No, IMO.dcmissile, I have not been able to stomach getting deep into the facts on another NFL suspension jihad. Are there facts here that suggest there's any likely outcome other than the Brady outcome? I of course understand changing jurisdictions might yield a different result---but is that all that's really in play here?
If there is a strike, it'll be over money, like always. The league will use this (the commissioner having appeal power) as a leverage chip, but it isnt going to be a sticking point.So the NFLPA filed a temporary restraining order to block the suspension.
Like I said earlier. I feel there is a high probability we have a long strike when the CBA is up.
No way will this be the sticking point. The NFL's random punishments really only fuck over a few players during the whole CBA lifetime. Thousands of other players are not going to care about those few. The strike will come because of money, as it always does.So the NFLPA filed a temporary restraining order to block the suspension.
Like I said earlier. I feel there is a high probability we have a long strike when the CBA is up.
Always good to know who has you blocked.No way will this be the sticking point. The NFL's random punishments really only fuck over a few players during the whole CBA lifetime. Thousands of other players are not going to care about those few. The strike will come because of money, as it always does.
Nit-pick: Wasn't it 2nd?
We'll never know for sure, but I'm afraid so, and it's too bad because I think the Second Circuit will likely have the last word until this process is revisited in the next CBA, if it's revisited in the next CBA.Not to reopen old wounds here but do you really think Kessler was the difference at the Ninth Circuit?
Pages 4-5 of NFLPA filingIn imposing discipline against Elliott despite the absence of any action by law enforcement, the NFL conducted a massive investigation that lasted more than a year, co-led by Roberts, who interviewed every fact witness personally. This massive amount of work resulted in a final investigative report (“Elliott Report”) which, unlike virtually every similar NFL investigative report in the past, deliberately omitted a conclusion. Had the report stated a conclusion, Roberts, as co-author, would have had to reveal her conclusion, as an experienced lawyer and prosecutor, that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed with any discipline. Unbeknownst to Roberts, it was Friel—who believed that the evidence was sufficient to support the imposition of discipline—along with NFL counsel, who determined that the report should be void of a conclusion.
Pages 23 of NFLPA filingUnlike most other NFL investigative reports issued in connection with Commissioner discipline, the investigators’ conclusions about what the evidence showed were excluded from the report. See id. Neither Roberts nor Friel—the co-authors of the report—could identify who at the NFL made the decision not to have any conclusions or recommendations in this mammoth report, which was more than 160 pages long, with more than 100 exhibits.
Pages 6 of NFLPA filingIt was the lack of credibility and continued inconsistency in her claims that led Roberts, who interviewed her, to conclude that the allegations had no merit. Indeed, Roberts prepared a separate document listing some of the most significant inconsistencies in Thompson’s claims as compared to other credible witnesses and evidence; she labeled this document the “Inconsistency Transcript” (a term someone at the NFL tried to cross out).
Page 14 of the NFLPA filingThe NFL convened a meeting on June 26—attended by League personnel, a panel of outside “expert” advisors to the Commissioner (provided for in the PCP), Elliott, his agents, and NFLPA counsel—at which NFL Special Counsel for Investigations Lisa Friel presented the findings of the Elliott Report. A-NFLPA-45. Significantly, Roberts was excluded from this critical meeting, and neither Roberts nor Friel could identify which top NFL Executive made this decision. Id. Hr’g Tr. (Aug. 29) at 162:22-25 (Roberts: Is the question do I know why I wasn’t invited? Mr. Kessler: Yes. Ms. Roberts: No); Hr’g Tr. (Aug. 30) at 277:5-8 (Q: Who made the decision for Ms. Roberts not to meet with the outside advisors at the meeting? Friel: I have no idea.”)
I love you, didn't you know thatAlways good to know who has you blocked.
Although Jones and Kraft are not pimps, we've known for a while that it's Mara all along.And yet the NFL is already putting out there that there is no such deadline and that he could serve the suspension even without the arbitration decision coming in before 4:00 PM (NFLPA suits, notwithstanding, of course). Which, unless I'm reading my clock wrong, has already passed.
Remind me again who the Cowboys play Week 1?
If they've said that publicly, that cuts against what they are arguing in court.And yet the NFL is already putting out there that there is no such deadline and that he could serve the suspension even without the arbitration decision coming in before 4:00 PM (NFLPA suits, notwithstanding, of course). Which, unless I'm reading my clock wrong, has already passed.
Remind me again who the Cowboys play Week 1?
They definitely said it publicly:If they've said that publicly, that cuts against what they are arguing in court.
Their motion to dismiss in court says that the case is not yet ripe, because the arbitrator has not yet ruled and thus the NFLPA brought a suit challenging something that doesn't exist yet in an improper race to the courthouse. (Which is kind of ballsy given what the NFL did in Brady.)
Procedurally, there is some merit to that argument. If, however, they are also saying, "we can still keep the player suspended without waiting for the ruling from Henderson," then I think if I'm the judge I have all I need to enter a TRO. Otherwise, the NFL has just set up this Kafka-esque procedural minefield where they insulate their own decisions from review.
Yet still eligible to play week 1:Six games upheld per Mort.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20595771/ezekiel-elliott-dallas-cowboys-six-game-suspension-upheldDespite the suspension being upheld, Elliott is still eligible to play in the team's season opener Sunday against the New York Giants.
You're like the Simone Biles of mental gymnastics here.So a complete neutral here but I am thrilled that he gets to play against that snake Mara and the Giants who actively worked to get him suspended not just because he committed assault against another human but because it would keep him from playing against their team. I am also thrilled that he gets the full 6 games for beating up his girlfriend. I hope the cowboys run him 100 times on Sunday, they don't need him for another 6 weeks after that and he might actually break the Giants front 7.
For what it's worth, In two games against the Giants last year, Elliott only totalled 159 yards.So a complete neutral here but I am thrilled that he gets to play against that snake Mara and the Giants who actively worked to get him suspended not just because he committed assault against another human but because it would keep him from playing against their team. I am also thrilled that he gets the full 6 games for beating up his girlfriend. I hope the cowboys run him 100 times on Sunday, they don't need him for another 6 weeks after that and he might actually break the Giants front 7.
So neutral!You're like the Simone Biles of mental gymnastics here.
I'd say that's worth very little. One of those games was the first game of the season for which he was incredibly jittery and not at all the player he turned out to be (in the other, he ran for 107 yards). It was, as it currently stands, his worst game as a professional and not at all indicative of what he's capable of doing against them on Sunday. He averaged just 2.6 yards per carry that day. The only other time he failed to rush for at least 4 ypc was his 97-yard effort against (then) #1 rushing defense Baltimore, in which he averaged 3.9 ypc.For what it's worth, In two games against the Giants last year, Elliott only totalled 159 yards.
In the end, isn't what this should have been about all along (don't answer that, it's rhetorical)? Does it seem to you like the bolded is the reason why the lead investigator suggested no suspension?In the end, the one thing the NFLPA has done, to me at least, is raise a significant question whether the accused did the things he's accused of. So, even if there are no other similarities, I guess it has that in common with Brady v. NFL.
It's not just that the lead investigator found no basis for discipline, it's that they excluded that recommendation from the arbitrator's ruling. I believe that's not common procedure, and seems like a strong basis for a stay from what I remember of this area of the law. You can have almost any policy in place, but once you have a policy and course, you have to follow it.I scanned some of the papers. The NFLPA's case is pretty weak. One of the downsides to trying to win the race to court came with a cost. They gave Henderson a bit of a blueprint.
That said, I still think they will get a stay. The fact that the NFL's lead investigator found no basis for discipline makes it so that the judge will probably call a time out and slow things down. In the end the fact is largely irrelevant since the judge can't second guess the Commissioner's or the arbitrator's credibility findings, but there's enough that a stay seems likely given that the consequence of not giving a stay is to moot the claim and is tantamount to a victory for the NFL on the merits. The problem is that the case theoretically could get decided quickly on the merits, which at last in theory leaves the Cowboys with the possibility of a lifting of the stay in November or December. Be careful what you wish for.
That said, the NFLPA's claims seem so weak to me that I think there is a something-greater-than-zero chance the judge will find they haven't even presented a substantial question warranting a stay.
In the end, the stay or non-stay question is probably only relevant to fantasy football because I think this year or next, Elliott is going to serve a suspension, even if the Court makes the NFL do a procedural do-over.
I would enjoy responding to the NFL's motion in New York, though. I suspect there are some really good juicy quotes you could pull from the NFL's filings in Brady about the first to file rule.
In the end, the one thing the NFLPA has done, to me at least, is raise a significant question whether the accused did the things he's accused of. So, even if there are no other similarities, I guess it has that in common with Brady v. NFL.
They may or may not have excluded it from the Commissioner when he approved the punishment. I doubt he was unaware. The evidence was provided to Elliott in the appeal hearing. The right to evidence is traditionally a right to have it for a hearing, not to have it to appeal to the discretion of the employer before he imposes punishment.It's not just that the lead investigator found no basis for discipline, it's that they excluded that recommendation from the arbitrator's ruling. I believe that's not common procedure, and seems like a strong basis for a stay from what I remember of this area of the law. You can have almost any policy in place, but once you have a policy and course, you have to follow it.
