View Single Post
Old 11-18-2017, 12:09 PM   #108
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Except the NFL initially only suspended Rice for 2 games, only to extend it after TMZ leaked the video that Goodell had already seen. The league doesn’t give a shit about women or domestic abuse, they just want to create the perception that they do, which is why Goodell dropped the hammer on Zeke, despite being found not guilty in a court of law. Hell, the NFL investigator, Kia Roberts, even recommended no suspension based on interviews with Zeke’s accuser... This is 100% spin control after the league showed their ass in the Rice case — they just want to appear to care about women, and they’re willing to throw Zeke under the bus to sell that lie.
The league 'under'-reacted to Rice's assault initially, then corrected when public disclosure of the evidence forced its hand. Rice has not played since. The league also 'under'-reacted to Josh Brown's domestic violence and subsequently corrected. Should the league continue to 'under-react' and then 'correct' based on publicity and how high-profile the player is? Or should it continue to work to establish a standard for punishment when players are involved in domestic violence?

I'm going to disagree that league executives don't give a shit about women or domestic abuse. After the Rice issue, it appears to have created programs and executive positions to deal specifically with that issue. There may be multiple motivations (protecting the NFL brand and image being one of them) but I'm not so cynical (yet) to think that Goodell and the executives he has charged to oversee that issue do not have a human response to women being punched.

Also, Elliott was never tried in a court of law. He was never even charged by local (Columbus, OH) police, despite the police investigators finding that the accuser was 'generally' credible. Apparently there were issues (conflicting statements) with the case that made prosecutors doubt they could get a criminal conviction to a legal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).

The NFL, however, is free to discipline players at a standard lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt". The investigator (Roberts) may have had legitimate questions about the victim's credibility; her boss (Friel) found the victim credible overall, with one exception. It seems like a typical red herring cast by lawyers attempting to create an issue over a difference of opinion between Roberts and Friel, and Roberts' absence at the disciplinary hearing. The league obviously had Roberts' investigative report to consider; are Elliot's attorneys suggesting that Roberts would provide information in addition to or different from that which was provided in her 160-page report?

Ultimately, Goodell gave greater weight to Friel's conclusion than to Roberts',
a judgment call which he had the authority to make. It seems entirely possible too that Goodell was taking into account OTHER well-publicized Elliot-related incidents--an additional claim of domestic violence by the same accuser; a speeding ticket in which Elliott was going in excess of 100mph; Elliott's presence at a nightclub when one of his friends was arrested for illegally bringing a firearm into the club; the videotaped footage of Elliot pulling down a woman's shirt to expose her breast during a March 2017 St.Patrick's Day parade in Dallas. All of this would be information beyond what the NFL investigator (Kia Roberts) would have considered.

In any case, it is impossible for me to look at Zeke Elliott and think of him as a 'victim' of anything; rather, he seems to be the most talented beneficiary of Jerry Jones' willingness to "enable" by turning a blind eye to player misbehavior, or outright deny it when it affects the product he can put on the field, and the profit he can derive from it.

The other NFL owners are going to have to seriously question whether they can/will countenance that mentality in a fellow owner who is attempting to control the entire league for his own benefit, or whether they will take steps to curb his power, and his abuse thereof.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote