'13 MO ATH Ezekiel Elliott (Ohio State Verbal)

[NDRock]

If it is public knowledge, sure.

They also didn't make Zeke's ability to find employment in football more difficult. If he wanted to play in the CFL, every single team in the league would take him. Again, it seems like the NFL is "football as a whole", but they are not. They are just the best of football. If someone get's fired from Baker McKenzie, and they still have their license to practice law, then BM isn't deterring their employment.

Good convo, guys.

I'm really asking about your hypothetical question for the average person. If a private company decides to fire you because they believe you are a wife beater (without concrete proof), can they legally publicize that? Just curious on where slander/libel would begin in a situation like that. Obviously, pro sports is a different matter as it is almost always public knowledge.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I'm not trying to cut and run on this discussion, but this is going to be my last post on it (at least for a while). I don't feel like I've gotten anywhere previously and I'm trying to wrap up work and get out of here for the long weekend.

Not really. Let me give you an example. If I own a McD's and the corporate McD's tells me I need to suspend an employee because corporate saw an article where he was accused of domestic violence. Are you saying that the franchisee should be able to tell the corporate entity "no" and force their hand? If so, then we fundamentally disagree.

This isn't a good analogy. First of all, the relationship between a franchisee and a franchisor isn't exactly the same as that between the NFL and its constituent teams. Second of all, yes, if the franchisee had reason to believe that the information the franchisor was basing its decision off of was bad, I would expect the franchisee to challenge the decision and I would expect the franchisor to be reasonable in examining the arguments put forward by the franchisee. Third of all, presumably this employee could just go across the street to Burger King and find a comparable job. That opportunity doesn't exist for Elliot.

Nobody is saying that Elliott can't play football. He would be welcome to tell the NFL to pound sand and take his talents to any other football league he pleases. Just because the NFL is the best and most popular league, doesn't mean he has some fundamental right to be employed under them. Furthermore, I don't really agree that the NFL (ie a private organization) is comparable to The Bar Association or really any trade group. They are a FOR PROFIT business.

Again, I you're repeatedly ignoring the fact that the NFL is not the employer here. As I've said in both of my previous posts, if the Cowboys cut him I'd have no issue at all because he could go play for another team. A different standard has to apply when the result of the action is to essentially bar the employee from the marketplace altogether. Not saying you can't bar someone under any circumstances, you just have to respect due process and fundamental fairness. You're also saying he can go play in the Arena league or something like that's a suitable replacement. Thats an obviously disingenuous argument.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I'm okay with Zeke being suspended a few games as a warning, "You have really screwed up a lot this offseason and put the League in a bad spot. We can't conclusively prove that you committed DV, but you've done other things to sit out 3 weeks." However, to suspend him mostly for the DV incident seems wrong.

 

[Irishman77]

I'm okay with Zeke being suspended a few games as a warning, "You have really screwed up a lot this offseason and put the League in a bad spot. We can't conclusively prove that you committed DV, but you've done other things to sit out 3 weeks." However, to suspend him mostly for the DV incident seems wrong.

I understand , but they said this has nothing to do with Mardi Gras incident and only DV. Bait and switch at this point would really destroy the shield and incite a player lockout.

 

[woolybug25]

This isn't a good analogy. First of all, the relationship between a franchisee and a franchisor isn't exactly the same as that between the NFL and its constituent teams. Second of all, yes, if the franchisee had reason to believe that the information the franchisor was basing its decision off of was bad, I would expect the franchisee to challenge the decision and I would expect the franchisor to be reasonable in examining the arguments put forward by the franchisee. Third of all, presumably this employee could just go across the street to Burger King and find a comparable job. That opportunity doesn't exist for Elliot.

Not sure why its a bad analogy when NFL teams are literally, and legally, "franchises". They are the same corporate structure.

If the franchisee in my scenario disagreed, they could challenge it internally all they wanted, but they would have no legal recourse to force the corporate McD's to employ an individual they didn't want employed.

