Ezekiel Elliot remains suspended

[lancerman]

Just now, Phire said:

What

Exactly what I said. Evidence does not automatically mean there is guilt. There have been cases where the prosecution brought plenty of evidence to the table and later something came out that made it impossible for the allegation to have occurred. 

[jrry32]

Just now, Phire said:

How do you know I've never been time crunched? We're all lawyers, we're always time crunched.

And considering he spent 7 pages on substantial likelihood of success...

Not what I said. I said you haven't been in this sort of situation. Maybe you're perfect, but I have seen more than enough shoddy work put out by time-crunched lawyers to feel comfortable saying that it's easy to judge when you aren't in a person's shoes.

The fact that he spent that much time on it and so little time on irreparable harm should indicate to you that he didn't feel it was a controversial issue necessitating extensive analysis. Maybe you disagree, but you're not the federal judge (and neither am I).

[mse326]

2 minutes ago, lancerman said:

You think it would be hard to prove that sitting out 6 games for domestic violence on the most watched television show in the country had more of an impact than an allegation that happened before he was in the league?

Yes it would. Sitting isn't harming his reputation. The allegations and investigations did that.

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, fretgod99 said:

What's the burden of proof? If it's beyond a reasonable doubt, then no. Is it clear and convincing? Maybe, maybe not. Is it a preponderance of the evidence? There's probably a fair shot he could be found responsible (meaning legally he did it). For the NFL's standard, he was determined to be responsible. Saying there isn't enough evidence to support he did it is a meaningless statement without first establishing the burden of proof. You're claiming he can't have done it because there's insufficient evidence to meet the criminal burden. Again, the criminal burden is irrelevant. So that there isn't enough evidence to justify a conviction doesn't matter in the slightest.

FWIW, I think there's enough evidence to arguably satisfy a preponderance of the evidence standard. However, I also think the arbitration process was flawed. But my perspective is colored by my less than favorable opinion on arbitration. I understand why courts favor the process, but I don't like the level of deference that they give.

[mse326]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

Exactly what I said. Evidence does not automatically mean there is guilt. There have been cases where the prosecution brought plenty of evidence to the table and later something came out that made it impossible for the allegation to have occurred. 

What's your point?

They determined there was enough evidence to establish and meet the necessary burden under the CBA. 

[fretgod99]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

You think it would be hard to prove that sitting out 6 games for domestic violence on the most watched television show in the country had more of an impact than an allegation that happened before he was in the league?

Yes. Also, these events occurred after he was drafted.

[Phire]

Just now, lancerman said:

Exactly what I said. Evidence does not automatically mean there is guilt. There have been cases where the prosecution brought plenty of evidence to the table and later something came out that made it impossible for the allegation to have occurred. 

Right, I don't think anyone is saying any minimal evidence = guilt. I don't know what I'm missing here. I'm saying the government has a higher burden of proof than the NFL. But the NFL didn't say anything new.

[fretgod99]

4 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Exactly what I said. Evidence does not automatically mean there is guilt. There have been cases where the prosecution brought plenty of evidence to the table and later something came out that made it impossible for the allegation to have occurred. 

How is this relevant to Elliott's suspension by the NFL? The NFL determined there was sufficient evidence to conclude that he should be responsible for the allegations. It doesn't matter that there isn't more evidence or enough to prove his culpability beyond whatever other burden of proof you'd like. The NFL's burden was satisfied. For the NFL's purpose that is literally all that matters.

[Phire]

8 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Not what I said. I said you haven't been in this sort of situation. Maybe you're perfect, but I have seen more than enough shoddy work put out by time-crunched lawyers to feel comfortable saying that it's easy to judge when you aren't in a person's shoes.

The fact that he spent that much time on it and so little time on irreparable harm should indicate to you that he didn't feel it was a controversial issue necessitating extensive analysis. Maybe you disagree, but you're not the federal judge (and neither am I).

I mean, this whole conversation started because you were speaking highly of the Mazzant decision with specific regard to the irreparable harm issue. I'm glad we both agree it appears rushed

[KManX89]

5 minutes ago, mse326 said:

Exactly. Hell even our legal system allows for a lower burden in civil court. That is why OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial but liable for wrongful death in the civil (I know you know this,  just educating him further)

Except the criminal burden WAS met in the O.J. case, he was just let off the first time by a racist jury. 

As for Zeke, clearly some of you are missing the point, it's not a court case issue, it's a league's discretionary issue. Showing up drunk to work isn't a crime, but you'll still get fired. Let's not forget that the shirt-pulling incident alone is enough to suspend him under the league's policy as is the bar fight. 

[jrry32]

9 minutes ago, Phire said:

I mean, this whole conversation started because you were speaking highly of the Mazzant decision with specific regard to the irreparable harm issue. I'm glad we both agree it appears rushed

This whole conversation started because I agreed with Mazzant's conclusions and think he summed up the issue well. At the end of the day, he still cited cases. You can criticize him for not writing more, but how many cases did Judge Failla cite that supported her proposition?

You're not wrong. I'm not wrong. It's just a gray area. I'm not sure why that's such an unacceptable conclusion for you. 

Have a good night. 

[jrry32]

2 minutes ago, KManX89 said:

Except the criminal burden WAS met in the O.J. case, he was just let off the first time by a racist jury. 

As for Zeke, clearly some of you are missing the point, it's not a court case issue, it's a league's discretionary issue. Showing up drunk to work isn't a crime, but you'll still get fired. Let's not forget that the shirt-pulling incident alone is enough to suspend him under the league's policy as is the bar fight. 

C'mon man. O.J. got off because his attorneys outmaneuvered the prosecution. They created reasonable doubts, and it was the prosecution's fault due to errors they made in trying the case.

[Webmaster]

Now we are discussing OJ?  Do you guys want to try and discuss some football in here?

How many games will the Cowboys win if Elliot is out the next 6 games?   Who will get the carries in his absence?  How will Dak perform without Elliot?  Will Dez step up and help lead the team? 

[jrry32]

13 minutes ago, Webmaster said:

Now we are discussing OJ?  Do you guys want to try and discuss some football in here?

How many games will the Cowboys win if Elliot is out the next 6 games?   Who will get the carries in his absence?  How will Dak perform without Elliot?  Will Dez step up and help lead the team? 

More than 0. At least one of Alfred Morris, Darren McFadden, or Rod Smith. He will not not perform. Dez will be Dez.

 

[TXsteeler]

I don't see how you can ignore the fact that success in the NFL translates to money earned through endorsements and also ignore the fact that when a player like Elliot is gone the lines for games in Vegas can and are moved in the opposing teams favor.

Gambling on the NFL is a multi billion dollar organization in this country and the people at the top of it decide that players like Elliot not playing changes the chance of his teams success.