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.
The sources I have are the same things everyone in here has been reading. I gave my opinion that I find some more pertinent than others. I'll try digging through these twitter feeds to find the things I thought we're most interesting. No promises though, as it's a ton to go back through.
Oh, it is. IF the judge follows the law, the case is over. Article 46 of the CBA gives the commish the power to suspend players, at his discretion. Case closed.
And for what it's worth, I've found https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL to be the most convincing of anything I've read. Again, just my opinion.
That's not necessarily true. Depending on how you read the law and how you think the court should define Fundamental Fairness.
No, but you seemed confident. I've heard a lot of gloom and doom on this thread and it was surprising to see someone with such optimism. Had me curious... maybe I could steal away Zeke from his owner if there was something I hadn't seen.
If you read the law the way in which it has been interpreted by the courts, it is true. If you argue that the judge will interpret those labor laws, and the definition of fundamental fairness DIFFERENTLY than courts have done so up to this point, then you may be correct. It makes more sense to assume the courts will continue to interpret the laws the same way.
Do I assume they will interpret the laws the same way? Yes.
Exactly... They want to show so bad that they care about domestic violence for messing up the Ray Rice situation.
In what ways, in your view, are they different? Because the issue of fundamental fairness (the core of Zekes suit) isn't very different. Brady made the same claim & the court ultimately said he was wrong. Same issue in the other (non-NFL cases) Wallace cited. So, let's talk about the differences; what are they, in your view?
The witnesses and evidence in Zeke's case are tough to ignore. Thompson's statements to the NFL are the very crux of the allegations against Zeke. Brady's claim was his case was fundamentally unfair because he didn't get to examine Pash. But Jeffrey Pash's testimony to the NFL just doesn't compare in significance in Brady's suspension. Brady lost his appeal because Pash was ruled to be "collateral" or a "non-essential" witness in Brady's case. The argument here is that Thompson IS an essential witness in this case.
6pm EST, less then 5 hours the parties will know, when we will...thats a different discussion. Not long after if not here at anytime.
No, they aren't. Did you read the letter the NFL sent to Zeke? It very carefully states that the NFL's findings were based on "the entire record." Furthermore, it goes on to state that "the findings set forth above are based on a combination of photographic, medical, testimonial and other evidence that is sufficiently credible in the Commissioner's judgement to establish the facts, even allowing for concerns you and your representatives have advanced about the complaining witness's credibility."
Of course that's what the NFL said. Because they know that is the huge hole in their case.
They said that BEFORE the appeal, lawsuit, etc.
Yes, but they knew the appeal would come and what the argument would be. They weren't going to say, "Hey this is the most important part of our case and we are going to withhold this evidence."
So, even though the commish said "I'm suspending you based on this information," Zeke says "I choose to believe that you're suspending me based on this other information, and that's unfair!"
That's really not a fair analysis of the situation. It's more akin to Goodell saying I'm suspending you for X, Y, and Z and you don't get access to evidence Z (when some think Z is the most important evidence).
That's not really an accurate analysis of the situation.
But the NFL went one fatal step further--it also denied Elliott's team access to the notes from the league's multiple interviews with Ms. Thompson. These interviews (and the notes therefrom) played a role in the league's decision to suspend Elliott for six-games under the NFL's personal conduct policy.
The notes that the NFL claimed were a part of the decision WERE in the Elliott report.
Because they want the least amount of people pissed as possible. Friday during the commute home is the perfect time to drop any type of controversial news. People are less angry heading into the weekend and less likely to read up about it.
Which the NFL said weren't part of their decision & weren't necessary.
We understand the NFL will eventually win the appeal. Most of us just want it to happen in the offseason.
The NFL picked which evidence to include and which evidence to leave out. You can't see why that's a problem?
This. So many lawyers/armchair lawyers/wannabe lawyers.
I see exactly why that's a problem; you don't seem to see that it's not a violation of the CBA.
Right, but hoping doesn't make it happen. It's possible he gets the injunction, the NFL loses their appeal & he's on the field all season. That's unlikely, IMO. It would behoove owners to consider moving him, if he wins the injunction & they can get a big return. If one believes that the injunction guarantees the whole season, they could bypass possible trades.
I do understand what you mean. But there is an argument that it violates the CBA.
Credible shmedible. Ultimately, it's already established that Goodell is allowed to do as he so pleases and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it.
This is true. And Zeke is very, very likely to lose in the end.
And the person who is given the authority by the CBA to determine what evidence is credible is Goodell. It's not fair, but it is what it is. He decided what is credible, suspended Zeke based on that, & that information is in the Elliott report, according to the NFL. If it's not in that report, he deemed it not credible. If it wasn't credible, there was no need to give it to Zeke, therefore no violation.
The NFL may know but if they didn't use it it's not relevant. If I interview for a job they will clearly know my age. If they choose not to hire me for other reasons I can't slap them with a suit claiming age discrimination.
