Zeke 6 game suspension has been upheld.

[seafoam1 3,048]

 

You're right, it's completely worse for the NFL player, because their contract specifically allows this kind of treatment. The general employment law of the land allows my employer to fire me for these sort of reasons. The NFL has both At-Will employment law and the godlike powers granted Goodell by contract that are working against the players. You're absolutely right that they aren't the same. It's worse.

Then don't sign the contract. We all have our choice of jobs in this world.

[brotherbock 349]

Then don't sign the contract. We all have our choice of jobs in this world.

 

True. If the NFL players as individuals don't want to play according to the league rules, they certainly don't have to play. I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. My point is simply that firing someone for most reasons in the US is perfectly legal--the exceptions are fairly few and far between. An employer firing someone because they are causing the company to have a bad reputation is, without a contract saying otherwise, perfectly legal.

[polecatt 478]

 

You're right, it's completely worse for the NFL player, because their contract specifically allows this kind of treatment. The general employment law of the land allows my employer to fire me for these sort of reasons. The NFL has both At-Will employment law and the godlike powers granted Goodell by contract that are working against the players. You're absolutely right that they aren't the same. It's worse.

No, not exactly. That's why they are in court.

Goodell can't fire him anyway, its suspending him.

[brotherbock 349]

No, not exactly. That's why they are in court.

Goodell can't fire him anyway, its suspending him.

 

Goodell can actually fire him, as Goodell has the ability to completely prevent a player from playing in the league. Josh Gordon isn't indefinitely suspended because of the Browns. It's the League. It's Goodell. And yeah, almost anything can be taken to court--I can take you to court if I try to break into your house and cut myself on the broken window glass. The ability to take someone to court doesn't really say anything about what your effective rights are.

 

My point remains--for the average employer, getting fired (or suspended) for harming the reputation of your employer is perfectly legal. It's worse for the NFL player given the contract they have with the league. The only thing helping them is that they have a union. Without that, Brady and Zeke would have no chance at all.

 

What the court may in fact end up deciding is that Goodell's power is not as absolute as he wants it to be. And that's fine--if the court rules that he contract should be interpreted differently, then the only change would be that it's maybe not 'worse' for the NFL player because of the contract. But the court may also decide differently. At the moment, as the contract is interpreted, it is worse.

[polecatt 478]

 

Goodell can actually fire him, as Goodell has the ability to completely prevent a player from playing in the league. Josh Gordon isn't indefinitely suspended because of the Browns. It's the League. It's Goodell. And yeah, almost anything can be taken to court--I can take you to court if I try to break into your house and cut myself on the broken window glass. The ability to take someone to court doesn't really say anything about what your effective rights are.

 

My point remains--for the average employer, getting fired (or suspended) for harming the reputation of your employer is perfectly legal. It's worse for the NFL player given the contract they have with the league. The only thing helping them is that they have a union. Without that, Brady and Zeke would have no chance at all.

 

What the court may in fact end up deciding is that Goodell's power is not as absolute as he wants it to be. And that's fine--if the court rules that he contract should be interpreted differently, then the only change would be that it's maybe not 'worse' for the NFL player because of the contract. But the court may also decide differently. At the moment, as the contract is interpreted, it is worse.

No because what would get a person fired in a regular job only gets a player suspended in the NFL. It's a contractual stipulation that ultimately leads a player to being suspended for life or whatever. Like Gordon, he was suspended for repeatedly failing drug tests, which is in the contract. Most jobs I know, you fail a drug test you get fired, not multiple attempts to come back. Plus they have their teams backing them up, their real employer, not Roger.

If Jerry Jones wanted to cut Zeke for this he could. He doesn't want to, he supports him against a governing body. Jerry would do the same most likely if the NFLPA wasn't involved. It's more like offering some sort of legal defense.

As for the NFLPA, many industries have labor unions that would offer similar protection to varying degrees. The team is the employer, Roger is more like the government that revokes his license that allows him to play. Maybe it ends up the same but it's a different legal matter, that's for sure.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out in court to know where it will go from here.

[jgcrawfish 232]

We need to quit doing this. Elliot wasn't found "not guilty" as people keep referring to. The DA's office opted not to proceed. There is a HUGE difference there. Not guilty means just that, the person was charged with but found not guilty of the crime. The DA's office choosing not to proceed doesn't mean that someone isn't guilty, it means they do not think they can reasonably convince a judge or jury of the facts to win a conviction. If I'm Zeke and I roughed the girl up, you can bet for DAMN sure that I'm going to open up my checkbook and buy her off. If she accepts a sealed settlement and agrees not to testify against Zeke in any criminal proceedings, it DOES NOT mean he is "not guilty". It means the DA has lost the most important witness they have, and therefore their case. It's conceivably what happened with Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of other athletes. The DA can compel her to testify anyway, but that person is only going to lie or conveniently not be able to remember what happened. It's a no-win, so they choose to let it go.

 

If you have an affair with a co-worker and the company has a policy that expressly forbids employee fraternization and they find out, you can be fired simply for violation of that policy. In the eyes of the law (well, depending on state) you have committed NO crime, but you can lose your job anyway. The law and the policy you agreed to work under have NOTHING to do with each other. "Conduct Unbecoming" is the duct tape/super glue the NFL uses to "fix" everything that's broken, but it requires ZERO guilt under the law to use it.

[brotherbock 349]

 

If you have an affair with a co-worker and the company has a policy that expressly forbids employee fraternization and they find out, you can be fired simply for violation of that policy. In the eyes of the law (well, depending on state) you have committed NO crime, but you can lose your job anyway. The law and the policy you agreed to work under have NOTHING to do with each other. "Conduct Unbecoming" is the duct tape/super glue the NFL uses to "fix" everything that's broken, but it requires ZERO guilt under the law to use it.

 

Completely right. (And a lot of people will want to add that a 'Not Guilty' verdict doesn't really mean that the court 'found that you didn't do it'--it really just means that the court 'found that there wasn't enough evidence to say you did it'. But that's a subtle point.)

 

To add to the point, as I said above, the fact of employment law in the US is that, if you have an affair and your company does not have a policy forbidding that, you can still likely get fired. That's the magic of At-Will employment--without a civil rights violation or a specific contract in place, employers largely do not need a cause to terminate an employee. You can be fired for almost any reason...or no reason at all.

 

It may not be the best system--it's definitely not worker-friendly. There may be problems with it, practical and moral. But that's the system the US has.

[jgcrawfish 232]

 

Completely right. (And a lot of people will want to add that a 'Not Guilty' verdict doesn't really mean that the court 'found that you didn't do it'--it really just means that the court 'found that there wasn't enough evidence to say you did it'. But that's a subtle point.)

 

To add to the point, as I said above, the fact of employment law in the US is that, if you have an affair and your company does not have a policy forbidding that, you can still likely get fired. That's the magic of At-Will employment--without a civil rights violation or a specific contract in place, employers largely do not need a cause to terminate an employee. You can be fired for almost any reason...or no reason at all.

 

It may not be the best system--it's definitely not worker-friendly. There may be problems with it, practical and moral. But that's the system the US has.

Yeah, I had something in there about there being a big difference between being found "not guilty" and being called innocent. Too many people confuse the terms.

 

And your point about the standards for termination is very valid. I guess fortunately for NFL players they have a contract in place that somewhat guarantees their employment, or at minimum guarantees somewhat of their payment even if employment is terminated. But it also needs to be pointed out that all this "unfairness" is PRECISELY what the players agreed to in the last CBA. They granted Goodell the power of judge, jury and executioner and now want to b!tch about all the abuse of that power, when in fact he's toned it down a bit and letting other people and entities look at the incidents and decide on them. People need to understand, the owners are NEVER going to get rid of Goodell so long as the league continues to make record profits. It is putting tremendous money in each of the pockets every year, and that doesn't even take into account the astronomical values of the franchises now. Until the players band together for a work stoppage, which directly hurts the product and the owners wallets, nothing will change.

[bjsteel 34]

"NEVER going to get rid of Goodell so long as the league continues to make record profits."

 

Goodell appears to be hurting the product...you think the NFL wouldn't be what it is today without Goodell? You put any competent person in his place and the NFL will continue to grow,

[brotherbock 349]

Yeah, I had something in there about there being a big difference between being found "not guilty" and being called innocent. Too many people confuse the terms.

