Zeke Elliott TRO granted

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, Dirk Gently said:

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.

Thanks for the info, haven't really been following this too closely so I wasn't sure how it differed from the 'ironclad' CBA vs courts I thought was resolved.

[Dirk Gently]

Just now, incognito_man said:

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!

The CBA doesn't stipulate... which is actually a problem for the NFL, because in situations like discovery (being presented the evidence against you) and not censoring investigative reports then (I am told by Lawyers, though I am not one) it needs to stipulate that these fundamental rights are not there for them to be waived.

As you say, ultimately that is what the judge will be ruling on, but the NFL's actions here are pretty egregious.

[Dirk Gently]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Thanks for the info, haven't really been following this too closely so I wasn't sure how it differed from the 'ironclad' CBA vs courts I thought was resolved.

No problem, Glad to have someone discussing this with a mind for finding out.  I should probably point out that I am not a lawyer. I am only repeating what I have heard people who claim to be lawyers say.

edit to add: and stuff I have seen from the documentation, which includes the Colombus PD report,  Tiffany Thompsons photographs, and the transcript of the Henderson hearing. Tonight's judge opinions came from Kate Haioropoulos, a reporter from these parts :-)

[Shanedorf]

Sports Illustrated has a sports lawyer on staff, and here's the article from Michael McCann.

Good read on many topics that will impact Elliott's availability for the upcoming season

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/05/ezekiel-elliott-dallas-cowboys-suspension-lawsuit-temporary-restraining-order

 

."..Gambrell also quotes the Brady decision to counter Elliott’s claim that the NFL should have compelled Thompson to testify or at least turn over its investigative notes on Thompson. Common sense would suggest that should have happened. After all, how can Elliott adequately defend himself if he can’t confront his accuser or review the NFL’s impressions of her?

Common sense, however, isn’t the law.

This identical issue proved critical in Deflategate, as both Brady and the New England Patriots strenuously objected to the NFL not making co-lead “independent” investigator (and NFL general counsel) Jeffrey Pash available as a witness and refusing to make scientific findings available for review and scrutiny.

The legal problem for Elliott and Brady before him is that Article 46 simply doesn’t require the NFL to make any specific witnesses available or share any specific types of notes."

[Forge]

1 minute ago, Shanedorf said:

Sports Illustrated has a sports lawyer on staff, and here's the article from Michael McCann.

Good read on many topics that will impact Elliott's availability for the upcoming season

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/05/ezekiel-elliott-dallas-cowboys-suspension-lawsuit-temporary-restraining-order

 

 

."..Gambrell also quotes the Brady decision to counter Elliott’s claim that the NFL should have compelled Thompson to testify or at least turn over its investigative notes on Thompson. Common sense would suggest that should have happened. After all, how can Elliott adequately defend himself if he can’t confront his accuser or review the NFL’s impressions of her?

 

Common sense, however, isn’t the law.

 

This identical issue proved critical in Deflategate, as both Brady and the New England Patriots strenuously objected to the NFL not making co-lead “independent” investigator (and NFL general counsel) Jeffrey Pash available as a witness and refusing to make scientific findings available for review and scrutiny.

 

The legal problem for Elliott and Brady before him is that Article 46 simply doesn’t require the NFL to make any specific witnesses available or share any specific types of notes."

 

The bolded is absolutely amazing and the reason why people say that the players have nobody to blame but themselves. The player really did give Goodell and company carte blanche to screw them over however they pleased with regards to player discipline. 

[incognito_man]

Regarding Roberts being barred from sharing her opinion:

 

Quote

Nothing in the CBA requires the Commissioner (or, for that matter, the Arbitrator) to defer to the opinion of a member of his staff, particularly after he has received additional evidence and other expert opinions.” Along those lines, Gambrell quotes the Brady decision. In it, Judge Barrington Parker wrote that there “simply is no fundamental unfairness in affording the parties precisely what they agreed on.”

Put another way, if Elliott is upset about Goodell not heeding Roberts’ recommendation, Gambrell urges Elliott to blame his union for agreeing to Article 46. It is that portion of the CBA which precisely empowers Goodell to make decisions as he sees fit.

It seems ridiculous to common sense, but legally (and with the Brady precedence) I don't see how Zeke has any likelihood of success here. It appears that Judge Parker has already addressed precisely this issue of 'fundamental fairness' in a previous ruling.

Good read. Well, informative read anyway  Some eye-opening info in there.

[incognito_man]

Additionally:

Quote

Whenever Henderson does rule, it is worth noting that Elliott faces a challenging task in trying to persuade Judge Mazzant that he should grant a TRO. A TRO is considered an “extraordinary” form of relief for a reason: petitions for them are usually denied. Neither the CBA nor NFL case precedent helps Elliott. There’s no getting around the fact that Article 46 is worded favorably for the NFL. The NFL also scored a major victory in defeating Brady in a case that has parallels in regards to procedure.

It appears likely that Zeke will not be granted the TRO from the information in the article above.

[Shanedorf]

It is eye-opening in terms of what powers are granted in the CBA. As far as the next round, it will be interesting to see what the membership wants to give up in exchange for any reduction in the Commissioners authority. Most of the players in the NFL stay clear of legal trouble, so the vast majority of union members aren't interested in getting paid less money in exchange for reeling in Roger. I'm guessing Roger "disciplines" about 50 players out of 2000 in the NFLPA.

