lancerman Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 He's going to be gone for the playoffs. He isn't winning this long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 21 minutes ago, mse326 said: Not surprised. I said this was a possibility. For non lawyers this judge isn't considering any of the arguments in issuing the stay. It is administrative and made due to the recognition that not granting it would effectively deprive the Circuit Court from being able to assert jurisdiction in time. It is for institutional interests, not about the case itself. Not surprised by the stay, the real surprise is that they're actually going to battle this out. But alas, ultimately anything can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 I'm rooting for Zeke to stick it to the man. Don't really care about him but the fact that the NFL did such a shoddy job 'investigating' and then ignoring the investigator's recommendation as well as not have her in the room to discuss the findings, plus ignoring the accuser and Goodell's testimonies in the arbitration, makes it feel like the NFL had a pre-determined end result in mind at the start of this process, which is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalCowboyzRule Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, lancerman said: He's going to be gone for the playoffs. He isn't winning this long term. Nope. Suspension specifically stated "6 REGULAR SEASON games". And if the NFL wants to suspend him for the playoffs, Zeke and his team have a pretty good case against that too since it's in writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalCowboyzRule Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 Also this is potentially longer than a 1 week hold... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt79511 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 40 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said: I'm rooting for Zeke to stick it to the man. Don't really care about him but the fact that the NFL did such a shoddy job 'investigating' and then ignoring the investigator's recommendation as well as not have her in the room to discuss the findings, plus ignoring the accuser and Goodell's testimonies in the arbitration, makes it feel like the NFL had a pre-determined end result in mind at the start of this process, which is wrong. And they proudly admit as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonu62882 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 42 minutes ago, DalCowboyzRule said: Nope. Suspension specifically stated "6 REGULAR SEASON games". And if the NFL wants to suspend him for the playoffs, Zeke and his team have a pretty good case against that too since it's in writing. I’ve been saying it the whole time. You guys aren’t doing anything this year. The more he draws this out, he will end up suspended into the new season next year, which I would LOVE. Let it mess up 2 seasons. He’s not escaping his suspension as much as you want to wish he would. People are so stupid sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt79511 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, jonu62882 said: I’ve been saying it the whole time. You guys aren’t doing anything this year. The more he draws this out, he will end up suspended into the new season next year, which I would LOVE. Let it mess up 2 seasons. He’s not escaping his suspension as much as you want to wish he would. People are so stupid sometimes. I agree he’s not beating the suspension. This feels like an awfully righteous tone to take over a case that was never anything more than using a star player as a pawn for leverage in future labor negotiations. If the Cowboys have two seasons ruined because their runningback missed a combined 6 games between them, then they were never really a contender either year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalCowboyzRule Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 13 minutes ago, jonu62882 said: I’ve been saying it the whole time. You guys aren’t doing anything this year. The more he draws this out, he will end up suspended into the new season next year, which I would LOVE. Let it mess up 2 seasons. He’s not escaping his suspension as much as you want to wish he would. People are so stupid sometimes. Lulz, whatever you say playboy. Also if he pushes this out to next season, it gives us an offseason to get another RB in here who is better than Alfred Morris/Darren McFadden...it definitely wouldn't "mess up our entire season". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///mcompact Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 People are gonna be "Big Mad" about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///mcompact Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 2 hours ago, RuskieTitan said: I'm rooting for Zeke to stick it to the man. Don't really care about him but the fact that the NFL did such a shoddy job 'investigating' and then ignoring the investigator's recommendation as well as not have her in the room to discuss the findings, plus ignoring the accuser and Goodell's testimonies in the arbitration, makes it feel like the NFL had a pre-determined end result in mind at the start of this process, which is wrong. I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole again, but I'd just caution treating things you've heard/read in the NFLPA's allegations as true. Judge Failla's order contained a footnote that read "The NFLPA's submissions are replete with references to intra-league conspiracies, conflicts of interest, and inconsistent (if not false) statements on the part of certain NFL personnel. The Court has found that the bulk of these intimations of nefarious conduct are not borne out of the record." That's a pretty scathing statement. For example, the "investigator" you're referring to, Kia Roberts, "testified that she had concerns about [Thompson's] credibility due to contradictory statements . . . Significantly, however, [Roberts] stated that any concerns, any inconsistencies were completely put into the NFL's report, and that she shared her concerns with Friel [another person leading the investigation] including her superior, Cathy Lanier." See page 7 of the Failla decision. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying consider the possibility that some of what you raised may have been exaggerated or simply due to journalists taking the NFLPA's side of the story as true without sufficient corroboration. A lot of what the NFLPA alleged happened were unsubstantiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 43 minutes ago, Phire said: A lot of what the NFLPA alleged happened were unsubstantiated. Such as? If you are going to call them liars, which you have been for days, i would love to see you back any of it up. Which things were unsubstantiated? And if you are going to place the judges opinion on such high regard, you should also disclose her husband help write the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 24 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: Such as? If you are going to call them liars, which you have been for days, i would love to see you back any of it up. Which things were unsubstantiated? Did you read my post? Did you see that I quoted the court order? Do you agree the Court has more information than I do? Do you agree the Court heard testimony? Do you agree the Court is better equipped to make such determinations? Do you agree the Court is fully informed? Do you agree the Court was able to fully hear the arguments and evidence submitted by both sides? Do you agree that, in our society, it's part of the Court's job to determine, to a degree, and in non-jury proceedings, what is true and what is false? Great, this is DIRECTLY from that Court: "The NFLPA's submissions are replete with references to intra-league conspiracies, conflicts of interest, and inconsistent (if not false) statements on the part of certain NFL personnel. The Court has found that the bulk of these intimations of nefarious conduct are not borne out of the record." You can find this on page 5 of the opinion, at footnote 3. To find the full extent of this, you'd have to compare the NFLPA's allegations to the transcript of the proceedings, the various exhibits, the pleadings, etc. One of the falsities is that Kia Roberts' findings were closed off from Goodell. Roberts testified that her concerns were fully put into the report, so that was false. Other allegations such as conspiracy are simply unsupported. I don't know how much more authoritative it can get than the Court's findings here. That statement by the Court has more weight than anything you or I can possibly endeavor to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigD88 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Phire said: I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole again, but I'd just caution treating things you've heard/read in the NFLPA's allegations as true. Judge Failla's order contained a footnote that read "The NFLPA's submissions are replete with references to intra-league conspiracies, conflicts of interest, and inconsistent (if not false) statements on the part of certain NFL personnel. The Court has found that the bulk of these intimations of nefarious conduct are not borne out of the record." That's a pretty scathing statement. For example, the "investigator" you're referring to, Kia Roberts, "testified that she had concerns about [Thompson's] credibility due to contradictory statements . . . Significantly, however, [Roberts] stated that any concerns, any inconsistencies were completely put into the NFL's report, and that she shared her concerns with Friel [another person leading the investigation] including her superior, Cathy Lanier." See page 7 of the Failla decision. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying consider the possibility that some of what you raised may have been exaggerated or simply due to journalists taking the NFLPA's side of the story as true without sufficient corroboration. A lot of what the NFLPA alleged happened were unsubstantiated. Sure. But you know who else is on the other end of a whole lot of allegations that have shown to be unsubstantiated? Ezekiel Elliott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.