FRISCO, Texas -- Federal judge Amos Mazzant III on Friday granted a request by the NFL Players Association for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of the six-game suspension for Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott.
Elliott was already eligible to play in Sunday's season opener against the New York Giants but his suspension for violating the league's personal conduct policy was set to begin Monday. With the injunction granted, Elliott will likely be able to continue playing as the legal process plays out.
Likely play the whole season is probably a stretch. There are a couple things still in the air. First the judge may dismiss still on NFL's jurisdiction claim, he didn't decide that today.EE will likely play the full season after all: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20631811/judge-grants-temporary-restraining-order-request-dallas-cowboys-running-back-ezekiel-elliott
5th Circuit chances at this point are slim and none. It's an interlocutory order, not an appealable final order. Interlocutory orders are appealable in certain cases, but this likely isn't one of them. The NFL has no claim of irreparable harm. The judge may dissolve the PI at some point, and the suspension can begin then unless Elliot wins relief. If the judge issues a final judgment in Elliot's favor, the NFL can appeal then and, if it prevails, the suspension will be served. This is what happened in the Brady case.Likely play the whole season is probably a stretch. There are a couple things still in the air. First the judge may dismiss still on NFL's jurisdiction claim, he didn't decide that today.
Also NFL will go to 5th Circuit, probably Monday.
(The facts are pretty good for Elliot, and this judge seems like he wants the case, so it's a decent shot to go all year, but likely is probably too confident based on just this).
Like, say, $25k fine for tampering with equipment? Or an as-practiced precedent of a sternly-worded letter?I think players will get relief only in outlier cases. Trying to punish somebody twice (Rice); exceeding a clearly prescribed maximum penalty (Hardy). Maybe a blatant and clearly prejudicial procedural fault.
As the head of the "NFL Management Council", the body of owners that formally controls the (nonprofit) NFL entity and formally employs Goodell, Mara has a functional role in some of the decision-making behind the scenes. Berman, you may recall, called him in to answer for the dispute, and he was the counterparty when Berman was trying to resolve things via mediation. I think that was the origin.Can someone explain the whole Mara-is-driving-the-bus thing to me? Is there any actual evidence that supports that?
The injunction was entered as a preliminary injunction, not a TRO, though, so should be appealable at this point.5th Circuit chances at this point are slim and none. It's an interlocutory order, not an appealable final order. Interlocutory orders are appealable in certain cases, but this likely isn't one of them. The NFL has no claim of irreparable harm. The judge may dissolve the PI at some point, and the suspension can begin then unless Elliot wins relief. If the judge issues a final judgment in Elliot's favor, the NFL can appeal then and, if it prevails, the suspension will be served. This is what happened in the Brady case.
That's quite the accusation. Are you really suggesting a judge would rule on a case based on his rooting interests? If that were actually true, that would be a FAR bigger scandal than this clusterfuck.They may have found a Cowboys fan.
He can speak for himself, of course, but Denny did not mean to suggest that, IMO.That's quite the accusation. Are you really suggesting a judge would rule on a case based on his rooting interests? If that were actually true, that would be a FAR bigger scandal than this clusterfuck.
Lisa Friel, Giants fanatic.That's quite the accusation. Are you really suggesting a judge would rule on a case based on his rooting interests? If that were actually true, that would be a FAR bigger scandal than this clusterfuck.
I don't know enough about teams around the league to know for sure, but Ereck Flowers must be a bottom 5 LT in this league. One of the most-penalized players (at any position). Obviously a crucial position protecting a QB who needs time in the pocket to operate at max efficiency. They've been woefully under talented at RB, but even so, the run game in NY has been dismal. That's not all on Flowers as they've pretty much sucked since before David Wilson broke, and the interior OL gets plenty of blame as well.Only scoring 3 points against this Cowboys defense is pretty putrid, with or without Beckham. Offensively, the Cowboys will be a very good team this year unless Dak really regresses. They are very well-balanced. I'm not sold at all on this defense but they may prove to be serviceable or even better. Only week 1 but this looks like a team that will be playing in the Divisional around.
The Giants, on the other hand, look similar to last year's version. The defense will keep them in games and even win some against bad opponents but this offense is so remedial that it's tough to take them seriously. Zero OL. Zero running game. Marshall looks like he's running in quick sand. Shepard is a pure slot guy. And Beckham has a high ankle sprain that will probably bother him all year. Engram had a decent debut but doesn't really look like a difference maker.