NFL: Ezekiel Elliot Suspension

[jkclone]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...elliotts-6game-ban-upheld-will-play-vs-giants

I thought there was a thread but didn't see it. This is an interesting story. The suspension was upheld but I think there is an interesting case to be made that through this whole process the NFL has done everything they can to suspend him.

 

[DaHiltonHaus1]

That seems fair to the Cowboys. The NFL owes this to the Cowboys for making them wait for so long. Good move after completely botching the Brady, Peterson, and the original Ray Rice suspensions.

 

[Rabbuk]

That seems fair to the Cowboys. The NFL owes this to the Cowboys for making them wait for so long. Good move after completely botching the Brady, Peterson, and the original Ray Rice suspensions.

what do you think is happening here? This post seems odd.

 

[DaHiltonHaus1]

what do you think is happening here? This post seems odd.

I know the story lol. He's playing week 1, likely out games 2-7.

 

[Mr Janny]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...elliotts-6game-ban-upheld-will-play-vs-giants

I thought there was a thread but didn't see it. This is an interesting story. The suspension was upheld but I think there is an interesting case to be made that through this whole process the NFL has done everything they can to suspend him.

The union is setting themselves up for another loss, here. They can drag it out, but the fact remains, they gave the commissioner's office a huge amount of power under the CBA. Their recourse is very very limited.

 

[jkclone]

The union is setting themselves up for another loss, here. They can drag it out, but the fact remains, they gave the commissioner's office a huge amount of power under the CBA. Their recourse is very very limited.

I'd be interested to see what lawyers would say. I do agree they backed themselves into this but I don't think that means he can just make stuff up. I haven't payed that much attention but whatdoes it actually say about his authority?

 

[Shawker]

I don't understand how they can completely disregard their own lead investigator's recommendation. They also completely disregarded the fact that she seems rather unstable and made blatant threats about just this type of thing. Furthermore, Zeke was charged with exactly zilch. The six games is total ******** in my opinion.

 

[Mr Janny]

I'd be interested to see what lawyers would say. I do agree they backed themselves into this but I don't think that means he can just make stuff up. I haven't payed that much attention but whatdoes it actually say about his authority?

The commission has authority to interpret the evidence and dole out punishment as he sees fit. The union is trying to argue that there was some grand conspiracy to ban Elliott. They're arguing that the lead investigator was not present at the appeal, but the league has plenty of labor precedent backing it up on that. It's not going to end well for them. The union is going to throw up every road block they can think of to drag it out because it hurts the NFL in the public eye, but in the court room, the league is on pretty solid footing.

 

[Mr Janny]

I don't understand how they can completely disregard their own lead investigator's recommendation. They also completely disregarded the fact that she seems rather unstable and made blatant threats about just this type of thing. Furthermore, Zeke was charged with exactly zilch. The six games is total ******** in my opinion.

The league will say that they didn't disregard it. They took it into account and still felt that his actions warranted a suspension. And the CBA gives the league power to do exactly that. It was a terrible deal that the union agreed to, but they agreed to it. Running to the courts to bail you out of a bad agreement you made is not how the system is supposed to work. Deflate gate showed us that.

 

[cmjh10]

Damn, I thought for sure it was going to get reduced.

 

[jkclone]

The league will say that they didn't disregard it. They took it into account and still felt that his actions warranted a suspension. And the CBA gives the league power to do exactly that. It was a terrible deal that the union agreed to, but they agreed to it. Running to the courts to bail you out of a bad agreement you made is not how the system is supposed to work. Deflate gate showed us that.

I guess my point is that there is a pattern now of the commissioner disregarding the facts completely. At what point does a judge step in and say that while they did give you a lot of freedom to make decisions you are deliberately disregarding facts? The Brady case I think it was possible to make the argument that they took it into account and still thought he needed suspended. This time from what I've read it isn't possible to make that argument.

 

[Mr Janny]

I guess my point is that there is a pattern now of the commissioner disregarding the facts completely. At what point does a judge step in and say that while they did give you a lot of freedom to make decisions you are deliberately disregarding facts? The Brady case I think it was possible to make the argument that they took it into account and still thought he needed suspended. This time from what I've read it isn't possible to make that argument.

Specifically related to what? I mean, literally all they have to say is "Yes, we took it into account and still decided his actions warranted a suspension." It doesn't matter if that's a good reason to you, me, or anyone. That's the power that was given to him. The courts have already showed that they will back the league on this. Precedent is on their side. Elliot might get his stay. That's definitely possible, and stave off the suspension for as long as the court system plays out, but the chances of him not serving eventually are very, very slim. Courts are very, very reluctant to interfere with a collectively bargained process.

Regarding a pattern by the commissioner, no there's no pattern, because the facts of the investigation were not litigated in court for Brady. And really, they won't be litigated here, either. It's the policy of the NFL that's going to be a debate. Did the league violate its own policy in any way. If they didn't, there's not much that the union can do.

 

[jdoggivjc]

The league will say that they didn't disregard it. They took it into account and still felt that his actions warranted a suspension. And the CBA gives the league power to do exactly that. It was a terrible deal that the union agreed to, but they agreed to it. Running to the courts to bail you out of a bad agreement you made is not how the system is supposed to work. Deflate gate showed us that.

And the next CBA is going to be just as bad, if not worse, because the union and the highest-paid players won't prepare for it. When most of the players make league minimum and most are 2 paychecks away from financial insolvency (and that's not necessarily all of the minimum wagers, but better-paid players living far too extravagant lifestyles) and the Union and highest-paid players refuse to build a "war chest", the League just locks out the players or lets the players go on strike. It's just a matter of time before players start crossing the line because they're broke, and the union is broken.

Goodell may be satan incarnate with all of the power he wields, and all of the players ***** about him, but none of them are willing to do what it takes to actually win a labor dispute.

 

[Mr Janny]

And the next CBA is going to be just as bad, if not worse, because the union and the highest-paid players won't prepare for it. When most of the players make league minimum and most are 2 paychecks away from financial insolvency (and that's not necessarily all of the minimum wagers, but better-paid players living far too extravagant lifestyles) and the Union and highest-paid players refuse to build a "war chest", the League just locks out the players or lets the players go on strike. It's just a matter of time before players start crossing the line because they're broke, and the union is broken.

Goodell may be satan incarnate with all of the power he wields, and all of the players ***** about him, but none of them are willing to do what it takes to actually win a labor dispute.

i tend to agree. I don't like that the league has the power that they do. I sided with the players during the last CBA negotiation. I think that Goodell is a POS, and shouldn't have the power to suspend players without more oversight. BUT, I acknowledge that under the current CBA, he has that power, as much as I disagree with it. Doesn't mean I like it. Just means that it's reality.

 

[michaelrr1]

Damn, I thought for sure it was going to get reduced.

Glad I didn't draft him in the first round

 

[CycloneRulzzz]

As long as he misses week 2 I'm good.

 

[cmjh10]

Glad I didn't draft him in the first round

I had to take a chance

 

[Rural]

So, it's play week one and sit six straight?

 

[SCyclone]

From what I read, the NFLPA was very happy with the person chosen to preside over the hearing. I personally thought they might knock it down to a 2 or 3 game suspension, owing to the cloudy reports that followed the incident. Apparently Elliott's life is a bit messy, and maybe the judge felt there was enough smoke to warrant the 6 games.

But Janny's right, the players can't ***** because they signed the CBA. I understand the league is trying - desperately - to maintain their image, but frankly I don't see them succeeding. Their turning a blind eye to the entire CTE issue is, at least IMO, far worse.

 

[Antihawk240]

Mike & Mike had a great point this morning on ESPN Radio. (I'm not saying I agree with it, but their theory could very VERY well be true). The witness never came forward in court. Speculation is assuming that the witness was paid outside of court for damages. Witness called Elliot a jerk, horrible no good person, but ultimately took the money. While that was crucial in court, Goodell didnt have to play by those rules. If, IF that is true, Goodell has no choice but to keep his suspension in place or else every rich athlete will simply write a check to avoid suspension.