 

And your point about the standards for termination is very valid. I guess fortunately for NFL players they have a contract in place that somewhat guarantees their employment, or at minimum guarantees somewhat of their payment even if employment is terminated. But it also needs to be pointed out that all this "unfairness" is PRECISELY what the players agreed to in the last CBA. They granted Goodell the power of judge, jury and executioner and now want to b!tch about all the abuse of that power, when in fact he's toned it down a bit and letting other people and entities look at the incidents and decide on them. People need to understand, the owners are NEVER going to get rid of Goodell so long as the league continues to make record profits. It is putting tremendous money in each of the pockets every year, and that doesn't even take into account the astronomical values of the franchises now. Until the players band together for a work stoppage, which directly hurts the product and the owners wallets, nothing will change.

 

Oops, missed that 'not guilty' part in your post. I was so happy to read someone who gets it

 

For the record, I personally dislike a whole lot about at-will employment as the law of the land, and I think Goodell's powers are obscenely inflated. But that's still the facts. The employee almost never has the upper hand--not without a union. And the players union in the NFL gave away almost the whole farm. I mean...employment issues for individual employees should not end up at the Supreme Court every other damn year, right?

[brotherbock 349]

"NEVER going to get rid of Goodell so long as the league continues to make record profits."

 

Goodell appears to be hurting the product...you think the NFL wouldn't be what it is today without Goodell? You put any competent person in his place and the NFL will continue to grow,

 

It's hard to prove a counter-factual (meaning it's hard to say "the league would make just as much without Goodell". What's the evidence for that without seeing it done?). The league continues to make money hand over fist, including jersey sales from people who complain about the league. Why would the owners possibly want to change that? What harm are they supposed to see being done to the league when they keep making more and more money every year, expanding into more markets, etc? Some people grumble on internet forums...big deal. Follow the money. Money is still skyrocketing, thus there is no 'harm' from the owners' perspective.

[bucknbull 4]

I think you all are pretending to know a lot about things you don't. A) At will is not as "at will" as some would make it sound. Not guilty/innocent, duh. But there is a burden of proof even for an employer. Yes, people can be fired for embarrassing their company in "at will" employment even if the act to embarrass the company is legal. However, (this is what you all are forgetting) if that employee didn't do the thing and no one can prove it, he cannot be fired legally or he will have a very strong law suit, which is what the experts are talking about Zeke and Jerry suing the league over. The league would have a better case for 6 games on pulling the girls shirt up than this case, because no one is denying he did it and most don't disagree that w/o her prior approval it was disrespecting her (and women) whether or not she opposed it after the fact. Zeke and the players union also have a very strong case because the arbiter refused to hear exculpatory evidence. 3rd, and Jerry may pursue this, Zeke's name is very valuable and the false accusations and the suspension present a strong case for damaging his reputation where endorsements can top 9 figures. Brady ended up serving part of his sentence because there was evidence that pointed to him being guilty and he destroyed evidence. Now maybe more will come out, but this girl sounds very shady. Not sure about any of you, but hell hath no fury like a woman scorned....... Perhaps Zeke said he wasn't in love w/ her, and she threatened an abuse case if he didn't stay or she just did it because she was mad at being scorned. The league is gonna lose this, and like a certain mobster or two they would have done better to go after the little things (like taxes for the mobster).

[brotherbock 349]

I think you all are pretending to know a lot about things you don't. A) At will is not as "at will" as some would make it sound. Not guilty/innocent, duh. But there is a burden of proof even for an employer. Yes, people can be fired for embarrassing their company in "at will" employment even if the act to embarrass the company is legal. However, (this is what you all are forgetting) if that employee didn't do the thing and no one can prove it, he cannot be fired legally or he will have a very strong law suit, which is what the experts are talking about Zeke and Jerry suing the league over. The league would have a better case for 6 games on pulling the girls shirt up than this case, because no one is denying he did it and most don't disagree that w/o her prior approval it was disrespecting her (and women) whether or not she opposed it after the fact. Zeke and the players union also have a very strong case because the arbiter refused to hear exculpatory evidence. 3rd, and Jerry may pursue this, Zeke's name is very valuable and the false accusations and the suspension present a strong case for damaging his reputation where endorsements can top 9 figures. Brady ended up serving part of his sentence because there was evidence that pointed to him being guilty and he destroyed evidence. Now maybe more will come out, but this girl sounds very shady. Not sure about any of you, but hell hath no fury like a woman scorned....... Perhaps Zeke said he wasn't in love w/ her, and she threatened an abuse case if he didn't stay or she just did it because she was mad at being scorned. The league is gonna lose this, and like a certain mobster or two they would have done better to go after the little things (like taxes for the mobster).

