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.
If "credible evidence" really matters, then the commissioner's power is limited. In which case Zeke won't be suspended - because the evidence isn't credible enough to warrant a suspension. Something the NFL's own lead investigator has already opined on.
There you go again, arguing against a straw man. Just because you say the evidence comes from his accuser doesn’t change the fact that the NFL specifically stated what the suspension was based on, and it wasn’t her testimony. You can keep saying otherwise, but that doesn’t change the facts: once Zeke got involved in a domestic violence situation, Goodell has the power to authorize an investigation, then HE gets to decide what evidence he believes, then HE gets to decide the punishment. He could have said “I’m suspending you because I believe her,” but he didn’t. He said the photos, medical evidence, & other testimony. If you want topical those things apart, you’re free to do so, but when you keep talking about her testimony, you’re arguing something that isn’t relevant.
He still needs - if challenged - to justify to the courts that the evidence is "credible."
Not at all. Goodell gets to determine what is credible; that’s his role as commissioner, which Zeke agreed to, as part of the players union. Same reason Brady ultimately lost; didn’t matter that the science should have exonerated him-Goodell seemed the Wells report credible, suspended him based on that, & the 2nd circuit said he has the power to do that, because the players gave it to him.
If this is really true, then I have no idea why people in here keep pretending that "credible evidence" is at all relevant.
No, he doesn’t. The courts are not supposed to look at the facts of the case; the 2nd specifically he can make factual or legal mistakes, as long as he was following the principles of the CBA, they can’t over-rule him. Even if a district court ignores this, the NFL will win in appellate court.
The term credible evidence, as you and I use it, isn’t the same as what we’re talking about here. Credible means believable, and Goodell is the one who has to believe it, because the CBA gives him that role. You and I don’t find this evidence to be credible, but Goodell did, & that’s what matters.
If he gets the SDNY judge to grant him the TRO, he can probably buy himself some time. The NFL will appeal for over-rule, but that should take at least a few weeks.
Legally, the CBA is binding. Courts are very unlikely to interfere in CBA arbitration issues. Since the NFLPA agreed to this system where Goodell is judge, jury, executioner, AND appellate “court”, HIS decision about what evidence is credible is all that is relevant.
This is the kind of lackadaisical thinking that got the NFLPA into its current predicament. The circumstances are less dramatic, but this way of thinking evokes the WWII poem “first they came for a stranger and I did nothing, then they came for my neighbor and I did nothing, then they came for my father and I did nothing, then they came for me.” The fact that most players aren’t being treated unfairly is irrelevant; NO PLAYER should be treated unfairly. If the players stand by and allow one of their own to get suspended without a fair trial/process then all of them are at risk in the future.
Agee with what you posted, but the time to have done this was when they bargained the CBA; legally they currently have very little ground to stand on-they DID agree to this system. The courts will likely defer to that agreement.
Then you and I are saying the same thing. The phrase "credible evidence" in any real-world or legal sense is meaningless. Goodell could say "I based my decision on astrology, which is credible evidence" and his decision would be binding and legal. Because he asserts that it is.
I hate abusers - I think punishments for men and women abusing other men and/or women should be swift and hard.
You're 100% correct. They have almost no legal leverage to fight what's happening.
Isn’t that what we’ve been saying for the last number of posts? Goodell ignored evidence that should have led to a non-suspension, and focused on things that he believed showed that Zeke has abused her? You’re citing an article from 2 months ago to reiterate what we all think happened?
The problem is that a league of almost 2,000 players is probably not going to side with a few outliers and strike for things like discipline for domestic violence, drug suspensions, franchise tags, getting placed on the commissioner's exempt list, etc. I don't see a lot of the players willing to give up their livelihood and their paychecks for a handful of extreme outcomes.
The (very small) number of players impacted obviously impacts how important the issue is to the union.
I seem to remember a player recently got suspended because an "independent report" (that was edited by the NFL before actually being released, and the NFL refused to say what they changed) said that player was "generally aware" of some equipment violation.
I think that’s a bit of a stretch, but I see what you mean now; sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree, it’s insane, &’I was shocked when the NFLPA didn’t insist on changing it at the last CBA. The financial part of the agreement was likely more important to more players (as Anarchy &’others have pointed out)
In the news: People Slowly Becoming Aware that Roger Goodell is in fact an unfair and capricious tyrant. How many teams affected now? Have we hit all 32 yet?
You are suggesting that a court of law determined that Zeke was "not guilty", and that is simply untrue. To prevail in a defamation suit, Zeke would need to show that the NFL made a false claim, which would be exceedingly difficult to prove. The burden of proof would be upon Zeke, not on the NFL. That would almost certainly be a PR disaster for Elliott.I still can't figure out why EE hasnt filed a defamation lawsuit. He is not guilty in the eyes of the law but the NFL is clearly stating that they believe he is an abuser.
Seems like a slam dunk to me.
The suspended Saints players in bountygate sued for defamation and they pushed the NFL to the brink just by pushing to depose Goodell and other administrative personnel. Eventually the suspensions were dropped.
On top of that, defamation suits lead to discovery, which is generally not a fun time for people with sketchy pasts. If you sue someone, they are basically allowed to bring up every bad thing you've ever done as part of their defense.
Yes, but in this hypothetical EE is the one who would be filing a suit. Among the many reasons he wouldn't, the league could basically throw the kitchen sink at him and trash his rep.
You mean like calling him a woman beater and ruin any chance of getting any endorsement deals?
Zeke didn't need to be found guilty in a court of law. This allegation never made it past the accusation stage, because real investigators (not the NFL variety) realized pretty early on that this girl was lying and no charges were even brought on Elliott to begin with. That's much stronger than being found not guilty... that's saying that not only did the crime not even take place in the eyes of the investigators, but the accuser wasn't even credible enough to get Elliott arrested or charged, let alone convicted.
Great post. You've summed up pretty much all my feelings about the NFL in one go. But I do still feel, in reality, that Roger Goodell cannot do anything he wants. I realize a lot of people feel that way and I see how they feel that way. But I do believe there are parameters he must abide by and I think he stayed within those parameters on DeflateGate. But here I do not believe he did.
Woah, the police never said the girl was lying. They just said there was conflicting evidence.WiDDoW_MaKeR said:
I'm pretty sure the police (real investigators) never said the girl was lying. They said they had inconsistent reports/accounts, or something like that.WiDDoW_MaKeR said:
LOL..an ambulance chaser looking for publicity. Who gives a crap about what he says? This is fake news.
??? He's been one of the better reporters on this case the whole time. Nobody else is giving an opinion and he's laying it out there.
