Ezekiel Elliot remains suspended

[Phire]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

You contested Ruskie's take on the what happened which isn't that different from what the above judges (especially Judge Mazzant) said.

I wasn't even responding to Ruskie in the post you quoted. 

[jrry32]

5 minutes ago, Phire said:

I wasn't even responding to Ruskie in the post you quoted. 

The conversation originated from your response to Ruskie here:

11 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.

 

8 hours 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.

There's support for what Ruskie said.

[Phire]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

There's support for what Ruskie said.

I never said there was no support for what Ruskie said. I even literally said "I'm not saying you're wrong." All I did was caution not to take as true the allegations of one litigant. I'm assuming you wouldn't disagree with that. It's great that other courts may have come away with different findings. The most recent court looking at it didn't. Therefore, as far as we know, there are grounds for caution. There isn't a unanimous endorsement of all of the NFLPA's allegations. I get that there's a conclusion you've been pushing, but I don't think this is fertile ground for disagreement on the limited and rather benign point I was making.

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, Phire said:

I never said there was no support for what Ruskie said. I even literally said "I'm not saying you're wrong." All I did was caution not to take as true the allegations of one litigant. I'm assuming you wouldn't disagree with that. It's great that other courts may have come away with different findings. The most recent court looking at it didn't. Therefore, as far as we know, there are grounds for caution. There isn't a unanimous endorsement of all of the NFLPA's allegations. I get that there's a conclusion you've been pushing, but I don't think this is fertile ground for disagreement on the limited and rather benign point I was making.

You're fence-sitting. There is support for what Ruskie said. Yes, I will trust the allegations of a litigant if there is ample evidentiary support backing it. 

In fact, can you point to the SDNY opinion contesting those allegations? I'm not talking about a vague footnote either. We know for a fact that his accuser and Goodell didn't testify. We know for a fact that Roberts didn't meet with Goodell to discuss her findings and recommendation. And I'm pretty sure Kia Roberts testified at the arbitration hearing that she recommended that Elliott not be suspended. Accordingly, all of what Ruskie stated is factually true except the "shoddy investigation" (that's an opinion) and his conclusions (also an opinion).

I'm not sure why you cautioned him there. That's my point.

[Phire]

3 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

You're fence-sitting. There is support for what Ruskie said. Yes, I will trust the allegations of a litigant if there is ample evidentiary support backing it. 

In fact, can you point to the SDNY opinion contesting those allegations? I'm not talking about a vague footnote either. We know for a fact that his accuser and Goodell didn't testify. We know for a fact that Roberts didn't meet with Goodell to discuss her findings and recommendation. And I'm pretty sure Kia Roberts testified at the arbitration hearing that she recommended that Elliott not be suspended. Accordingly, all of what Ruskie stated is factually true except the "shoddy investigation" (that's an opinion) and his conclusions (also an opinion).

I'm not sure why you cautioned him there. That's my point.

Yes, I am fence sitting. I'm not a Court. I don't have access to the entirety of the record, nor have I sat on the bench and questioned the lawyers.

I saw a post repeating some of the allegations of the NFLPA. I never said those allegations specifically were wrong. Again, I literally responded that "I'm not saying you're wrong." I am aware of everything you posted. I am merely suggesting that a better situated fact-finder than us, yes, even in a vague footnote, made a pretty scathing statement about some of the NFLPA's allegations. The fact that we are able to substantiate some other NFLPA allegations is irrelevant because nobody is suggesting every NFLPA allegation is unsubstantiated.

Judge Failla is better situated than you or I or anybody here, and she said what she said. I don't know what else to say.

[jrry32]

8 minutes ago, Phire said:

Yes, I am fence sitting. I'm not a Court. I don't have access to the entirety of the record, nor have I sat on the bench and questioned the lawyers.

I saw a post repeating some of the allegations of the NFLPA. I never said those allegations specifically were wrong. Again, I literally responded that "I'm not saying you're wrong." I am aware of everything you posted. I am merely suggesting that a better situated fact-finder than us, yes, even in a vague footnote, made a pretty scathing statement about some of the NFLPA's allegations. The fact that we are able to substantiate some other NFLPA allegations is irrelevant because nobody is suggesting every NFLPA allegation is unsubstantiated.

