, and it's not a legal term per se. But in this case, only an NFL stooge or a Cowboy hater would say there is credible evidence Zeke comitied DV. I really can't see how Zeke had no chance of winning a real appeal.

 

[Hoofbite]

Even in the adjusted (read non-arbitrated) wording, the league can't just arbitrarily suspend anyone:

“In cases where you are not charged with a crime, or are charged but not convicted, you may still be found to have violated the Policy if the credible evidence establishes that you engaged in conduct prohibited by this Personal Conduct Policy.”

This can be tough because credible evidence isn't defined in the document, and it's not a legal term per se. But in this case, only an NFL stooge or a Cowboy hater would say there is credible evidence Zeke comitied DV. I really can't see how Zeke had no chance of winning a real appeal.

Of course they can't "arbitrarily" suspend someone. Nobody has remotely hinted that they could. That's exactly what Zeke's case is about. They can however, suspend a player if he violates the policy regardless of whether or not criminal charges are even filed. The policy itself is not problematic so long as the process plays out in a fair manner. Every employer on the planet has conditions for employment that can be violated without committing a crime.

Provided the process for review and the levying of punishment is consistent and fair, the NFL can suspend any player who violates the policy and be perfectly in the clear. The problem in Zeke's case (based on my limited following of it) is that the process for review was neither consistent or fair.

Edit: IMO, the personal conduct policy itself is perfectly fine. The NFL has a responsibility to protect it's image. They seem to have failed to do that here by deviating from the standard course, but the policy itself is fine.

 

[Bigdog]

There is a first time for everything

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's right here.

The league wins regardless of the outcome. If they get smacked in court they can point to the fact they wanted to ban him for 6 games but it was the legal system that undermined them.

You don't know how that is how they are going to spin it and more importantly you don't know that the media and public is going to carry that narrative.

Generally speaking, the public doesn't like a loser and when they lose the media is going to finally delve into the actual case Zeke is making. As it is now, most of the media is still parroting the article 46 or that Brady insures the NFL wins if they are not soapboxing the evil's of DV.

If the NFL loses the media will finally look into what actually happened and the crux of the NFL's case is that Friel and co hid Roberts testimony and that if it were not for the intervention of Jerry Jones, that testimony would have never have come to light. The language of the CBA states credible evidence and the lead investigator states the NFLs only witness is not credible.

There is another narrative that I have seen out in the sport's world that is already peeped out a bit and that is "the only thing worse than DV is a false accusation of DV because it undermines real victims of DV when they come forward in the future. IOW, the NFL's zeal to get something done they actually hurt women significantly due to the extremely high profile nature of their false accusation.

They don't win if that is what becomes the national narrative. They look like *******s.

 

[MeTed]

Of course they can't "arbitrarily" suspend someone. Nobody has remotely hinted that they could. That's exactly what Zeke's case is about. They can however, suspend a player if he violates the policy regardless of whether or not criminal charges are even filed. The policy itself is not problematic so long as the process plays out in a fair manner. Every employer on the planet has conditions for employment that can be violated without committing a crime.

Provided the process for review and the levying of punishment is consistent and fair, the NFL can suspend any player who violates the policy and be perfectly in the clear. The problem in Zeke's case (based on my limited following of it) is that the process for review was neither consistent or fair.

Edit: IMO, the personal conduct policy itself is perfectly fine. The NFL has a responsibility to protect it's image. They seem to have failed to do that here by deviating from the standard course, but the policy itself is fine.

Yes and no. The policy seeks to establish a "higher standard" which is good but uses a "lower standard" for burden of proof. Therein lies the problem. The lower standard is why many of the NFL judgements don't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[TheHerd]

Of course they can't "arbitrarily" suspend someone. Nobody has remotely hinted that they could. That's exactly what Zeke's case is about. They can however, suspend a player if he violates the policy regardless of whether or not criminal charges are even filed. The policy itself is not problematic so long as the process plays out in a fair manner. Every employer on the planet has conditions for employment that can be violated without committing a crime.

Provided the process for review and the levying of punishment is consistent and fair, the NFL can suspend any player who violates the policy and be perfectly in the clear. The problem in Zeke's case (based on my limited following of it) is that the process for review was neither consistent or fair.

Edit: IMO, the personal conduct policy itself is perfectly fine. The NFL has a responsibility to protect it's image. They seem to have failed to do that here by deviating from the standard course, but the policy itself is fine.

You ignored the league's own wording "credible evidence". Do you believe there is credible evidence Zeke committed DV in this incident?

That is the league's assertion, over and over. The have continued to state that this isn't actions which place a bad image on the NFL, but actual domestic violence activities.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You ignored the league's own wording "credible evidence". Do you believe there is credible evidence Zeke committed DV in this incident?

That is the league's assertion, over and over. The have continued to state that this isn't actions which place a bad image on the NFL, but actual domestic violence activities.

Yeah that coupled with Robert's statement that the witness was not credible and that they tried to cover that up looks pretty damning.

 

[Hoofbite]

You ignored the league's own wording "credible evidence". Do you believe there is credible evidence Zeke committed DV in this incident?

That is the league's assertion, over and over. The have continued to state that this isn't actions which place a bad image on the NFL, but actual domestic violence activities.

It doesn't matter whether or not I think the evidence is credible. The league defines "credible evidence" however they please. That's not why the preliminary injunction was granted.

“The question before the Court is merely whether Elliott received a fundamentally fair hearing before the arbitrator. The answer is he did not,” Mazzant wrote in his ruling.

The ruling does not say the evidence lacked credibility. It says he didn't receive a fair shake. Had Zeke received a fair hearing before the arbitrator, he's probably suspended.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

It doesn't matter whether or not I think the evidence is credible. The league defines "credible evidence" however they please. That's not why the preliminary injunction was granted.



The ruling does not say the evidence lacked credibility. It says he didn't receive a fair shake. Had Zeke received a fair hearing before the arbitrator, he's probably suspended.

If the league determines the definition of "credible evidence," the words are superfluous inside the greater text. But words always have meaning in legal documents. This is a crack in the language the NFL might not have anticipated.