I picked up Ivory off of waivers a month ago (I must be psychic) and sent some feelers out to the McCoy owner a few days ago with either me sending Ivory or me getting McCoy. No response at all.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Lesean McCoy? How concerned are we? (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sabertooth
- Start date
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
I traded for McCoy and am now trying to acquire Ivory as the handcuff. Price is probably going to be stupid to get him though.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
Here's my perspective on it for Dynasty owners. I understand there's a chance he doesn't play this year or misses a few games.
But my Dynasty team is average at best with a glaring hole at RB. If he plays, my team will make the playoffs. I have confidence in that. If he doesn't play, my team will disappoint and I'll have a very low pick in next year's draft.
His career wouldn't be over either. Based on the discount I received in trading for him now with these problems looming, I can probably get as much back as I spent - if not more come this time next year.
I like the risk - reward in my particular situation. For redraft, I'm not sure but assuming you can get Ivory on the cheap it seems like he could be a bargain there too. But I'm sure we will have more clarity by the time we start drafting teams in redraft.
But my Dynasty team is average at best with a glaring hole at RB. If he plays, my team will make the playoffs. I have confidence in that. If he doesn't play, my team will disappoint and I'll have a very low pick in next year's draft.
His career wouldn't be over either. Based on the discount I received in trading for him now with these problems looming, I can probably get as much back as I spent - if not more come this time next year.
I like the risk - reward in my particular situation. For redraft, I'm not sure but assuming you can get Ivory on the cheap it seems like he could be a bargain there too. But I'm sure we will have more clarity by the time we start drafting teams in redraft.
Last edited by a moderator:
pantherclub
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
um, there is a huge accusation out there now and police are in the middle of an investigation
pantherclub
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
Forgot that the lawyer for the victim is not linking McCoy to the crime?
You said there was a huge accusation.. where is it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
The accusation was hearsay. And it isn't being backed by the party or most of the evidence in regards to the whole of the statement.pantherclub said:
Maybe he is suspended. Maybe not. There is not enough information made public for us to make that determination. I would think if there was anything damning the punishment would have been (and will be) swift. So, for now, unless there is more, I think he is going to play.
pantherclub
Footballguy
the friend accused him of being involved and gave examples as to why goodell isnt going to simply forget that
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
There was (no longer) an IG post. There is (still) documented and recorded police reports and calls all going directly in the face of the IG post (that no longer exists) that was disowned by the victim's lawyer.
matuski
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
pantherclub
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
dude that doesnt matter things dont exist in a vacuum. do you think the friend is going to backtrack when interviewed by the cops?
matuski
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
But the league faces the same exposure for slander/defamation/libel, maybe even moreso, because of the public nature of the league. If false, they will have done irreparable damage to his reputation AND career.
Or, they wait it out until there is a clear path.
My guess is they are going to give time time.
matuski
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
@pantherclub
Nobody has said he wasn't involved - this is what they are investigating, to find out who was involved.
The lawyer has not said he WAS involved and had the friend delete the IG post for that reason.
IN OTHER WORDS THE VICTIM AND HER LAWYER ARE NOT ACCUSING HIM.
eta - obviously this could change pending the investigation, but if the facts stay the same there is no reason for goodell to do anything as McCoy is not linked to the crime.
Nobody has said he wasn't involved - this is what they are investigating, to find out who was involved.
The lawyer has not said he WAS involved and had the friend delete the IG post for that reason.
IN OTHER WORDS THE VICTIM AND HER LAWYER ARE NOT ACCUSING HIM.
eta - obviously this could change pending the investigation, but if the facts stay the same there is no reason for goodell to do anything as McCoy is not linked to the crime.
Last edited by a moderator:
pantherclub
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
Stuart Ullman
Footballguy
Didn't Marvin Harrison kill somebody that one time?
pantherclub
Footballguy
until the case or investigation is resolved
its a huge black eye for goodell if he lets him play and it comes out mccoy had something to do with it
I do not see how folks are comparing the Elliott case to the McCoy case under the current evidence.pantherclub said:
In the Elliott case, the league found enough evidence to conclude that Elliot was violent towards a woman on three separate occasions.