Again, I you're repeatedly ignoring the fact that the NFL is not the employer here. As I've said in both of my previous posts, if the Cowboys cut him I'd have no issue at all because he could go play for another team. A different standard has to apply when the result of the action is to essentially bar the employee from the marketplace altogether. Not saying you can't bar someone under any circumstances, you just have to respect due process and fundamental fairness. You're also saying he can go play in the Arena league or something like that's a suitable replacement. That an obviously disingenuous argument.

You are wrong here, my man. Every player on every NFL team is legally employed by their respective team and contractually obligated to the NFL. They belong to an NFL sanctioned union in which they collectively bargain with their employer. This is a corporation with no less legal rights than any other for profit corporation.

Re: the "disingenuous argument" of the CFL. Let me say again, I made clear that they are not equals in the market of pro football. But they are indeed both pro football. I used the example of one of the world's largest legal firms earlier. If they fire and employee and that employee is now "blackballed" from the big firms. They legally didn't stop them from pursuing their career of law. Which is fundamentally no difference with the NFL. Can that lawyer make the same kind of coin they could at BM? No, absolutely not. Neither could a suspended player from the NFL replace his salary in the CFL. But no one is prohibiting either from making a living in their chosen profession.

I suppose I'm looking at this as a black and white issue. I do not think that courts should mandate private organizations to hire, employee or pay their employees a certain wage. That goes for the largest of legal firms as it does for the private institution of the NFL.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm really asking about your hypothetical question for the average person. If a private company decides to fire you because they believe you are a wife beater (without concrete proof), can they legally publicize that? Just curious on where slander/libel would begin in a situation like that. Obviously, pro sports is a different matter as it is almost always public knowledge.

I think it's a good question and one that would have to have a hypothetic scenario attached for me to clearly opine.

That being said, if a company slanders a former employee, then that former employee has every legal right to seek damages for it in court. The employee does not have the legal right to force the courts to employ them again though.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

I think it's a good question and one that would have to have a hypothetic scenario attached for me to clearly opine.

That being said, if a company slanders a former employee, then that former employee has every legal right to seek damages for it in court. The employee does not have the legal right to force the courts to employ them again though.

Yeah, my experience has been that basically all companies now will only confirm dates of employment. They will never offer comment, good or bad, on performance.

I think the key here is what happens with the NFLPA. Goodell (allegedly) ignored the "due process" that the NFLPA can/should/does demand for players-the investigator recommended no suspension, then he handed one down anyway, locking said investigator out.

Will there be legal ramifications? Maybe, maybe not. But the NFLPA might demand Goodell's removal over this.

 

[zelezo vlk]

It might be important to note that the DV punishments were NOT agreed upon during the 2011 lockout. These came out after the Ray Rice saga. Or not, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer

 

[woolybug25]

Yeah, my experience has been that basically all companies now will only confirm dates of employment. They will never offer comment, good or bad, on performance.
I think the key here is what happens with the NFLPA. Goodell (allegedly) ignored the "due process" that the NFLPA can/should/does demand for players-the investigator recommended no suspension, then he handed one down anyway, locking said investigator out.

Will there be legal ramifications? Maybe, maybe not. But the NFLPA might demand Goodell's removal over this.

The bolded is absolutely my experience as well. Far too much liability.

I think the NFL is in a weird spot here, as they may or may not have been required to publish their findings per their collectively bargained agreement with the player's union. If so, I would think they would be clear of any liability. But that is outside of my pay grade there.

I also agree with the last line. While there may not be any legal ramifications, the "free market" sword cuts both ways. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the NFL found that Goodell has harmed the brand of the NFL and that they would pursue a termination of his contract.

 

[zelezo vlk]

The bolded is absolutely my experience as well. Far too much liability.

I think the NFL is in a weird spot here, as they may or may not have been required to publish their findings per their collectively bargained agreement with the player's union. If so, I would think they would be clear of any liability. But that is outside of my pay grade there.

