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

MeTed said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course it has a lower standard for burden of proof. The NFL is not a court of law and the policy explicitly states that no charges need be filed. Violating the Personal Conduct Policy is not a legal offense, it is contractual. What constitutes a violation of the policy is largely up to the NFL's discretion. If farting in a crowded, closed environment tarnished the shield, it would be in violation of the policy. It is not illegal to undermine the integrity of the NFL, but it is in violation of the policy. Should seem obvious then that whatever standard for burden of proof exists is chosen by the NFL and NFLPA.

Higher standard for conduct. Given a criminal act is not necessary, it shouldn't be surprising then that the threshold for punishment is lower than that of the justice system.
 
Last edited:
The problem with "credible evidence" is that it is open to interpretation and the idiots at the NFLPA left it up to Goddell to make the final call on what is or is not.

Like others have said, the courts are not looking at the evidence, they are looking at the process.
 
shaketiller said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is an employment policy. Whether or not that qualifies as a "legal document" is likely more nuanced than a simple "yes" or "no", and I am not the person to ask about this topic. That said, I would be hard pressed to believe that a person could be held liable for damages for violating dress code. They can, however, be reprimanded.
 
Beast_from_East said:
The problem with "credible evidence" is that it is open to interpretation and the idiots at the NFLPA left it up to Goddell to make the final call on what is or is not.

Like others have said, the courts are not looking at the evidence, they are looking at the process.
Click to expand...

That is my understanding as well.
 
It still boggles my mind that a young mans reputaion can be ruined without due process and in opposition to two law enforcement decisions clearing this guy in the name of one thing and one thing only; Political Correctness
 
shabazz said:
It still boggles my mind that a young mans reputaion can be ruined without due process and in opposition to two law enforcement decisions clearing this guy in the name of one thing and one thing only; Political Correctness
Click to expand...
Internet and social media has cranked up our microwave generations into full tilt.
Always best to lay low... and even then, laying low can be your enemy!
 
Wanting to expedite it now...Mara must be making their quality time together pretty stressful.
 
Hoofbite said:
Of course it has a lower standard for burden of proof. The NFL is not a court of law and the policy explicitly states that no charges need be filed. Violating the Personal Conduct Policy is not a legal offense, it is contractual. What constitutes a violation of the policy is largely up to the NFL's discretion. If farting in a crowded, closed environment tarnished the shield, it would be in violation of the policy. It is not illegal to undermine the integrity of the NFL, but it is in violation of the policy. Should seem obvious then that whatever standard for burden of proof exists is chosen by the NFL and NFLPA.

Higher standard for conduct. Given a criminal act is not necessary, it shouldn't be surprising then that the threshold for punishment is lower than that of the justice system.
Click to expand...
Watching porn is not a crime but many companies have a conduct policy preventing it in the workplace. Do you think companies investigate this breach of conduct based on circumstantial evidence or hard evidence? In most cases, a report (e.g. hard evidence) is produced. If you are going to ruin someone's career you better have some compelling proof.
 
...The NFLPA made its argument through a legal filing Saturday with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, saying Elliott "stands to lose nearly half a season in a career that is notoriously short and precarious, and competitive opportunities are irretrievable once lost."

The filing is the latest in the back and forth between the NFL and its players' union over the Elliott suspension and its larger impact on league discipline...

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...cowboys-rb-ezekiel-elliott-plays-legal-battle
 
I don't know... at first glance I would hate to be an attorney at law.
So much detail-work... all the arguing, but then I have always been an information junkie...
I don't really like to argue, but I like to think of debates and hit both sides in my brain upon multiple subjects...

Nope. No can do. I don't have that... gumption to do what you attorneys do. You guys have my respect.

Also I have dispensed with detail work, in my life. That's what my wife does now, lol.
 
Blackspider214 said:
Exactly. In terms of the product on the field, NFL is light years ahead of college. You have stinkers weekly in both levels but a majority of college football is a pain to watch and I'm a huge fan of it.

NCAA is much more corrupt than the NFL and more inept.
Click to expand...

I agree. In fact, one of the things I used to like about the NFL is that lack of corruption. Now it's becoming FIFA and FIFA corruption >>>> NCAA corruption.

So now the only thing I hate about college football is the length of the games.




YR
 
Hoofbite said:
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.
Click to expand...
Part of fundamentally fair would be to allow all evidence, including evidence which proves the NFL's clsim lacked credibility (the words of the actual investigator hired by the league).

I agree that the league could still claim whatever they want, and likely still suspend Zeke, but at that point what miniscule amount of credibility they have would be gone. Unless a real court steps in and asserts common sense, which of course is unrelated to legal proceedings.
 
Beast_from_East said:
The problem with "credible evidence" is that it is open to interpretation and the idiots at the NFLPA left it up to Goddell to make the final call on what is or is not.

Like others have said, the courts are not looking at the evidence, they are looking at the process.
Click to expand...

At this point they are looking at process, because the process was so flawed it was an easy target.

The credible evidence part could be next. Again, CBA, article 46, Brady precendence, none of that allows the NFL to state that Zeke is a woman abuser, nor deny him fairness.
 
Yakuza Rich said:
I agree. In fact, one of the things I used to like about the NFL is that lack of corruption. Now it's becoming FIFA and FIFA corruption >>>> NCAA corruption.

So now the only thing I hate about college football is the length of the games.




YR
Click to expand...
FIFA is on a completely different level. But the NFL is trying hard to get there!
 
A few pages back there's a post that quotes the CBA and it says both the NFLPA and the NFL have the right to be present at all hearings and to present any relevant evidence. That wording says to me that both sides get to choose what they consider relevant and present it. Denying Elliot's team the chance the present things they think are relevant seems to me to violate the CBA. If they think questioning Goodell is relevant, it seems to me the CBA says they have that right yet Henderson denied them numerous things they obviously considered relevant. Has anyone else considered this? What am I missing?
 
TheHerd said:
Part of fundamentally fair would be to allow all evidence, including evidence which proves the NFL's clsim lacked credibility (the words of the actual investigator hired by the league).

I agree that the league could still claim whatever they want, and likely still suspend Zeke, but at that point what miniscule amount of credibility they have would be gone. Unless a real court steps in and asserts common sense, which of course is unrelated to legal proceedings.
Click to expand...
The NFL still has to work within the confines of precedent, "rule of the shop" and ample notice

They cannot just do anything they want and say it falls under protecting the shield

If they never suspended anyone for farting on TV and have allowed others to do it they would have a hard time winning that case

That is a big problem with the DV policy...... it was implemented without consent and has been wildly inconsistent in its application
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 108 more.
Total: 8,120 (members: 208, guests: 7,912)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,054
Messages
13,786,178
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top