 

Zeke has a (possibly) strong case because of his contract, and his union. What harms his case, and why I said it's worse above, is the powers that contract seems to give Goodell. If the courts rule differently, good. It's a ridiculous contract clause.

 

No contract, no union, and and employer let go and not given a reason at all does not generally have a strong case in the US. If I own a business with 10 employees, and I decide one day I only want 9 employees, I can fire one and be relatively safe from suit. If one of those employees harms my company reputation--whether he is found guilty of a crime or not--I can let that employee go and be relatively safe from suit. If one of those employees says "I don't like you" to me, I can let that employee go and be relatively safe from suit. Again, the key to At-Will employment, which is the overarching law of the land, is that the employer does not need a 'just cause' to fire the employee.

 

As far as what I'd like to see, yeah, I'd like to see the league lose this one. I think the contract with Goodell is a joke. Some people reading this apparently can't separate my explaining employment law with the notion that I support Goodell...which I don't. But that doesn't mean that employers are bound by strict firing laws in this country.

 

EDIT: I should add, because maybe this is what people are thinking about, that contract or no, if the employer does give a reason for the termination, and that reason is demonstrably problematic, then the employee has a much stronger case to sue. If the employer fires me because I 'failed to perform my duties', and I can prove that I did perform them, for example. Or I'm fired because they claim I said nasty things about them online, and I can prove that I didn't. So the employer giving a reason opens them up to suit if that reason is flawed. But 'I don't like you' or 'you working here hurts our company rep' don't rely on the employee having actually done anything at all. And, again, contracts and unions change the whole picture.

[JagFan 164]

Another thought here to consider in the future: If a player is suspected of breaking the NFL's code of conduct, and possibly facing a suspension upwards of 6 games, then just don't draft him. That way you won't have to be upset about the rules if the suspension is upheld.

 

I will ask this. Where do you all think the NFL would be without Fantasy Football? Would you watch any game other than you favorite team? Would you keep watching a game that's a blowout? Would you watch at all? Would you watch, but not buy merchandise or the "NFL package"? And would all of these people...players, exec's, coaches, etc. be making anything close to what they are making now? Would anyone even really care about this situation that wasn't a Cowboy's fan?

[Challenger 72]

To be honest, I have Zeke on all my leagues, and I don't care either way.

 

Come on guys, for men that like drama, they are into politic, not football. Why are you guys even bother arguing over this.

[Kent 228]

We need to quit doing this. Elliot wasn't found "not guilty" as people keep referring to. The DA's office opted not to proceed. There is a HUGE difference there. Not guilty means just that, the person was charged with but found not guilty of the crime. The DA's office choosing not to proceed doesn't mean that someone isn't guilty, it means they do not think they can reasonably convince a judge or jury of the facts to win a conviction. If I'm Zeke and I roughed the girl up, you can bet for DAMN sure that I'm going to open up my checkbook and buy her off. If she accepts a sealed settlement and agrees not to testify against Zeke in any criminal proceedings, it DOES NOT mean he is "not guilty". It means the DA has lost the most important witness they have, and therefore their case. It's conceivably what happened with Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of other athletes. The DA can compel her to testify anyway, but that person is only going to lie or conveniently not be able to remember what happened. It's a no-win, so they choose to let it go.

 

If you have an affair with a co-worker and the company has a policy that expressly forbids employee fraternization and they find out, you can be fired simply for violation of that policy. In the eyes of the law (well, depending on state) you have committed NO crime, but you can lose your job anyway. The law and the policy you agreed to work under have NOTHING to do with each other. "Conduct Unbecoming" is the duct tape/super glue the NFL uses to "fix" everything that's broken, but it requires ZERO guilt under the law to use it.

What if they opted not to proceed because they thought the girl was shady and was trying to extort him for money?

 

Just throwing it out there.

[rallo 136]

Everyone had to know this decision was coming, the nfl was never going to reduce their suspension because that makes them and the commissioner look weak... it was always going down this road

[TBayXXXVII 2,550]

I blame Goodell. He's the one who forced Elliott to be involved with the girl. He's the one who forced Elliott to be physical with the girl. He's the one who forced Elliott to pull that girls shirt down. He's the one that forced Elliott to get mixed up in that fight in the bar.

 

OH WAIT! What's this? Elliott did all those things on his own? Oh, well never mind then. Guess the blame should be on THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY DID THESE THINGS! HOLY CRAP! WHAT A NOVEL IDEA!

[Skinny_Bastard 157]

We need to quit doing this. Elliot wasn't found "not guilty" as people keep referring to. The DA's office opted not to proceed. There is a HUGE difference there. Not guilty means just that, the person was charged with but found not guilty of the crime. The DA's office choosing not to proceed doesn't mean that someone isn't guilty, it means they do not think they can reasonably convince a judge or jury of the facts to win a conviction. If I'm Zeke and I roughed the girl up, you can bet for DAMN sure that I'm going to open up my checkbook and buy her off. If she accepts a sealed settlement and agrees not to testify against Zeke in any criminal proceedings, it DOES NOT mean he is "not guilty". It means the DA has lost the most important witness they have, and therefore their case. It's conceivably what happened with Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of other athletes. The DA can compel her to testify anyway, but that person is only going to lie or conveniently not be able to remember what happened. It's a no-win, so they choose to let it go.

 

If you have an affair with a co-worker and the company has a policy that expressly forbids employee fraternization and they find out, you can be fired simply for violation of that policy. In the eyes of the law (well, depending on state) you have committed NO crime, but you can lose your job anyway. The law and the policy you agreed to work under have NOTHING to do with each other. "Conduct Unbecoming" is the duct tape/super glue the NFL uses to "fix" everything that's broken, but it requires ZERO guilt under the law to use it.

 

That means there's insufficient evidence to back the accusers claim......... it's nothing but allegations.

No one should be punished for allegations.

[Skinny_Bastard 157]

I blame Goodell. He's the one who forced Elliott to be involved with the girl. He's the one who forced Elliott to be physical with the girl. He's the one who forced Elliott to pull that girls shirt down. He's the one that forced Elliott to get mixed up in that fight in the bar.

 

OH WAIT! What's this? Elliott did all those things on his own? Oh, well never mind then. Guess the blame should be on THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY DID THESE THINGS! HOLY CRAP! WHAT A NOVEL IDEA!

 

The girl testified she LIKE TO HAVE ROUGH sex.

There's no proof that he ever hit her.

 

Did you watch the rest of the video that Elliott pull the girl's shirt down? She pulled her own shirt down multiple times for fun before he did it.

[Skinny_Bastard 157]

Everyone had to know this decision was coming, the nfl was never going to reduce their suspension because that makes them and the commissioner look weak... it was always going down this road

 

But Hardy who was found guilty of domestic violence was handed down an initial 10 game suspension but later reduced to 4.

So a guy who was CONVICTED of DV only got 4 while another guy GOT 6 for simple allegations (confirmed by NFL lead investigator)...

 

Seem a bit off here?

[Skinny_Bastard 157]

To be honest, I have Zeke on all my leagues, and I don't care either way.

 

Come on guys, for men that like drama, they are into politic, not football. Why are you guys even bother arguing over this.

 

Because it's fantasy football.

We love to argue for the sake of arguing.

[murf74 461]

I blame Goodell. He's the one who forced Elliott to be involved with the girl. He's the one who forced Elliott to be physical with the girl. He's the one who forced Elliott to pull that girls shirt down. He's the one that forced Elliott to get mixed up in that fight in the bar.

 

OH WAIT! What's this? Elliott did all those things on his own? Oh, well never mind then. Guess the blame should be on THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY DID THESE THINGS! HOLY CRAP! WHAT A NOVEL IDEA!

 

Cut in paste from my other thread post............

One thing is consistent, if you stay clean, you don't have to worry about Goodell.

Right?

I haven't seen him go against Drew Brees and JJ Watt for a reason.

[ffexpert 4]

This was always going to happen. League is all about image - they are coming down hard on Zeke so they give the impression that they take Domestic Violence Very seriously. Now, whatever happens, they are exonerated as it will be the courts who rule to reduce or eliminate Zeke's suspension.

 

To me, it looks like the NFL learned from the Ray Rice scenario that it is better to look too strict and unfair/unreasonable on domestic violence, than to look indifferent.

[mobb_deep 920]

Can someone give me a brief synopsis, without all of the personal feelers and such? TIA.

 

Is he suspended?

If yes, when will the suspension begin?

Will he play week 1?

etc. etc.

[TBayXXXVII 2,550]

 

Cut in paste from my other thread post............

One thing is consistent, if you stay clean, you don't have to worry about Goodell.

Right?

I haven't seen him go against Drew Brees and JJ Watt for a reason.

 

And "Liked" just like in the other post.

[Skinny_Bastard 157]

Can someone give me a brief synopsis, without all of the personal feelers and such? TIA.

 

Is he suspended?

If yes, when will the suspension begin?

Will he play week 1?

etc. etc.

 

He's suspended but will play week 1.

 

Scheduled to start week 2 but depending on how the judge rules this Friday on the TRO, it could push it back to week 4.

Depending on outcome of the TRO, this thing has a good chance to drag on until next season.

[TBayXXXVII 2,550]

 

The girl testified she LIKE TO HAVE ROUGH sex.

There's no proof that he ever hit her.

 

Did you watch the rest of the video that Elliott pull the girl's shirt down? She pulled her own shirt down multiple times for fun before he did it.

 

Yeah, she said that AFTER the report of the violence. Which means "she got paid off". You don't report violence then say "Oh, it was nothing", unless you got paid. You don't get paid unless "something" happened. Did something happen that she could prove? I don't know. Did he actually hit her? I don't know. What I know is that she changed her story... COMPLETELY, after he got paid. Interesting... don't you think?

 

I don't care what the rest of the video showed. I can tell you this... I don't even care that he did it. I can also tell you this... I'm in the minority. It doesn't look good that he did it. So, when you take "perceived violence vs a woman", plus pulling down a woman's shirt, PLUS being involved in a bar fight... it all adds up to someone making repeated mistakes that "look bad for the league". He has, in his contract, a morality clause. Those 3 things all go against that. From a personal standpoint, what he did doesn't matter to me... from a business stand point, it matters very much.

 

You know what I can tell you with 100% confidence? Elliott will never be suspended again if he doesn't hit any women, act foolish in public to where he's doing something reckless, get into bar fights (or instigate them), violate the banned substance policy, or make a lot of illegal hits. So in essence, if he stays out of trouble, he won't get suspended. I know that's a new and revolutionary idea, but it does work.

[bucknbull 4]

 

EDIT: I should add, because maybe this is what people are thinking about, that contract or no, if the employer does give a reason for the termination, and that reason is demonstrably problematic, then the employee has a much stronger case to sue. If the employer fires me because I 'failed to perform my duties', and I can prove that I did perform them, for example. Or I'm fired because they claim I said nasty things about them online, and I can prove that I didn't. So the employer giving a reason opens them up to suit if that reason is flawed. But 'I don't like you' or 'you working here hurts our company rep' don't rely on the employee having actually done anything at all. And, again, contracts and unions change the whole picture.

This exactly is what I see this case being about.

[jgcrawfish 232]

What if they opted not to proceed because they thought the girl was shady and was trying to extort him for money?

 

Just throwing it out there.

It's possible. Burden of the proof is on the DA. The law assumes innocent until proven guilty. But make no mistake, money talks in these things.

[jgcrawfish 232]

 

That means there's insufficient evidence to back the accusers claim......... it's nothing but allegations.

No one should be punished for allegations.

This isn't the law, it's his employer. They don't have to have a shred of proof that would be admissible in court. The just need enough to judge it conduct detrimental to the image of the league.

 

Look, this will never change. Jerry Jones can be pissed off all he wants about and run around saying "there's no evidence", but then it comes to it, he's going to quietly side on the NFL league side. Kraft did. These guys are splitting 14 BILLION a year and only paying 40% out in salary. There is no investment like it anywhere in the world. Jerry bought the Cowboys in 1989 for $140,000,000. Today they are worth upwards of $4,200,000,000. That's a 30x increase in 28 yrs. To put in perspective, he paid $140,000,000 for it, and every year it has gone up by an average of $145,000,000!!! If you think Jerry is going all out to defend his boy you're as stupid as Zeke is for ever letting the girl into his life.

