View Single Post
Old 11-20-2017, 01:11 PM   #112
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

It's pretty easy to get lost in the weeds of all the salacious 'she-said/he-said' from the transcripts of the NFL investigative reports (they both sound like pathetic, unsympathetic figures), which Elliott's attorneys made public in an attempt to discredit the girlfriend, portraying her as a hard-partying, hard-drinking, drug-taking, promiscuous gold digger. Perhaps they counted on the NFL fans and Cowboys followers NOT noticing that Elliott was there also, present for ALL of it, and often implicated to an even greater degree. Perhaps they were justified in that assumption.

For example, re credibility, Elliot even denied that they were 'dating', despite the facts that he was paying for an apartment for her; he was paying for a leased vehicle for her; he had paid for numerous airline tickets for her to fly to different cities where he was; he sent his bestie with her to Chicago to accompany her to her pregnancy termination, though no explicit reference is made as to whether he (Elliott) paid for that too.

Regarding 'proof of anything': What's the acceptable standard for proof? Should the NFL require video evidence of an NFL player punching a woman in order to impose discipline for violence regarding domestic violence? Should they require DNA evidence of sexual assault?

It seems like you are advocating for 'proof' to a legal standard in a criminal case ('beyond a reasonable doubt'), when an NFL disciplinary proceeding is more akin to a civil case ('preponderance of the evidence'); and in fact, an NFL disciplinary is conducted under Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which vests sole and ultimate authority with the Commissioner in determining facts (even if the Commissioner's conclusions are erroneous), issue punishments, and hear appeals. Far from a 'kangaroo court', it is a long-established provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which has been upheld in favor of the NFL and the Commissioner in several court cases.

It is as if NFL players and owners (and certainly NFL fans) take the position, that "Yeah, there is the CBA, and the PCP, and a domestic violence policy, and that's fine, just don't try to apply it to ME or MY GUY."

Also, regarding "credible evidence", the screen shot below of the text message is between the girlfriend and another party who was a mutual friend of both the girlfriend and Elliott. The party who texted "Do you want me to lie...." was actually a longer-term acquaintance of Elliott. In the transcript of the investigative interview conducted by Kia Roberts, the girlfriend alludes to (and appears to show Roberts) other texts in which she says she replied to the person (paraphrasing) "No, don't lie. If you didn't see it, don't say it. Just tell what you saw." The girlfriend says she thought she was being "set up" by the other party (friend of Elliott) with the phrasing of the question, when she had never told the person to lie. So is this conclusive 'credible evidence', or another instance of 'conflicting statements'? For me, it's conclusive of nothing.

Also, regarding the statement posted regarding "You are a black male athlete...", correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't able to find either a screenshot of that as a texted message, or as part of the investigative interview transcript. Where I did find it referenced, was in an article in the Daily Mail which said:

Quote:
Elliott will also inform the NFL that he is “100 percent certain” that Thompson told him on July 22, “You are a black male athlete. I’m a white girl. They are not going to believe you.”
So this is not a direct quote from the girlfriend; nor even a direct quote from Elliot himself. Instead, what is sounds like is a third-hand (anonymously placed) non-quote from a press flack working for Elliott's attorneys, attempting to inject a race card into the proceedings. Judging (subjectively) from the young woman's interview transcripts, it does not sound consistent with the way she expresses herself, nor with her mindset about inter-racial relationships. And given her past interactions with police departments in both Florida and Ohio, when she had called to report domestic violence incidents, when they failed to arrest him due to conflicting statements, it seems EVEN less likely that she would have made that statement given the authorities' failure to act. What it does NOT does not sound like is evidence, let alone conclusive proof of anything.

There is in fact a lot of evidence--- more than a thousand text message exchanges between Elliott and the girlfriend, photographs of her injuries, medical records, multiple police reports, multiple witness statements, and the opinions of four outside experts who reviewed the evidence. And while much has been made of Kia Roberts' supposed finding that the girlfriend's credibility as insufficient to assess a punishment to Elliott; and the failure of various police departments to arrest Elliott; and the lack of criminal charges being filed; ALL of those parties including Kia Roberts indicated a belief that there had been incident(s) of violence between Elliott and his girlfriend. The police department in Florida; the police department in Columbus; Kia Roberts, Lisa Friel, the four experts who reviewed the evidence. Was the Commissioner supposed to act based on the findings (limited to the investigative interviews) of Roberts alone, effectively leaving the league's response to non-executive? That would have been the coward's way out. Instead, the Commissioner made a very difficult, unpopular decision to impose an established standard of discipline against one of the league's highest profile young stars, on one of the league's highest profile teams, owned by one of the most powerful owners.

The notion that the NFL is only acting to protect its brand? So what! Even if true, the league is acting in a manner that reflects its sensitivity to current public attitudes and values regarding domestic violence. It might not be the most pure motivation, but at least it is a response in the right direction.

Jerry Jones (and a minority of other NFL owners) take the position that they don't want the NFL doing investigative work AT ALL. Why? Because when you investigate, you are likely to find things that you might rather keep hidden from the public--alcoholism, drug use, beating drug tests, domestic violence, promiscuous personal behavior, pregnancies, abortions, etc. Things that make players less marketable; things that make teams less popular. Things that keep players off the field, which keeps teams from winning games, which keeps teams out of the Super Bowl, and prevents owners from making money.

Instead, Jones et al would prefer the old league policy of not acting UNTIL there is a criminal conviction. You can argue that the NFL office isn't acting on the purest motivation ('doing what is right'), but Jones' position is even worse--not doing anything at all, unless a player is charged and/or convicted based on a criminal legal standard.

Any criticism that can be hurled at the league office redounds exponentially to individual owners (and players) who don't want punishment applied to them and their guy.

Ultimately, the public has to determine its own priorities: watching Zeke tote the rock on Sundays, or seeing the league act (even minimally) to curb the phenomenon of domestic abuse within its ranks.

For a lot of reasons, I don't follow professional football anymore, so maybe it's easy for me to know where my priorities are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
How can the NFL under/overreact when they don't have proof of anything? They had it with Rice, clear as day in that video, and they didn't give a shit until it threatened to affect their bottom line... They also found an email from Josh Brown admitting domestic abuse... They don't have one shred of credible evidence with Zeke, but they're going to punish him anyway because even the PERCEPTION of possible domestic violence affects their bottom line after the Ray Rice fiasco. This isn't about "doing the right thing," it's about protecting the brand. If they actually thought Zeke was guilty of domestic violence, then why isn't he getting banned for life like Rice?

"You're a black male athlete. I'm a white girl. They are not going to believe you."

She's right... The court of law wouldn't convict, but the court of public opinion and Goodell's kangaroo court adhere to no such standards.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote