Watkins90 Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 Suspension upheld with no reduction in the number of games. Per Chris Mortensen Yes, this is awesome. He deserves it. !@#$ the Cowboys, btw.
FLFan Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 Yes, this is awesome. He deserves it. !@#$ the Cowboys, btw. Agree.
gobilz Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 Suspension upheld with no reduction in the number of games. Per Chris Mortensen nice.screw him and and the boys
papazoid Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 just like tom brady eventually lost....so will zeke
26CornerBlitz Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 @AdamSchefter From the Hearing Officer in Ezekiel Elliott Case: https://www.facebook.com/AdamSchefter/posts/1615445288508106 From the Hearing Officer in Ezekiel Elliott Case: "As his designated Hearing Officer in this matter, my responsibility is to determine whether the Commissioner's decision on discipline of Mr. Elliott is arbitrary and capricious, meaning was it made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances. It is not the responsibility, nor within the authority of, the Hearing Officer to conduct a de novo review of the case and second guess his decision. Rather, the review is to determine whether the player was afforded adequate notice of his alleged violation, the right to representation, opportunity to present evidence, and a decision which is fair and consistent. In a case involving violation of a policy, fair and consistent means whether the process and result were in compliance with the terms of that policy. This one is, in every respect. Here the process for imposing discipline outlined in the Policy has been followed closely, step by step. I find it unnecessary to reexamine all the evidence presented in this record because my careful and diligent review of everything the Commissioner reviewed and relied on draws me to the conclusion that the record contains sufficient credible evidence to support whatever determinations he made. He is entitled to deference on those judgments absent irregularities not present here. While the record contains inconsistencies in statements, an adjudicator makes informed judgments on the credibility of witnesses and evidence."
26CornerBlitz Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 @WerlySportsLaw BREAKING: NFL files lawsuit in New York federal court to confirm arbitration in Ezekiel Elliott case
Augie Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 Nice to have all kinds of dirt come out and have nothing to show for it!
GunnerBill Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 So Zeke's ex got back at him by screwing Lucky Whitehead..... now that guy's ridiculous first name makes sense..... I'm a little surprised the suspension hasn't been reduced to 4 games that was what I expected the outcome to be. I don't see that the NFL has acted outside its jurisdiction here though or that it has in any way breached its own disciplinary policy. Therefore not sure Zeke has anywhere left to turn. Interesting that it is the NFL who is taking it to court proactively to get the court to back the arbitration decision. That says to me that they are pretty confident they are on solid ground.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 So Zeke's ex got back at him by screwing Lucky Whitehead..... now that guy's ridiculous first name makes sense..... I'm a little surprised the suspension hasn't been reduced to 4 games that was what I expected the outcome to be. I don't see that the NFL has acted outside its jurisdiction here though or that it has in any way breached its own disciplinary policy. Therefore not sure Zeke has anywhere left to turn. Interesting that it is the NFL who is taking it to court proactively to get the court to back the arbitration decision. That says to me that they are pretty confident they are on solid ground. I haven't been following this, but I thought there's an NFLPA lawsuit still? This was the internal NFL review that just ruled, right?
GunnerBill Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 I haven't been following this, but I thought there's an NFLPA lawsuit still? This was the internal NFL review that just ruled, right? The internal NFL disciplinary committee ruled. It was appealed by the NFLPA to the NFL's "arbitrator" who upheld the NFL disciplinary committee decision. Then here is the crucial bit..... it is not the NFLPA who have filed the motion in court to overturn the arbitration decision. It is the NFL who have filed a motion for the court to confirm the arbitrators ruling. This is essentially a pre-emptive strike by the league against what they anticipate the NFLPA will do which is seek an injunction preventing the suspension from taking effect this year while they appeal to the courts. In order to get such an injunction the NFLPA would need to show that Elliott has prima facie grounds for believing the ruling by the NFL to be in breach of the league's disciplinary rules and process. It is harder for the NFLPA to win that prima facie argument for a stay (injunction) if the courts have already confirmed that the arbitrators ruling is sound.