 

Every year, there are MOST 3 guys that this affects in the NFL. That's less than 1% of the nearly 1700 players on rosters. If you don't want to get suspended don't do things that lead to a suspension. Know that if you pick your nose on national TV and the NFL talking heads don't like it, they have the right to suspend you because YOU AND THE ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS YOU FOCKING GAVE THEM POWER TO DO SO! This has NOTHING to do with proof, it has everything to do about image. After the black eye that Ray Rice gave the league, along with Greg Hardy, you can bet damned sure the league is going to bring the hammer down on every domestic abuse situation without fail. There are ONLY two stances that Zeke can take at this point: 1. That critical factors that could prove his innocence were left out by the NFL during their investigation, unintentionally or otherwise; 2. Inconsistency in the handling of similar situations (in particular Josh Brown of the Giants who admitted to domestic abuse but got his suspension reduced to 1 game from 6).

 

Chances are his Temporary Restraining Order will be rescinded because an arbitrator has ruled that the 6 game suspension was within the NFL rights and fit the rules outlined in the Personal Conduct Policy and it's punishments. Zeke will miss 6 games because he deserves to. End of story.

[LunaTick 30]

I will make a couple of comments concerning this topic and the naive responses of some who have replied thus far.

 

1. Right of Business and Organizations to Police/Legate themselves. Has been part of our legal culture from Day 1. Is really, in terms of Religious Organizations, we achieve the separation of Church and State. Faith is allowed to self regulate and litigate. Which doesn't preclude Government from regulating and litigating laws on the individual. Government isn't bound to enforce those of the business or organization. But being a member of a business or organization protect your from the laws.

 

If you don't understand this, then you need to better inform yourself

 

2. There is nothing out there that says a Business or Organization has to retain membership of an individual accused simply cause they have been convicted. Actually is about their only recourse to protect themselves (business/organization) from the immoral, unethical, illegal, etc. behaviors of an individual.

 

That being said.

1. I do have some concern about enforcement of a behavioral clause against an individual for behavior that occurred prior to employment or membership.

2. I do have a problem with how the NFL litigates itself. I do not belief the structure exists to adequately perform this work But that is a discussion for a different day.

 

 

All of this will come to a head during the next rounds of CBA talks. I doubt the NFLPA will be running that show. But rather the players agents and attorneys.

 

What the League though is alerting the college players now and in future. Your behavior will have an impact on employment later.

That is a fact of life for all of us.

 

If your not attune to that.

Then you had better understand this and then inform yourself.

 

Last - why are you so worked up about another Millionaire player. All pro sports are way over compensated for their benefit to society at large. From ownership down to the players.

 

 

[Skinny_Bastard 157]

This isn't the law, it's his employer. They don't have to have a shred of proof that would be admissible in court. The just need enough to judge it conduct detrimental to the image of the league.

 

Look, this will never change. Jerry Jones can be pissed off all he wants about and run around saying "there's no evidence", but then it comes to it, he's going to quietly side on the NFL league side. Kraft did. These guys are splitting 14 BILLION a year and only paying 40% out in salary. There is no investment like it anywhere in the world. Jerry bought the Cowboys in 1989 for $140,000,000. Today they are worth upwards of $4,200,000,000. That's a 30x increase in 28 yrs. To put in perspective, he paid $140,000,000 for it, and every year it has gone up by an average of $145,000,000!!! If you think Jerry is going all out to defend his boy you're as stupid as Zeke is for ever letting the girl into his life.

 

Every year, there are MOST 3 guys that this affects in the NFL. That's less than 1% of the nearly 1700 players on rosters. If you don't want to get suspended don't do things that lead to a suspension. Know that if you pick your nose on national TV and the NFL talking heads don't like it, they have the right to suspend you because YOU AND THE ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS YOU FOCKING GAVE THEM POWER TO DO SO! This has NOTHING to do with proof, it has everything to do about image. After the black eye that Ray Rice gave the league, along with Greg Hardy, you can bet damned sure the league is going to bring the hammer down on every domestic abuse situation without fail. There are ONLY two stances that Zeke can take at this point: 1. That critical factors that could prove his innocence were left out by the NFL during their investigation, unintentionally or otherwise; 2. Inconsistency in the handling of similar situations (in particular Josh Brown of the Giants who admitted to domestic abuse but got his suspension reduced to 1 game from 6).

