Zeke Elliott suspended for 6 games.

[kidhawk]

higher standard is fine but do you not see potential issues when without any evidence and stories counter to the claimed stories can be used against a player?

The league is setting up a system where their players are going to be blackmailed continuously. That is not setting a higher standard - that is setting up a corrupt system

If you make it necessary to see video or have eye witnesses, then you give the players the ability to buy their way out of these suspensions by offering the victim a payday. It works both ways. The thing here is that the league, as an employer (and under the CBA) doesn't need to have enough proof to garner a criminal conviction to punish these players, and they shouldn't need that much. They just need enough to make it reasonable to believe that the morality clause was broken.

.

From what is publically available and what the lead investigator has stated I don't agree that this exists in this case.

"NFL lead investigator Kia Roberts testified this week that she recommended that Elliott not be suspended for his alleged domestic violence incidence. "

she was the only NFL employee who spoke to Elliott's accuser, Tiffany Thompson, during the 13-month investigation

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/lead ... uspension/

Why does speaking to the victim automatically qualify her as the most qualified to make the judgement. You yourself have said how money can play a part in this, and it's pretty simple to jump to the conclusion that if the victims can be motivated to come forward looking for money, then they can be just as motivated to keep their mouth shut or even outright lie for money as well.

The whole Elliott issue easily passes the eye test for me. In my opinion, he's done plenty enough with or without this exact incident to warrant the suspension, and the fact that the victim won't corroborate anything after the fact is pretty meaningless especially since charges were already off the table in the criminal investigation. It's just too easy for rich athletes to just pay off their accusers. Even under a rookie deal he's still looking at missing out on $600,000 in earnings (not including the fact that it's a first strike). Put yourself in her shoes....would you take say half of that to shut up? I probably would for less knowing he wasn't going to be charged criminally.

 

[Sports Hernia]

higher standard is fine but do you not see potential issues when without any evidence and stories counter to the claimed stories can be used against a player?

The league is setting up a system where their players are going to be blackmailed continuously. That is not setting a higher standard - that is setting up a corrupt system

If you make it necessary to see video or have eye witnesses, then you give the players the ability to buy their way out of these suspensions by offering the victim a payday. It works both ways. The thing here is that the league, as an employer (and under the CBA) doesn't need to have enough proof to garner a criminal conviction to punish these players, and they shouldn't need that much. They just need enough to make it reasonable to believe that the morality clause was broken.

.

From what is publically available and what the lead investigator has stated I don't agree that this exists in this case.

"NFL lead investigator Kia Roberts testified this week that she recommended that Elliott not be suspended for his alleged domestic violence incidence. "

she was the only NFL employee who spoke to Elliott's accuser, Tiffany Thompson, during the 13-month investigation

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/lead ... uspension/

Why does speaking to the victim automatically qualify her as the most qualified to make the judgement. You yourself have said how money can play a part in this, and it's pretty simple to jump to the conclusion that if the victims can be motivated to come forward looking for money, then they can be just as motivated to keep their mouth shut or even outright lie for money as well.

The whole Elliott issue easily passes the eye test for me. In my opinion, he's done plenty enough with or without this exact incident to warrant the suspension, and the fact that the victim won't corroborate anything after the fact is pretty meaningless especially since charges were already off the table in the criminal investigation. It's just too easy for rich athletes to just pay off their accusers. Even under a rookie deal he's still looking at missing out on $600,000 in earnings (not including the fact that it's a first strike). Put yourself in her shoes....would you take say half of that to shut up? I probably would for less knowing he wasn't going to be charged criminally.

BINGO!

Excellent points! :2thumbs:

 

[mikeak]

Why does speaking to the victim automatically qualify her as the most qualified to make the judgement. You yourself have said how money can play a part in this, and it's pretty simple to jump to the conclusion that if the victims can be motivated to come forward looking for money, then they can be just as motivated to keep their mouth shut or even outright lie for money as well.