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/11/19/16666714/ezekiel-elliott-nfl-suspension-cowboys-ex
Because the victim did not support the prosecution, the State decided not to pursue criminal charges. Simply put, the victim flopped on her statement. Happens all the time in domestic abuse cases.
The criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt... that can be hard to reach when the primary accuser is not supporting the case. In my experience, the victim will try to explain their injuries as coming only after she had attacked or physically threatened her abuser. Unlike the old "door knob" claims, these are much harder to disprove and still reach the high beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
The league is not bound by that high standard. The language of the deal says that the commissioner can act "where the circumstances and evidence warrant doing so." They are careful to note that this is not the same as a criminal trial standard, but they also avoid using other legal standards like probably cause, preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
I think there is no dispute that the victim was hit and that Elliott did the hitting... the only issue was if it was in defense or not. The League findings were innocuous "violent toward the woman on three separate occasions" avoiding the self-defense issue. So they hang their hat on either he attacked her or he used to much force in defending himself. (I.e. the Mixon fact pattern)
The McCoy case is different ball of wax. If the investigators cannot turn up any direct evidence linking McCoy to the attacker, then the Commish has nothing to hang his hat on to punish.
Said another way... if the police can ID the attacker and link that attacker to McCoy they will prosecute whether they have the support of the victim or not. If they cant ID the attacker and/or prove the link, then they wont prosecute and the Commish will not have anything to justify action either.
pantherclub
Footballguy
where did i compare this to ee?
Inadmissible where?
The ban on hearsay is a legal rule of evidence used in court proceedings, but the league policy is not bound by the rules of evidence. For example, it carefully points out that players have no 5th Amendment rights concerning league actions and that they can be compelled to answer questions.
(Even though admissibility is not an issue, the credibility and weight of the original claim is certainly less if it is second hand information.)
Side note: per the policy, it appears the league is probably required to investigate every allegation contained in the original tweet. "Whenever the league office becomes aware of a possible violation of the Personal Conduct Policy, it will undertake an investigation." Note the language of "it will". Poor word choice if you ask me because it makes it mandatory to investigate every accusation that rises to the incredibly low level of "possible violation." However, they do give themselves some wiggle room with the next clause: "...the timing and scope of which will be based upon the particular circumstances of the matter."
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
and a huge black eye, and a huge lawsuit on their hands, if he doesn't play and it comes out McCoy had nothing to do with it.
Your claim that McCoy will sit because of "Goodell" caused me to presume that you were looking at his most recent controversial action dealing with Elliott as many others have on this thread.
If not ee, then please list which cases you are referencing that led you to believe that Goodell would act in the McCoy case, and then we can compare those situations to the current issues.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Goodell is not going to suspend a player based on an unproven allegation on social media. There will have to be more to it than this for him to act.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I think it would be a tough case to win if he did in fact sue the NFL, but we don't need to debate the outcome of a lawsuit that doesn't exist.
The NFL isn't going to do anything until at least the investigation is over. If he's charged he's done.
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
Each case is different. He isn't
At least from what I read (I could be wrong), she wasn't at the scene and had no specific personal experiences which could substantiate the accusations.
Edit to add: I simply think it is premature for the league to act. And I understand that the league is not a court of law. But if they suspend him, and he did not do it, that is where it will be headed IMHO. Shady just hired a terrific trial attorney.
Unless the friend was in the apartment (which maybe she was), AND Shady was actually there beating the woman, or the child, or shooting growth hormones right in front of her, or had at some other time, he friend would have no first hand experience to attest to.
At least from what I read (I could be wrong), she wasn't at the scene and had no specific personal experiences which could substantiate the accusations.
It is a bigger black eye if he suspends him and Shady had nothing to do with it.