 

Chances are his Temporary Restraining Order will be rescinded because an arbitrator has ruled that the 6 game suspension was within the NFL rights and fit the rules outlined in the Personal Conduct Policy and it's punishments. Zeke will miss 6 games because he deserves to. End of story.

 

I think the TRO will happen in the friendly courts of Eastern Texas. Zeke and team file their lawsuit there for a reason.

The injunction will happen, pushing this legal battle into next year.

[Maulers1973 117]

What's the point in an investigation if the player has no rights? I keep hearing that Goodell can do whatever he wants as the collective bargaining agreement gives him this authority. Ok, so why an investigation that took over a year? Landry was accused. Do we have to wait over a year for a decision on him too? Does this not give women power over an NFL player to falsely accuse him of something he didn't do just because she's upset that he broke up with her?

All NFL players beware. You're screwed if your gf gets mad at you. It's a clown show, by the clown himself.

[Skinny_Bastard 157]

What's the point in an investigation if the player has no rights? I keep hearing that Goodell can do whatever he wants as the collective bargaining agreement gives him this authority. Ok, so why an investigation that took over a year? Landry was accused. Do we have to wait over a year for a decision on him too? Does this not give women power over an NFL player to falsely accuse him of something he didn't do just because she's upset that he broke up with her?

All NFL players beware. You're screwed if your gf gets mad at you. It's a clown show, by the clown himself.

 

That's my exact thought.

Essentially any accusation and a few pictures of bruises will do the trick.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

and of course, I play the Zeke owner who took him in the 1st round this year(2 weeks ago), this week

[jgcrawfish 232]

 

I think the TRO will happen in the friendly courts of Eastern Texas. Zeke and team file their lawsuit there for a reason.

The injunction will happen, pushing this legal battle into next year.

Mike and Mike had their attorney dude on this morning. The NFL will likely file a motion to have this TRO moved to NY. But it might not matter. The TRO is dependent on proving the NFL over stepped their bounds by handing out 6 games (which is the established punishment already) and doesn't have the right to hand it out. Doesn't matter where it's filed, that likely won't stand and the TRO will be rescinded. While the situations are different, the Brady Deflategate issue from last year proved the NFL has the right discipline according to the CBA. Brady only delayed the inevitable, with precedent already in place, I think this thing moves forward pretty quickly. This is a stay of execution for Zeke. If he wins, he delays the trial until it gets on a docket, if not, he suffers the suspension asap and we move on. I'd sort of like it to happen about week 6 so it affects the cowboys and fantasy football teams playoff chances.

[seafoam1 3,048]

 

Cut in paste from my other thread post............

One thing is consistent, if you stay clean, you don't have to worry about Goodell.

Right?

I haven't seen him go against Drew Brees and JJ Watt for a reason.

Me neither. How about David Johnson, or Crabtree or Dalton or Witten or Lacy or Gore or Fleener or Eifert or Manning or Thielen or Bradford or Doyle?

 

Maybe some of these guys got into trouble with Goodell that I'm not aware of but if they did, was it because they actually got in trouble and are responsible?

 

Anyway, aren't there way more players that don't get suspended than actually do? Maybe those that do should be consulting those who actually stay out of trouble.

[TBayXXXVII 2,550]

Me neither. How about David Johnson, or Crabtree or Dalton or Witten or Lacy or Gore or Fleener or Eifert or Manning or Thielen or Bradford or Doyle?

 

Maybe some of these guys got into trouble with Goodell that I'm not aware of but if they did, was it because they actually got in trouble and are responsible?

 

Anyway, aren't there way more players that don't get suspended than actually do? Maybe those that do should be consulting those who actually stay out of trouble.

 

This is the same as in every day life... the guilty playing the victim.

[Cruzer 1,995]

 

This is the same as in every day life... the guilty playing the victim.

Kia Roberts actually spoke to, interviewed and investigated Tiffany Thompson and her claim. After which she determined (basically) that Ms. Thompson was full of shiit.

 

Did you conduct your own investigation/interview with Ms. Thompson, or were you just there when Ms. Roberts did hers?