Jump to content
incognito_man

Zeke Elliott TRO granted

Recommended Posts

Dirk Gently    25

Regarding Article 46:

Quote

Commissioner may discipline players without a criminal charge... However, discipline is only warranted when 'credible evidence establishes that [the player] engaged in conduct prohibited by this [Personal Conduct Policy]'

again, SIGNIFICANT difference to the Brady case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OleXmad    71

Another court case the NFL will inevitably win because they have way better lawyers and lots more bribe money.

If Brady couldn't win, there's no way Ezekiel Elliot will be able to avoid his suspension.

Whether he's innocent or not, this is going to drag on for far too long and just damage the NFL from a PR point even more because they can't get out of their own way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dirk Gently    25
3 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

Why in the world would you be so certain of his innocence?

From Judge Mazzant's Opinion:

Quote

Robert's conclusions [were that] Thomspon's accusations were incredible, inconsistent, and without corroborating evidence...

Roberts, as you may know, was the NFL's lead investigator on the case and the only person (other than her assistant) to speak to Thompson on behalf of the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dirk Gently    25
27 minutes ago, OleXmad said:

If Brady couldn't win, there's no way Ezekiel Elliot will be able to avoid his suspension.

 

Judge Mazzant significantly and explicitly disagrees:

 

Quote

While it is a narrow exception and rare circumstance which a court interferes with an arbitral award, this [Ellliott] case presents unique and egregious facts, necessitating court intervention

He specifically references the Brady case right before delivering this statement

Edited by Dirk Gently
add quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrry32    228
40 minutes ago, OleXmad said:

Another court case the NFL will inevitably win because they have way better lawyers and lots more bribe money.

If Brady couldn't win, there's no way Ezekiel Elliot will be able to avoid his suspension.

Whether he's innocent or not, this is going to drag on for far too long and just damage the NFL from a PR point even more because they can't get out of their own way. 

It's not lawyers. The NFLPA has no issue paying for the top lawyers in the industry.

Frankly, it's the CBA and the state of the law. But I could see the NFL losing again here. It helps them that it's in the 5th Circuit, but Mazzant pulled no punches here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dirk Gently    25

Again, Mazzant on the Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits:

Quote

Unlike Brady I and Brady II, the evidence and testimony precluded is material, pertinent, and critically important to Elliott's case.

and he concludes

Quote

fundamental unfairness infected this case from the beginning, eventually killing any possibility that justice would be served. Accordingly the court finds the NFLPA demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gmen    22

The guy must feel invincible at this point.  Even with his laundry list of off-season activities, he's free to play all season.  The NFL should've thrown the book at him for the rest of his misbehavior instead of investigating only the domestic violence.  He most certainly has not been a good embassator for the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gmen said:

The guy must feel invincible at this point.  Even with his laundry list of off-season activities, he's free to play all season.  The NFL should've thrown the book at him for the rest of his misbehavior instead of investigating only the domestic violence.  He most certainly has not been a good embassator for the league.

So a 22 year old kid pulling a girls shirt up and speeding in a sports car is now considered "a laundry-list of off-season activities"?! Slow down. Were those actions immature and irresponsible, yes, absolutely. But grounds for "throwing the book at him", no. After all, he's still only a kid for christ sake. 

edit; I hope that this just the rival fan in you talking.

Edited by JustAnotherFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yin-Yang    11

They should've got him with the personal conduct policy, a policy which states:

  • Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel. 

Much more ambiguous, and thus much easier to defend IMO. But of course, then they couldn't be "tough on DV". They botched this case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrry32    228

I just read the NFL investigation report. That girl is shady as hell, but I think Zeke did lay hands on her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GSUeagles14    25
2 hours ago, Dirk Gently said:

Because the police and the NFL's own investigator both said there wasn't any credible evidence against him

Why is that so hard to understand?

Judge Mazzant REALLY ripped the NFL a new on this one, too.

Mazzant's Opinion

 

A simple look at the DA's press release when they decided not to move forward shows thats a load of horse crap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nova    2
53 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I just read the NFL investigation report. That girl is shady as hell, but I think Zeke did lay hands on her.

I still haven't read it in its entirety; only familiar with the general points. What specifically leads you to believe this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jrry32    228
Just now, Nova said:

I still haven't read it in its entirety; only familiar with the general points. What specifically leads you to believe this?

The bruises, her statements about their origin, and the expert testimony

Obviously, one of the dates she claims abuse is not credible, but a couple do seem credible. It really only leaves us with two possible causes:

1. Another dude was abusing her, and she decided ahead of time to set Zeke up for it; or

2. Zeke laid hands on her.

One just doesn't seem plausible enough to me. I think your best argument for mitigating two is that she was physically assaulting him, and that's why he laid hands on her (grabbed her causing bruises). But again, that seems more like a justification you come up after the fact than the most likely scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fretgod99    98
8 hours ago, paul-mac said:

Apparently he's got the injunction outright, not just a temporary restraining order (hence they're saying NFL will appeal, I don't think they could appeal a simple TRO).

Minor quibble: The NFLPA was granted a preliminary (or temporary) injunction (their request was captioned as a motion for TRO or Preliminary Injunction). They wouldn't have gotten a TRO. TROs are only relevant when there isn't time for notice to the other party and a hearing. They also only last for a very brief period. Since there was notice and hearing on the request, it was decided under principles relevant to preliminary injunctions.

TROs don't get appealed because they expire so quickly. You have hearings on TROs to see if the court will continue the prohibition by granting a preliminary injunction. So it's not really that one is necessarily more serious or protective than the other; it's almost entirely a matter of notice and duration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
///mcompact    2
1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

The bruises, her statements about their origin, and the expert testimony

Obviously, one of the dates she claims abuse is not credible, but a couple do seem credible. It really only leaves us with two possible causes:

1. Another dude was abusing her, and she decided ahead of time to set Zeke up for it; or

2. Zeke laid hands on her.

Did you see the multiple witness statements (including 2 off-duty cops) that stated Thompson was in a fight with another women outside a club the night in question?  Even Thompson's own friend owned up to it in her statements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×