I also agree with the last line. While there may not be any legal ramifications, the "free market" sword cuts both ways. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the NFL found that Goodell has harmed the brand of the NFL and that they would pursue a termination of his contract.

Just last week he was rumored to be in line for a 5 year contract extension.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm with you, bud.

This is hardly some "where were you" moment. The original article was light on truly damning facts against RG.

And I'm on Team Wooly overall about the league and players.

Imagine it's Brandon Wimbush being investigated by the NCAA for a violation. Imagine the investigators conclude that there isn't sufficient evidence that he did anything wrong. Then imagine Mark Emmert ignores his investigators because he's been getting shit about "not being tough" on violators and unilaterally rules Wimbush ineligible for a large part of the season. And then slanders his reputation saying it's about a series of violations over a long period of time... when his investigators concluded there was sufficient evidence of any violations and recommended no suspension.

You don't think you'd find this a big deal? Really?

 

[irishog77]

Imagine it's Brandon Wimbush being investigated by the NCAA for a violation. Imagine the investigators conclude that there isn't sufficient evidence that he did anything wrong. Then imagine Mark Emmert ignores his investigators because he's been getting shit about "not being tough" on violators and unilaterally rules Wimbush ineligible for a large part of the season. And then slanders his reputation saying it's about a series of violations over a long period of time... when his investigators concluded there was sufficient evidence of any violations and recommended no suspension.

You don't think you'd find this a big deal? Really?

As you know, I thoroughly hate the ncaa, mainly for their inability to manage, and even manage in an ethical manner. In all fairness though, this analogy is a bit of a stretch.

First, from my understanding, the lead investigator was looking at the DV. If true, then that still ignores the reports that EE didn't cooperate with the league. I think, by and large, the innocence of EE in the DV has been established (and talked about by IE on a thread), but a lot of the harshness of his suspension stems from him being reluctant to, or altogether not, cooperate. So my point is if somebody investigating him for DV finds him to be "innocent," that still doesn't necessarily explain that he might have been a total POS in the entire process, and thus still worthy of a suspension.

Second, the ncaa and nfl are two entirely different animals. The league is, more or less, an association of 32 businessmen (and woman) looking to run a business and make money. The ncaa is an association of several hundred schools (who are mostly run by state employees, by way of federal mandates) who claim to look out for the best interest of amateur athletes, by making themselves billions of dollars in the meantime. These are obviously 2 oversimplifications of the 2 entities. I mean in your example, yeah, I'd be pissed about BW and the ncaa, but I think BW and EE are kind of an apples and oranges comparison.

The nfl catches a lot of heat, publicly, because 1)It's by far the most popular sport we have in the U.S. 2) People get pissed off about the league's tax-exempt status (even though they pay a shitload of taxes, but done so on a basis of, and through, the 32 individual teams. 3) People think they operate with a genuine government exemption. Which is kinda BS because they (and literally only a few other entities) are truly monopolies...but still aren't really. 4) Patriots fans (which is probably the loudest and most vocal dissenters of RG and the league office now, and for the past 10 years).

I'm not really sure suspending EE is another legitimate reason for the league to catch a ton of flack.

 

[woolybug25]

Irishog gets it. Totally agree with every point. Especially with the differences between the NCAA and the NFL.

 

[Shamrock Theories]

As you know, I thoroughly hate the ncaa, mainly for their inability to manage, and even manage in an ethical manner. In all fairness though, this analogy is a bit of a stretch.

First, from my understanding, the lead investigator was looking at the DV. If true, then that still ignores the reports that EE didn't cooperate with the league. I think, by and large, the innocence of EE in the DV has been established (and talked about by IE on a thread), but a lot of the harshness of his suspension stems from him being reluctant to, or altogether not, cooperate. So my point is if somebody investigating him for DV finds him to be "innocent," that still doesn't necessarily explain that he might have been a total POS in the entire process, and thus still worthy of a suspension.