JohnC Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 The internal NFL disciplinary committee ruled. It was appealed by the NFLPA to the NFL's "arbitrator" who upheld the NFL disciplinary committee decision. Then here is the crucial bit..... it is not the NFLPA who have filed the motion in court to overturn the arbitration decision. It is the NFL who have filed a motion for the court to confirm the arbitrators ruling. This is essentially a pre-emptive strike by the league against what they anticipate the NFLPA will do which is seek an injunction preventing the suspension from taking effect this year while they appeal to the courts. In order to get such an injunction the NFLPA would need to show that Elliott has prima facie grounds for believing the ruling by the NFL to be in breach of the league's disciplinary rules and process. It is harder for the NFLPA to win that prima facie argument for a stay (injunction) if the courts have already confirmed that the arbitrators ruling is sound. What the deflategate legal marathon decision solidified is the notion that league was given the authority to rule on disciplinary decisions. The evidence is not the issue rather the establishment of the league's authority to make basically an unchallengeable ruling, unless it act's grossly outside the wide boundaries. The union negotiated a deal that made them nearly powerless on disciplinary issues. Now the issue is not what is fair but what was negotiated. Goodell had nothing to do with this case. He studiously stayed away from it. However, to his satisfaction his basically sole authority is upheld.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 The internal NFL disciplinary committee ruled. It was appealed by the NFLPA to the NFL's "arbitrator" who upheld the NFL disciplinary committee decision. Then here is the crucial bit..... it is not the NFLPA who have filed the motion in court to overturn the arbitration decision. It is the NFL who have filed a motion for the court to confirm the arbitrators ruling. This is essentially a pre-emptive strike by the league against what they anticipate the NFLPA will do which is seek an injunction preventing the suspension from taking effect this year while they appeal to the courts. In order to get such an injunction the NFLPA would need to show that Elliott has prima facie grounds for believing the ruling by the NFL to be in breach of the league's disciplinary rules and process. It is harder for the NFLPA to win that prima facie argument for a stay (injunction) if the courts have already confirmed that the arbitrators ruling is sound. Thanks, Gunner. Where does the judge in Sherman Tx adjudicating the NFLPA request for a restraining order blocking the suspension while the legal stuff plays out, fit into all this?
GunnerBill Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 What the deflategate legal marathon decision solidified is the notion that league was given the authority to rule on disciplinary decisions. The evidence is not the issue rather the establishment of the league's authority to make basically an unchallengeable ruling, unless it act's grossly outside the wide boundaries. The union negotiated a deal that made them nearly powerless on disciplinary issues. Now the issue is not what is fair but what was negotiated. Goodell had nothing to do with this case. He studiously stayed away from it. However, to his satisfaction his basically sole authority is upheld. Correct. The league is in a very strong position post deflategate because the court ruled that the "bounds of reasonableness" within which the league operates on discipline is very wide.
GunnerBill Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 Thanks, Gunner. Where does the judge in Sherman Tx adjudicating the NFLPA request for a restraining order blocking the suspension while the legal stuff plays out, fit into all this? That is the injunction. I'm not aware whether the hearing scheduled yesterday in Texas actually happened as planned..... did it? Because until the arbitrator judgment is out there is no legal matter to consider. Elliott can't legally appeal to the courts until he has exhausted his employer (the NFL's) own disciplinary procedures. So until he had the arbitrator ruling he did not have anything to try and injunct. If that makes sense.
billieve420 Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 Funny how the NFL is letting Elliott play week 1. I am sure an opening weekend prime time Sunday Night Football contest against the Giants did not factor in the decision in any way.
GunnerBill Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 Funny how the NFL is letting Elliott play week 1. I am sure an opening weekend prime time Sunday Night Football contest against the Giants did not factor in the decision in any way. They missed their deadline to arbitrate in time to uphold the ban for week 1. Did they do that on purpose? Maybe.... I doubt it though. That is the injunction. I'm not aware whether the hearing scheduled yesterday in Texas actually happened as planned..... did it? Because until the arbitrator judgment is out there is no legal matter to consider. Elliott can't legally appeal to the courts until he has exhausted his employer (the NFL's) own disciplinary procedures. So until he had the arbitrator ruling he did not have anything to try and injunct. If that makes sense. The hearing did go ahead as planned but the judge reserved his judgment to allow himself time to consider the arbitrator ruling in full. Decision on the NFLPA's injunction motion now due Friday. Not sure when the NFL's motion for confirmation of the arbitration ruling is due to be heard.
mannc Posted September 7, 2017 Posted September 7, 2017 Prediction: the Cowboys will do just fine without him. He's a running back.
Recommended Posts