The other thing to remember is that Roger isn't doing this to uphold the law, he's doing it to keep the gravy train flowing. Networks, Corporate America, Advertisers all want the NFL to remain squeaky clean, that's part of their business model. So the court of public opinion does matter here, same as in the Brady case

The integrity of the game, the image of the League and all of the cash that flows from that are a big part of Goodell's job.

The legal opinions/minutia in these matters are almost secondary - from the view of the billionaire owners club

[Dirk Gently]

12 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Additionally:

It appears likely that Zeke will not be granted the TRO from the information in the article above.

We'll see. Didn't read the article (probably will tomorrow) but the sections you cited put a lot of weight on the precedent from Brady... which does not apply in this court.

 

And, of course, Brady himself *was* granted the restraining order and injunction, just ultimately lost the court battle.

[incognito_man]

18 minutes ago, Dirk Gently said:

We'll see. Didn't read the article (probably will tomorrow) but the sections you cited put a lot of weight on the precedent from Brady... which does not apply in this court.

 

And, of course, Brady himself *was* granted the restraining order and injunction, just ultimately lost the court battle.

Well, it absolutely does 'apply' insofar as the precedence is significant. This goes for the goes for the granting of the TRO as well I would think. Since an appeals court already weighed in on this I would suspect there is less of a desire to grant a TRO this time around. The litigation are, essentially, already happened.

[MightyMouse07]

Yeah I was going to say according to my understanding, the precedent doesn't necessarily apply to this district where an appeal would ultimately be heard. 

 

Meaning they dont don't have to follow that precedent. 

[incognito_man]

27 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

It is eye-opening in terms of what powers are granted in the CBA. As far as the next round, it will be interesting to see what the membership wants to give up in exchange for any reduction in the Commissioners authority. Most of the players in the NFL stay clear of legal trouble, so the vast majority of union members aren't interested in getting paid less money in exchange for reeling in Roger. I'm guessing Roger "disciplines" about 50 players out of 2000 in the NFLPA.

The other thing to remember is that Roger isn't doing this to uphold the law, he's doing it to keep the gravy train flowing. Networks, Corporate America, Advertisers all want the NFL to remain squeaky clean, that's part of their business model. So the court of public opinion does matter here, same as in the Brady case

The integrity of the game, the image of the League and all of the cash that flows from that are a big part of Goodell's job.

The legal opinions/minutia in these matters are almost secondary - from the view of the billionaire owners club

I still wouldn't be surprised if this bargaining chip was set up from day 1 to be "given" back to the NFLPA in exchange for the 18 game season. It's really a win-win for the league at that point if the implement some more...outside/impartial...input on discipline. They get something in return (18 games) and still get to retain a clean image through the jurisdiction of an impartial outsider (which, let's be honest - is going to be more than sufficient anyway).

[Shanedorf]

Will the full union membership trade an 18 game season for reducing Rogers' powers ?  ( I don't believe so)

None of the players want 18 games, only a select few give a crap about Roger's authority. And those guys aren't the Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Watt types that carry clout around the league. IMO, If the players trade for a 17 or 18 game season, it will be for cash concessions that benefit all of the members

[Forge]

7 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Will the full union membership trade an 18 game season for reducing Rogers' powers ?  ( I don't believe so)

None of the players want 18 games, only a select few give a crap about Roger's authority. And those guys aren't the Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Watt types that carry clout around the league. IMO, If the players trade for a 17 or 18 game season, it will be for cash concessions that benefit all of the members

I don't think that the players will have to give up much of anything. It's in everyone's best interest to overhaul the disciplinary  structure right now. Sure, ownership will hem and haw maybe a little, but it won't be big enough to get something that large out of the players and I think that will largely be for show. I do think that they could get something minor, but they may not even do that. Even ownership has to acknowledge that the optics of the NFL discipline policy and procedures has been a disaster. Brady gets 4 games for deflategate, Zeke gets 6 games for something that he may or may not have done, but Josh Brown got one game? It's all over the place. And we've had two of the most powerful owners, in Kraft and now Jones, feel the negative brunt of this structure. And after all, its all fun and games until it starts affecting them. They should want to have this changed as well, it's really in everyone's best interest and its not going to be something that affects the bottom line or really impacts them financially (outside of a couple of new people on the payroll). There is nothing wrong with having another individual, or tribunal or whatever you want to have in whatever structure, take this power from Goodell allowing him to focus on other aspects of the sport. 

[Hunter2_1]

8 hours ago, Broncofan said:

I think you need to go 3-3 or better those last 4 games are a bear (@NYG @OAK vs. SEA @PHI).  

Us facing DAL with no Zeke given how bad our run D is a huge swing.   That OL is great but make no mistake they were great in 2015 and their run game wasn't nearly as dominant.   Huge blow if no TRO is issued.  

Question marks over their 2017 OL though. Collins at RT is an unknown at this stage (despite looking good PS), and Cooper at LG. Kicked from 2 different teams. Should still be top 5, but not a given like last season.