Zeke Elliott TRO granted

[footbull3196]

This is hilarious.  I'm not complaining about this at all

[Lunch Pail]

Is this the same thing that happened to Brady? 

[incognito_man]

42 minutes ago, Dirk Gently said:

Judge expressed displeasure at the timing of the statement (Henderson's decision was announced with 10-15 mins to go in tonight's proceedings) and seemed to indicate that Elliott had legitimate case. Also, no one is seeming to notice this but the NFL's central argument against the TRO  was that Elliott had not exhausted all options because Henderson hadn't ruled. Henderson's ruling makes their central argument moot.

Expect TRO to go through and Elliott to play all games this year.

Next year? well reading through this, the NFL has a lot to overcome here:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/903796071306055680

why should we expect the TRO to be granted?

[Forge]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

why should we expect the TRO to be granted?

Because he may have a legitimate case. If the judge thinks there's even a small chance he's in the right, they'll grant it

[Dirk Gently]

3 minutes ago, Forge said:

Because he may have a legitimate case. If the judge thinks there's even a small chance he's in the right, they'll grant it

Yes, that, and also, again, because the NFL's principal argument about the TRO was that Elliott had not exercised all his options because Henderson had not ruled... now that Henderson has ruled, that argument is moot. And it was their PRIMARY one.

 

[incognito_man]

8 minutes ago, Forge said:

Because he may have a legitimate case. If the judge thinks there's even a small chance he's in the right, they'll grant it

isn't it fairly well established that the courts can't overrule the CBA at this point? Why would he have a likelihood of success for his case now?

[CrashMan510]

Sweet. SNF won't suck anymore

[Forge]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

isn't it fairly well established that the courts can't overrule the CBA at this point? Why would he have a likelihood of success for his case now?

No. The most similar case would be bradys, and their ruling in that case wasn't that they couldn't overrule the CBA, it was, 

“We hold that (NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell) properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness,”

Thats different. In this case, they could decide Goodell didn't do that. And that decision wasn't unanimous, it had a dissenting opinion

[incognito_man]

Just now, Forge said:

No. The most similar case would be bradys, and their ruling in that case wasn't that they couldn't overrule the CBA, it was, 

“We hold that (NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell) properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness,”

Thats different. In this case, they could decide Goodell didn't do that. And that decision wasn't unanimous, it had a dissenting opinion

there is an opinion that Elliott was deprived of fundamental fairness?

[Forge]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

there is an opinion that Elliott was deprived of fundamental fairness?

I'm not sure what he's alleging in his case. All i was saying was that their decision didn't explicitly say that they can't overrule the CBA in that instance 

[Dirk Gently]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

there is an opinion that Elliott was deprived of fundamental fairness?

Yep. A lot. You know basic things like being allowed access to the evidence against him,  or actually having the lead investigator's recommendation conveyed to the sentencing panel. Fundamental procedural stuff, yeah?Judge indicated specific problem with the Roberts issue calling it "something I just can't ignore."

Also Brady case doesn't have precedent in this circuit. NFL is trying a filing in New York. Not sure what that does, legally, but it seems clear that both sides are going scorched earth on this, NFL has WAY more to lose. Quite frankly I don't see how a neutral party could find these proceedings "fundamentally fair" by any definition.

[incognito_man]

7 minutes ago, Forge said:

I'm not sure what he's alleging in his case. All i was saying was that their decision didn't explicitly say that they can't overrule the CBA in that instance 

It seems to me the only thing a court can take issue with is whether or not Goodell abides by the CBA. That is, whether he stays with his 'broad discretion'. I frankly don't see a likelihood of success for Zeke unless there was some egregious deprivation of 'fundamental fairness' (whatever that means). Maybe there was, no clue - but that is outside the scope of 'overruling' the CBA. It would be an examination of whether or not Goodell adhered to it, I believe. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

It seems to me the only thing a court can take issue with is whether or not Goodell abides by the CBA. That is, whether he stays with his 'broad discretion'. I frankly don't see a likelihood of success for Zeke unless there was some egregious deprivation of 'fundamental fairness' (whatever that means). Maybe there was, no clue - but that is outside the scope of 'overruling' the CBA. It would be an examination of whether or not Goodell adhered to it, I believe. 

Some of the things Dirks mentioned could easily be construed as just that. Remember, this is just for a TRO. Doesn't take much to get that. If he can make a compelling case, he'll at least get that. Then it could be a year before the actual case is heard. 

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, Dirk Gently said:

Yep. A lot. You know basic things like being allowed access to the evidence against him,  or actually having the lead investigator's recommendation conveyed to the sentencing panel. Fundamental procedural stuff, yeah?Judge indicated specific problem with the Roberts issue calling it "something I just can't ignore."

Also Brady case doesn't have precedent in this circuit. NFL is trying a filing in New York. Not sure what that does, legally, but it seems clear that both sides are going scorched earth on this, NFL has WAY more to lose. Quite frankly I don't see how a neutral party could find these proceedings "fundamentally fair" by any definition.

Does the CBA stipulate that he be allowed to examine evidence against him? And I agree about the Roberts thing, that is certainly less than ideal from the league's standpoint. Not sure that that omission makes the entire case not fundamentally fair, however. I suppose that's what the judge will ultimately rule on later!

[Dirk Gently]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

It seems to me the only thing a court can take issue with is whether or not Goodell abides by the CBA. That is, whether he stays with his 'broad discretion'. I frankly don't see a likelihood of success for Zeke unless there was some egregious deprivation of 'fundamental fairness' (whatever that means). Maybe there was, no clue - but that is outside the scope of 'overruling' the CBA. It would be an examination of whether or not Goodell adhered to it, I believe. 

There is also the matter iof "Credible Evidence" since this is not merely a rule violation, but an alleged crime. There is literally zero credible evidence anywhere.

Which, as you say, might only mean that they failed to implement their policy properly.

Except Henderson just pushed all the chips to the center of the table, stating in his ruling that the process was proper "in every respect."  Which, if Elliott shows the process to be fundamentally unfair (for which being deprived of the right to discovery and, not least, the NFL removing their lead investigator's recommendation of no suspension from her report, are pretty strong arguments ) then the NFLPA can say that, by logical extension, their process, followed to the letter, is fundamentally unfair.

They really are trying hard to kill the golden goose here.