Judge Failla is better situated than you or I or anybody here, and she said what she said. I don't know what else to say.

If you have PACER, you have access to pretty much everything.

Those aren't the "allegations" of the NFLPA. Those are the facts. Who is disputing them? And no, it's not irrelevant when you responded to Ruskie's post specifically discussing those details.

As for the judge being better situated, Judges Mazzant and Graves were in the same spot she was in. Their opinions indicate that they don't agree with her conclusions. Yet, you're not appealing to those authorities . . . .

It seems to me that you disagree with his conclusions, but his conclusions were based on undisputed facts (aside from the shoddy investigation opinion). There's nothing to caution there. He's just a person with an opinion.

[Phire]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

If you have PACER, you have access to pretty much everything.

Those aren't the "allegations" of the NFLPA. Those are the facts. Who is disputing them? And no, it's not irrelevant when you responded to Ruskie's post specifically discussing those details.

As for the judge being better situated, Judges Mazzant and Graves were in the same spot she was in. Their opinions indicate that they don't agree with her conclusions. Yet, you're not appealing to those authorities . . . .

Whatever you're trying to impute into my post is going well beyond the intended extent of it. I've made my point abundantly clear. I'm not talking about the ultimate conclusion. We're saying the same darn thing: multiple judges have reached different conclusions, therefore, there's a dispute as to which allegations are substantiated or not. This is a waste of time.

[jrry32]

Just now, Phire said:

Whatever you're trying to impute into my post is going well beyond the intended extent of it. I've made my point abundantly clear. I'm not talking about the ultimate conclusion. We're saying the same darn thing: multiple judges have reached different conclusions, therefore, there's a dispute as to which allegations are substantiated or not. This is a waste of time.

The legal conclusions differ and fall in a gray area. The factual issues that Ruskie referenced are undisputed.

But yes, we do have middle ground here. Let's just take it.

[Matts4313]

@Phire - I appreciate the response. Here is the disconnect, at least for me. The federal judge is claiming the NFLPA has unsubstantiated claims where it pertains to the *ARBITRATION* process. It seems to me that was being commingled with the claims as to the actual act of violence. Maybe I misinterpreted. 

[jrry32]

7 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

@Phire - I appreciate the response. Here is the disconnect, at least for me. The federal judge is claiming the NFLPA has unsubstantiated claims where it pertains to the *ARBITRATION* process. It seems to me that was being commingled with the claims as to the actual act of violence. Maybe I misinterpreted. 

The act of violence is irrelevant to the Judge. That's not her issue to determine.

[Phire]

6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

@Phire - I appreciate the response. Here is the disconnect, at least for me. The federal judge is claiming the NFLPA has unsubstantiated claims where it pertains to the *ARBITRATION* process. It seems to me that was being commingled with the claims as to the actual act of violence. Maybe I misinterpreted. 

It's understandably confusing because the prevailing narrative seems to be that this case is a referendum on Zeke's guilt or innocence. But in reality, the NFLPA and the NFL aren't really arguing that, and the federal courts aren't determining that either.

[Incarcerated_Scarface]

Ummm, is he playing or not??? I don't care about all the legal crap you guys are spitting back and forth. You guys ruined this topic with your pissing match.

[jonu62882]

1 hour ago, steadypimpin said:

Ummm, is he playing or not??? I don't care about all the legal crap you guys are spitting back and forth. You guys ruined this topic with your pissing match.

Yes, he’s playing this week.  Until his appeal gets reviewed by the Judge and gets a decision, he will be playing for now.

[Phire]

2 hours ago, steadypimpin said:

Ummm, is he playing or not??? I don't care about all the legal crap you guys are spitting back and forth. You guys ruined this topic with your pissing match.

Ruined the topic lol

[Matts4313]

6 hours ago, steadypimpin said:

Ummm, is he playing or not??? I don't care about all the legal crap you guys are spitting back and forth. You guys ruined this topic with your pissing match.

Hes got this week and probably next. Then he will most likely start his 6 week suspension.