Dallas Cowboys 2017 - The Road to Super Bowl LII

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

What's funny is I do think Zeke deserved a game or two for being screw up. He clearly did things that aren't aligned with the NFL's image. I think most people would agree with that.

But no, they slapped 6 games specifically nailing him for supposedly assaulting a woman who blatantly lied during the whole process. If they clearly had hard evidence against Zeke, then it would have leaked by now. But they don't. They really screwed up on this and it might be damaged beyond repair.

The NFL thinks two wrongs make a right -- Zeke is basically serving what should have been Ray Rice's suspension.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Underdog

The NFL thinks two wrongs make a right -- Zeke is basically serving what should have been Ray Rice's suspension.

I don't think Ray Rice has played a down of football since he was suspended. So unless the thought is that Ray Rice was punished excessively, Elliott is arguably getting off light.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

I don't think Ray Rice has played a down of football since he was suspended. So unless the thought is that Ray Rice was punished excessively, Elliott is arguably getting off light.

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.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Underdog

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.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

In any case, it is impossible for me to look at Zeke Elliott and think of him as a 'victim' of anything

[Bryan_Wilson]

Really don't think Goodell even knew about Roberts "side" opposed to Friel's. Either that or he and the 4 panel committee ignored the only person the NFL sent to interview the woman. Friel didn't interview the victim so how can she even have a recommendation at all, how can anyone for that matter? You know who did talk to the victim? Not 1, but 2 police departments, both declined to even press charges. One in Ohio and the other in Florida before the combine. And the only other person was Roberts. Who recommended no suspension which she submitted with the 160 page report... which Friel for no reason whatsoever did not make available to the 4 person panel. Didn't mention, it just never existed... a panel that is supposed to decide if a man is guilty of a crime better than a former DA who interviewed the alleged victim and 2 police departments and they don't even have all the information. And then the NFL appointed arbitrator disallowed the report and it's findings and wouldn't allow the alleged victim to be questioned. Didn't ask her if she was willing just said no. The NFL is such a joke, the meaningless suspension of Kicker josh brown, which just so happened to fall on the day the court in texas was to rule on zeke's motion is laughable as well. Then there is the medical expert the NFL had who said she could tell by pictures that the woman was abused, the NFL PA had their own who said that's laughable so the NFL PA requested her at Zeke's arbitration hearing. She didn't show and the NFL lawyers said she was called in to the hospital for emergency. Well it just so happens the nfl pa had an investigator outside her house. She never left, he rang the doorbell to confirm and she was still there at the house. So why lie? There is literally not one instance the NFL looks in any way competent or remotely fair and consistent to me with any of this.

It sure is odd that there are several texts of her conversing about blackmailing him and whether or not her friend should lie about what happened. But there are no texts of her communicating with friends about being scared or hurt or anything that implies she was physically abused. It's literally her word, which nobody who spoke to her believed, and nothing else. I'm 100% certain if there were any texts they too would have been leaked.

[Jack.Kerr]

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:

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.

Originally Posted by Underdog

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.

[Bryan_Wilson]

I get what you are saying Jack but for me the bottom line no matter where you fall on believing he did it or not, is the NFL has now branded this kid for life. Yes they have the right to suspend him according to the cba they don't even have to prove he's guilty the burden of proof is on elliott to show he is innocent. But again, based on everything reported, this should not have happened. He could have been suspended for "conduct". But the NFL didn't want to miss the bar low again IMO. But in the meantime, he hasn't even been charged, yet with how much this case has been talked about on national tv, local media, the internet etc... This kid will carry the label of a domestic abuser the rest of his life. If he has kids, those kids could be asked one day about his dad, the woman beater. That is what is so disgusting with this for me. I couldn't care less about the games he misses or plays in. But just because the NFL can do something doesn't mean they should. They could have and should have suspended him for conduct detrimental to the nfl or whatever. And everything that happened after the fact highlights what is wrong with the nfl. The arbitration hearing didn't violate the cba, but outside of the nfl that arbitration denied him fundamental fairness. The only reason any of this was ruled in the NFL's favor ultimately is because at the end of the day this falls under a labor dispute and courts will rarely intervene in labor disputes unless a violation of a cba occurred. I never viewed this as a labor dispute it's about the NFL sticking a label on a guy for life with not nearly enough evidence to do so, this all would have been a non story if he was merely suspended for conduct, the only reason to label it as domestic violence is for the NFL to try to cosmetically appear tougher on DV issues IMO.