The whole Elliott issue easily passes the eye test for me. In my opinion, he's done plenty enough with or without this exact incident to warrant the suspension, and the fact that the victim won't corroborate anything after the fact is pretty meaningless especially since charges were already off the table in the criminal investigation. It's just too easy for rich athletes to just pay off their accusers. Even under a rookie deal he's still looking at missing out on $600,000 in earnings (not including the fact that it's a first strike). Put yourself in her shoes....would you take say half of that to shut up? I probably would for less knowing he wasn't going to be charged criminally.

1) It doesn't in itself classify as the most qualified person because she spoke with the victim. The fact that the LEAD investigator spoke to the victim then recommend something and is not included in the sentencing hearing as the lead investigator is what combined speaks volumes

2) I completely agree and stated it before if he was suspended for other items then it would strengthen the NFLs case and I frankly don't understand how he is not suspended for the sexual assault that is on freaking video tape. HOWEVER the NFL has stated clearly that those items are not part of this suspension.

I agree that NFL investigating is fine and should be done to avoid them buying people, but on the flip side it has to hold up to some reasonable expectation and we disagree if this does. I am not the only one believing this. If you look at Bill Reiters history on condemning players and then his stance on this then you would get one more vocal voice in the media that has looked at this enough to really question the NFLs decision here.

So in the end we disagree - don't know that we can get it any further.

 

[kidhawk]

Why does speaking to the victim automatically qualify her as the most qualified to make the judgement. You yourself have said how money can play a part in this, and it's pretty simple to jump to the conclusion that if the victims can be motivated to come forward looking for money, then they can be just as motivated to keep their mouth shut or even outright lie for money as well.

The whole Elliott issue easily passes the eye test for me. In my opinion, he's done plenty enough with or without this exact incident to warrant the suspension, and the fact that the victim won't corroborate anything after the fact is pretty meaningless especially since charges were already off the table in the criminal investigation. It's just too easy for rich athletes to just pay off their accusers. Even under a rookie deal he's still looking at missing out on $600,000 in earnings (not including the fact that it's a first strike). Put yourself in her shoes....would you take say half of that to shut up? I probably would for less knowing he wasn't going to be charged criminally.

1) It doesn't in itself classify as the most qualified person because she spoke with the victim. The fact that the LEAD investigator spoke to the victim then recommend something and is not included in the sentencing hearing as the lead investigator is what combined speaks volumes

2) I completely agree and stated it before if he was suspended for other items then it would strengthen the NFLs case and I frankly don't understand how he is not suspended for the sexual assault that is on freaking video tape. HOWEVER the NFL has stated clearly that those items are not part of this suspension.

I agree that NFL investigating is fine and should be done to avoid them buying people, but on the flip side it has to hold up to some reasonable expectation and we disagree if this does. I am not the only one believing this. If you look at Bill Reiters history on condemning players and then his stance on this then you would get one more vocal voice in the media that has looked at this enough to really question the NFLs decision here.

So in the end we disagree - don't know that we can get it any further.

We can definitely agree to disagree, but this isn't a matter of what we think should be done, it's a matter of what the league can legally do. From all appearances it seems as the league is well within it's rights on this issue. It's just a matter of time before he will lose his appeals. Ironically, if he gets this pushed back until next year, he stands to lose about $400,000 more than he would lose this season

 

[mikeak]

To quote Spider-Man

With great powers comes great responsibilities.........

 

[kidhawk]

NFL asked for this to be expedited but the court said no. He will be eligible to play week 8

A federal judge denied the NFL's request for an expedited preliminary injunction hearing in the Ezekiel Elliott case, ensuring the Dallas Cowboys running back will be allowed to play against the Washington Redskins this coming Sunday.

U.S. District Court Judge Katherine P. Failla confirmed Monday the hearing will take place on Oct. 30 at 5 p.m. ET. If the judge does not grant the NFL Players Association and Elliott a preliminary injunction, he will be suspended again. If she does, his suspension will continue to be on hold as the case makes its way through court.

[urltargetblank]http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000866001/article/ezekiel-elliott-eligible-to-play-week-8-after-court-ruling[/urltargetblank]

 

[homerun1970]

hope he drags it out to where suspension takes him out of playoffs to hurt cowboys max

 

[kidhawk]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ezek ... in-effect/

Judge denied NFLPA motion with a 24 hour stay for appeals. If none are requested or granted then his suspension begins this week. This would have him back the week before they play us

 

[Sports Hernia]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ezekiel-elliott-denied-preliminary-injunction-suspension-now-in-effect/

Judge denied NFLPA motion with a 24 hour stay for appeals. If none are requested or granted then his suspension begins this week. This would have him back the week before they play us

I hope they keep on appealing this until next year. They won’t be going anywhere with that crap defense this year anyhow.
According to the “internet lawyers” on a couple of *allas forums there was no way that Kessler (NFLPA lawyer) and Jerruh Jones with his “influence” would lose this case. Oopsie! 8)

 

[chris98251]

Jerry is pissed also, he is supposedly lobbying to get rid of Goodell now. You know he will have Krafts support in this.

 

[Josea16]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/ezekiel-elliott-denied-preliminary-injunction-suspension-now-in-effect/

Judge denied NFLPA motion with a 24 hour stay for appeals. If none are requested or granted then his suspension begins this week. This would have him back the week before they play us

So let's hope it succeeds for another week. Not that we will need it if we're actually in the race given the Rams aren't fooling around.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Jerry is pissed also, he is supposedly lobbying to get rid of Goodell now. You know he will have Krafts support in this.

Meh, most owners see right thru Jerruh’s self serving agenda. I’m not a “Rog fanboy” by any stretch but if I’m Rog and Jerruh continues to piss me off, I start popping “random” drug tests on the Cowboys best players and Zeke when he returns.

 

[kidhawk]

Jerry is pissed also, he is supposedly lobbying to get rid of Goodell now. You know he will have Krafts support in this.

Meh, most owners see right thru Jerruh’s self serving agenda. I’m not a “Rog fanboy” by any stretch but if I’m Rog and Jerruh continues to piss me off, I start popping “random” drug tests on the Cowboys best players and Zeke when he returns.

This is probably a good topic to start a new thread but I read today that jerry has the ear of 16 other owners on not renewing Goodell's contract. They may not necessarily follow through but they are listening. Of course I also read that it takes 24 owners to remove Goodell so it's just a lot of talk for now

 

[adeltaY]

man if he could just get it pushed back a couple weeks on appeal or something... then again I'm going to that game so it would be cool to see him in action.

 

[KitsapGuy]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JosinaAnderson/status/925455870242238464[/tweet]

 

[Sports Hernia]

The longer this goes on, the worse it is for *allas! 8)

 

[Sgt. Largent]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JosinaAnderson/status/925455870242238464[/tweet]

Just another couple of weeks baby.............just a couple more weeks.

 

[DJrmb]

Eventually he's going to have to serve the suspension, it was collectively bargained and there is nothing any court can do in the end. At this point they are flirting with the possibility of not having Elliot for playoff games (if they bump it again). He needs to just do the time, but I get the feeling this has gotten personal, on both sides, and that they are thinking emotionally and not logically.

 

[kidhawk]

[urltargetblank]http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000870468/article/nflpa-elliott-file-appeal-on-district-court-ruling[/urltargetblank]

Lawyers for the NFL Players Association filed an appeal to the Second Circuit on Tuesday in the Ezekiel Elliott case on Tuesday in an effort to get the Dallas Cowboys running back on the field as soon as possible.

The motion comes a day after U.S. District Court Judge Katherine P. Failla denied the NFLPA's request for a preliminary injunction in its case against the NFL, reinstating Elliott's six-game suspension.

The NFLPA earlier Tuesday filed a request for an emergency stay in the U.S. Southern District of New York on the ruling, but Failla quickly denied the motion.

Although the Second Circuit offers Elliott the best chance to return to the Cowboys this season, his odds of success are growing smaller. The Second Circuit ruled against Tom Brady during the Deflategate case and Failla repeatedly cited precedents established by the Second Circuit in that case in her decision to not grant the union's preliminary injunction request.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/926449537132191744[/tweet]