Ezekiel Elliot remains suspended

[mse326]

8 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

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.

General success yes. But there is no reason to think these 6 games would.

As for Vegas that is completely irrelevant to anything. The question is harm/irreparable harm to Elliot. How are betting odds relevant to that?

7 hours ago, Webmaster said:

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?

As for the football side I don't know that it will effect much honestly. Morris and DMC are solid to back Elliot up and Dak has been playing great.

[TXsteeler]

1 minute ago, mse326 said:

General success yes. But there is no reason to think these 6 games would.

As for Vegas that is completely irrelevant to anything. The question is harm/irreparable harm to Elliot. How are betting odds relevant to that?

There are billions of dollars backing those odds, they are as real as anything else in this country.

To argue that Elliot won't be harmed by not playing is ignorant because if this were true, every player in the league would "have a headache" for the rest of the year.

Any NFL player in the entire country can fake a concussion and there is nothing anybody can do about it except let them ride the bench and get paid, if the players are worried about getting cut eventually or whatever they could just do it for a month of a couple weeks to get some free rest, it would be no different than Elliot's suspension. How many players choose to do this and why is it zero if they suffer no harm outside of pay (which they get) for not playing?

[mse326]

12 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

There are billions of dollars backing those odds, they are as real as anything else in this country.

Again how is that a harm to Zeke. I don't know how you can possibly think that is relevant to this litigation.

 

13 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

To argue that Elliot won't be harmed by not playing is ignorant because if this were true, every player in the league would "have a headache" for the rest of the year.

Any NFL player in the entire country can fake a concussion and there is nothing anybody can do about it except let them ride the bench and get paid, if the players are worried about getting cut eventually or whatever they could just do it for a month of a couple weeks to get some free rest, it would be no different than Elliot's suspension. How many players choose to do this and why is it zero if they suffer no harm outside of pay (which they get) for not playing?

Injury history does factor in to subsequent contracts. And if they are faking and found out they are out of the league. This isn't even close to an analogous situation.

[TXsteeler]

2 minutes ago, mse326 said:

Again how is that a harm to Zeke. I don't know how you can possibly think that is relevant to this litigation.

 

Injury history does factor in to subsequent contracts. And if they are faking and found out they are out of the league. This isn't even close to an analogous situation.

To your first point, It proves that him not playing affects his teams success.

 

Why don't players on their final contracts do it then? Older players sure do have a lot to lose playing the actual game as we can see from Zach Miller's injury, why do we not see players in their mid to late 30's suddenly start faking headaches all the time?  You can't ever be found out for faking a headache. Just like I can never be found out to be faking my favorite color.

 

This is all pedantic anyways, you and I both know that this suspension truly will hurt Elliot in ways other than just simply his game checks. You don't really believe it won't just like nobody really believes it won't, people are just trying to justify why this suspension isn't total lunacy, and why the legal system isn't a total joke.

As far as how this will affect the game, I do know that if Elliot misses 6 games he is out of the running for All Pro, rushing title, APY title, and probably the rushing TD title. His loss will also certainly be felt against the Chiefs and Eagles, two of the best teams in the league in their next 6 games.

[mse326]

1 minute ago, TXsteeler said:

To your first point, It proves that him not playing affects his teams success

Nobody argued otherwise.

 

1 minute ago, TXsteeler said:

Why don't players on their final contracts do it then? Older players sure do have a lot to lose playing the actual game as we can see from Zach Miller's injury, why do we not see players in their mid to late 30's suddenly start faking headaches all the time?  You can't ever be found out for faking a headache. Just like I can never be found out to be faking my favorite color.

Wanting to play and not being allowed to doesn't make it a harm.

 

2 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

This is all pedantic anyways, you and I both know that this suspension truly will hurt Elliot in ways other than just simply his game checks. You don't really believe it won't just like nobody really believes it won't, people are just trying to justify why this suspension isn't total lunacy, and why the legal system isn't a total joke

I'm so glad you know what I'm thinking. You're wrong, of course. I don't think him being suspended or not will have any effect on him outside of game checks. At least none that aren't easily comepensable with more money.

[TXsteeler]

4 minutes ago, mse326 said:

Nobody argued otherwise.

 

Wanting to play and not being allowed to doesn't make it a harm.

 

I'm so glad you know what I'm thinking. You're wrong, of course. I don't think him being suspended or not will have any effect on him outside of game checks. At least none that aren't easily comepensable with more money.

How can you quantify the harm that could befall him for losing out on a possible first team all pro spot and say money can and will fix it?

[mse326]

2 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

How can you quantify the harm that could befall him for losing out on a possible first team all pro spot and say money can and will fix it?

Can you even prove that is a harm? Being named all pro is great and all but ultimately pretty meaningless. To the extent he has a bonus in his contract for it, again money can solve that.

[TXsteeler]

2 minutes ago, mse326 said:

Can you even prove that is a harm? Being named all pro is great and all but ultimately pretty meaningless. To the extent he has a bonus in his contract for it, again money can solve that.

If it means something to him, and it was stolen from him by virtue of a witch hunt leading to a suspension, Yeah, I could prove it's a harm.

Is the only way to prove harm monetary lose?

[mse326]

1 minute ago, TXsteeler said:

If it means something to him, and it was stolen from him by virtue of a witch hunt leading to a suspension, Yeah, I could prove it's a harm.

Is the only way to prove harm monetary lose?

No but simply meaning something to you isn't enough to be a legally cognizable harm.

[TXsteeler]

5 minutes ago, mse326 said:

No but simply meaning something to you isn't enough to be a legally cognizable harm.

So the only way for something to be legally considered harm is for money to be lost? Man I sure am glad we live in a world where the legal system can define words for us.

[mse326]

14 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

So the only way for something to be legally considered harm is for money to be lost? Man I sure am glad we live in a world where the legal system can define words for us.

What part of me starting with NO allowed you to read that as saying only money lost is a harm?

[TXsteeler]

Just now, mse326 said:

What part of me starting with NO allowed you to read that as saying only money lost is a harm?

What else qualifies then? Only things that can be easily translated into money like property?

[fretgod99]

Again, lost endorsement deals, game checks, and damage to reputation, while impactful, are not irreparable harms. They can be fixed with a pile of money. You can figure out if someone lost an endorsement deal because of the NFL's actions.

But it's lost money. That's easily fixable. You just give him more money. By definition, it isn't irreparable. So for injunction analysis, it isn't particularly relevant (not to mention good luck proving it).

[mse326]

8 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

What else qualifies then? Only things that can be easily translated into money like property?

No. Otherwise there would be no such thing as irreparable harm. But merely liking something or it having personal value does not make it a legal harm. There needs to be an actual legal interest in it.

[jrry32]

@mse326 and @Phire

Out of pure curiosity, I decided to take a few minutes to look around this morning to see how many opinions are out there discussing irreparable harm to athletes. I actually found something pretty interesting, and I'm shocked that Judge Failla didn't discuss this case at all in her opinion:

"Given the short careers of professional athletes and the deterioration of physical abilities through aging, the irreparable harm requirement has been met." Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Comm., Inc., 67 F.3d 1054, 1062 (2d Cir. 1995).

This case is distinguishable because the issue it dealt with was very different, but I'm surprised she didn't feel the need to distinguish it considering the impact of that finding by the Second Circuit on her finding. Again, I have no doubt that she could have distinguished it, but I think it adds to all of the sources out there making it clear that this sort of issue falls into a legal gray area.