Edit to add: I simply think it is premature for the league to act. And I understand that the league is not a court of law. But if they suspend him, and he did not do it, that is where it will be headed IMHO. Shady just hired a terrific trial attorney.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed, but the question is how much more. The Policy gives the Commish to suspend a player on the "Commissioner Exempt List" if "a violation relating to violence is suspected but further investigation is required."
As I read the policy, I think the Commish has enough now to take action. The evidence that there was no forced entry and that the specific items that were asked for were specific items that McCoy had previously requested combined with the uncontroverted fact that the victim was physically assaulted rise to the level where an ordinary reasonable person would "suspect" McCoy's involvement.
So I think he could take action, but in his shoes I would want a little more.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Not sure this is correct. If she makes a new claim, allegation, or statement in court it might not be hearsay but only if she is limiting herself to activities where she is a the first hand witness. The original tweet was not clear, but the way I read it was that some of the allegations were things the friend had been told rather than witnessed first hand. Those would all probably stay as hearsay even if she attempted to state them in court.
electric Ape
Footballguy
With respect to the Zeke case, how do you reach the conclusion that “there is no dispute that the victim was hit and Elliot did the hitting?” Elliot denied it. Witnesses at the scene disputed the victim’s version of events. And the victim was later caught red handed trying to blackmail Elliot and instructing other witnesses to lie to police. It’s certainly possible that he hit the victim but how can you say that he did with so much certainty? This is part of the problem with the NFL's version of justice, they have almost no burden of proof yet their "conclusions" can ruin reputations and shape public opinion.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The victim (her friend) would be in court as well so statements as to what she was told by the victim would be fine. Her other statements may not have any credibility (if she has no first hand knowledge) or relevance and may be stricken for other reasons - but not for hearsay.
Last edited by a moderator:
I need to stop cutting corners. I did not mean to imply that every allegation was unopposed and I should not have used the very "hit" but I was trying to be brief and not keep using the word violence.
You are right that the July wrist incident does appear to be challenged, but I cannot find any denial or challenge to the February wall incident. There the issue was severity... she did not require medical treatment and was merely pushed against a wall.
The league brought in four experts for a hearing on the case and those four disinterested experts found that there was "substantial and persuasive evidence supporting the finding" that Elliot used violence against women on three separate occasions.
That seems to be much more to hang his hat on than the Commish currently has on McCoy."
What leads you to conclude that? I believe that in the definition of hearsay, the "out of court statement" refers to when the original statement was made that is being quoted.
I am not a Georgia Lawyer, so I can't speak with any expertise to how that jurisdiction might define hearsay, but the relatively ubiquitous Federal Rules of Evidence do not care if the victim is in court or not unless you are getting into 803 exceptions or proving that she has made prior consistent/inconsistent statements.
In fact, the FRE even prevents one from "hearsaying" themselves even though they are in court. For example, a Defendant in a criminal trial cannot introduce a written statement they made to police where they detailed there self-defense claim. (Thought the Prosecution could admit the statement as an admission by a party opponent, which is specifically excluded from the definition of hearsay).
Looking at the Georgia rules (though not spending the time to see how the courts have interpreted them) 24-8-801 to 24-8-807 I cannot find any significant relevant difference between the Federal and Georgia rules.
I believe that if the friend were to testify in court, she could not quote the victim unless:
1. The statement is not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (e.g. In response to the question "How did you know John was home?' because you are trying to prove that John was present at the crime scene and the witness responds "Because I heard him say he was hungry."... it relevance of the statement does not depend on whether John was actually hungry, so it is not hearsay).
2. As a prior consistent/inconsistent statement in order to evaluate a witness' credibility.
3. She was called by McCoy to testify against the victim.
4. One of the 803 or 804 exceptions apply. Under the facts we have currently, none yet apply.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I’ll tap out - you put more thought into it than I did. Haven’t studied the rules of evidence in a while.
