Twitter: Zeke lawyers file for stay on suspension

[Ghost12]

So when will we know about the 2nd circuit ?

Your guess is as good as anyone's. I would not be surprised if they give Elliott a 5-day TRO while they decide on the long(er) term injunction so my pet theory is that we may still see him against KC.

(I'm not married to my theory, but I do see it as possible... however, as others have noted, the NFLPA is hoping for an actual ruling by Friday....)

 

[Dorsett33]

Just keeping it real. Do you honestly believe the people who think he is guilty are going to throw up their arms and change their mind based on some NY court saying the arbitration process was fundamentally unfair?

What I say is 100% true: people will believe what they want to believe and no court ruling is going to change their minds.

Not if it's proven that she was lying.

 

[Ghost12]

Not if it's proven that she was lying.

That's not what this court case is about.

It seems people here still think that this court case will determine Elliott's innocence or guilt in the matter, like some episode of Matlock where the world will see a slick lawyer catch the liars in their lies and prove the innocence of their client. As I have stated several times, the very best case scenario (which is a long shot) for Elliott is the court rules the arbitration proceedings were fundamentally unfair and overturns the suspension.

Nobody is going to change their minds about Elliott if that happens.

 

[Kevinicus]

Well, it's not an epic fail in most industries - or even other sports - the way it is in the NFL. The very nature of arbitration is such that the arbitrator is (theoretically) neutral. The very notion that 2 parties can disagree over something and 1 party gets to unilaterally choose the arbitrator is absurd, yet that's what we have here.

I'm still curious if it really is arbitration. The CBA does not refer to it as such, and this seems intentional as arbitration is referenced extensively in other areas of the CBA in regards to other disputes between the NFL and a player/NFLPA.

It appears to me to be an appeals process, not a process for settling disputes as arbitration would be.

 

[Dorsett33]

That's not what this court case is about.

It seems people here still think that this court case will determine Elliott's innocence or guilt in the matter, like some episode of Matlock where the world will see a slick lawyer catch the liars in their lies and prove the innocence of their client. As I have stated several times, the very best case scenario (which is a long shot) for Elliott is the court rules the arbitration proceedings were fundamentally unfair and overturns the suspension.

Nobody is going to change their minds about Elliott if that happens.

Not true at all. He's fighting to get his day to prove what the alleging he did, is not true. IF that means overturn and not have to go through that...great. Sure the best case scenario is he was treated unfairly and the suspension is overturned without any further action. But, he want's his day in court (arbitration) to prove what the NFL is saying he did...and that's committing DV on a woman. It's about clearing his name. Did you watch his interview out of his OWN mouth?

 

[Ghost12]

Not true at all. He's fighting to get his day to prove what the alleging he did, is not true. IF that means overturn and not have to go through that...great. Sure the best case scenario is he was treated unfairly and the suspension is overturned without any further action. But, he want's his day in court (arbitration) to prove what the NFL is saying he did...and that's committing DV on a woman. It's about clearing his name. Did you watch his interview out of his OWN mouth?

It is clear you have no understanding of what is being argued in this court of law.

 

[Dorsett33]

It is clear you have no understanding of what is being arguing in this court of law.

It is clear that you want to believe what you want to believe

 

[Ghost12]

I'm still curious if it really is arbitration. The CBA does not refer to it as such, and this seems intentional as arbitration is referenced extensively in other areas of the CBA in regards to other disputes between the NFL and a player/NFLPA.

It appears to me to be an appeals process, not a process for settling disputes as arbitration would be.

You raise an excellent point, and as you mention, article 46 uses the language "Hearing officer" as opposed to "arbitrator" (which I admit I hadn't realized until you pointed it out above). However, each party seems comfortable using the term "arbitrator" in their court filings with regards to Harold Henderson's role, so the courts will go forward using that definition.

 

[links18]

Well, it's not an epic fail in most industries - or even other sports - the way it is in the NFL. The very nature of arbitration is such that the arbitrator is (theoretically) neutral. The very notion that 2 parties can disagree over something and 1 party gets to unilaterally choose the arbitrator is absurd, yet that's what we have here.

And subsequently gets to choose the court in which the arbitration decision is confirmed.

 

[SoBlue128]

You raise an excellent point, and as you mention, article 46 uses the language "Hearing officer" as opposed to "arbitrator." However, each party seems comfortable using the term "arbitrator" with regards to Harold Henderson's role, so the courts will go forward using that definition.

Can the court overturn the suspension based on the fundamental unfairness theory then order the NFL to go back and conduct a fair arbitration process? If so what’s to stop them from doing it all over in a “fair” way only to turn around and suspend him again the 6 games?

 

[Ghost12]

Can the court overturn the suspension based on the fundamental unfairness theory then order the NFL to go back and conduct a fair arbitration process? If so what’s to stop them from doing it all over in a “fair” way only to turn around and suspend him again the 6 games?

Absolutely nothing, and you have stated a huge part of the problem. I believe the court can not say "We overturn the suspension and forbid you from suspending him." What they can say is "We overturn the suspension and order you to provide Elliott with a new hearing."

At that point, we simply return to square 1 where Goodell gets to choose the arbitrator (including choosing himself if he wants). Maybe the league would simply let it go.... or, if they wanted, they would do the hearing process all over again, tweak a few things to address the "fundamental fairness" concerns, and then come to the same pre-determined conclusion.

 

[crashintonickdm]

really hope he plays.

 

[Playmaker247]

So what are the chances the 2nd circuit sides with zeke?

 

[Ghost12]

So what are the chances the 2nd circuit sides with zeke?

I still think he has a very strong argument with regards to irreparable harm, so I give him a fighter's chance of getting the injunction restored. However, I believe he ultimately loses in the long run.

 

[Tabascocat]

So what are the chances the 2nd circuit sides with zeke?

Maybe 20% or so, at best. There is a chance though

 

[Playmaker247]

Maybe 20% or so, at best. There is a chance though

I’ll take it!

 

[bsbellomy]

True but what if he keeps fighting til week 15 and we’re in a win or go home game week 17 or make the playoffs and have to go to philly or Minnesota?

That's a selfish question.

 

[Jarv]

Absolutely nothing, and you have stated a huge part of the problem. I believe the court can not say "We overturn the suspension and forbid you from suspending him." What they can say is "We overturn the suspension and order you to provide Elliott with a new hearing."

At that point, we simply return to square 1 where Goodell gets to choose the arbitrator (including choosing himself if he wants). Maybe the league would simply let it go.... or, if they wanted, they would do the hearing process all over again, tweak a few things to address the "fundamental fairness" concerns, and then come to the same pre-determined conclusion.

The best would be if the court choose's a neutral arbitrator.

 

[pugilist]

could have the hearing on Thurs. or Fri. of this week, but probably won't

 

[pugilist]

it's only an emergency if the NFL's public perception on how it handles DV is threatened, to hell with a man's reputation

at least that's how Failla views the world