Second, the ncaa and nfl are two entirely different animals. The league is, more or less, an association of 32 businessmen (and woman) looking to run a business and make money. The ncaa is an association of several hundred schools (who are mostly run by state employees, by way of federal mandates) who claim to look out for the best interest of amateur athletes, by making themselves billions of dollars in the meantime. These are obviously 2 oversimplifications of the 2 entities. I mean in your example, yeah, I'd be pissed about BW and the ncaa, but I think BW and EE are kind of an apples and oranges comparison.

The nfl catches a lot of heat, publicly, because 1)It's by far the most popular sport we have in the U.S. 2) People get pissed off about the league's tax-exempt status (even though they pay a shitload of taxes, but done so on a basis of, and through, the 32 individual teams. 3) People think they operate with a genuine government exemption. Which is kinda BS because they (and literally only a few other entities) are truly monopolies...but still aren't really. 4) Patriots fans (which is probably the loudest and most vocal dissenters of RG and the league office now, and for the past 10 years).

I'm not really sure suspending EE is another legitimate reason for the league to catch a ton of flack.

...soooo he got suspended SIX games for...not being overly cooperative?


????????????????

 

[Valpodoc85]

Probably don't want to stick my nose in this....but here goes
1. The NCAA and the NFL league office are tasked primarily with protecting the brand.
2.in as such breaking the rules is not as important as the effect it has on the brand
3.DV has become a lightening rod recently. Witness Ray Rice and Baylor.
4.EE will sit six games because he's a big name and represents the NFL brand in a bigger way than other atheletes

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Italics

Stick your nose in it. It's what Valpo does. Amirite Crusader?

 

[IrishLax]

As you know, I thoroughly hate the ncaa, mainly for their inability to manage, and even manage in an ethical manner. In all fairness though, this analogy is a bit of a stretch.

No, it isn't. It's literally 100% analogous except that I substituted a Notre Dame player and the NCAA for Cowboys and NFL.

If you want to give me your favorite NFL player, I'll type out the same analogy with Goodell.

 

[IrishLax]

Irishog gets it. Totally agree with every point. Especially with the differences between the NCAA and the NFL.

lol how trollish do you have to be to think that is remotely the point... the only reason I subbed those two is because I don't know what NFL team he roots for. Duh.

 

[STLDomer]

So my point is if somebody investigating him for DV finds him to be "innocent," that still doesn't necessarily explain that he might have been a total POS in the entire process, and thus still worthy of a suspension.

Completely agree NFL has the right to suspend him for not cooperating.

But they suspended him for violating the league's Personal Conduct Policy in which it was, supposedly, found that "there is substantial and persuasive evidence supporting a finding that [Elliott] engaged in physical violence against Ms. Thompson on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016."

So I don't see how the point, while not wrong in theory, is relevant here.

 

[IrishLax]

Completely agree NFL has the right to suspend him for not cooperating.

But they suspended him for violating the league's Personal Conduct Policy in which it was, supposedly, found that "there is substantial and persuasive evidence supporting a finding that [Elliott] engaged in physical violence against Ms. Thompson on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016."

So I don't see how the point, while not wrong in theory, is relevant here.

Exactly.

Also, welcome back?

 

[woolybug25]

lol how trollish do you have to be to think that is remotely the point... the only reason I subbed those two is because I don't know what NFL team he roots for. Duh.

What is trollish about having the opinion that they have the right to punish a player within the guidelines of their collectively bargained agreement? Are they not a private business? Are the teams not operating as legal franchises within their corporate umbrella?

I don't see anything trollish about thinking a for profit, private organization should be able to choose to mitigate what they deem hurts their brand. I think Goodell is a bafoon and a bad leader to the NFL, I don't think Zeke should have been suspended, and I understand why people think it's unfair. But that doesn't mean I don't respect their rights as a trade organization.

If you guys have a beef, it's not whether the NFL is "right", its whether you think they shouldn't be structured as an organization as they are today.

 

[drayer54]

I fully support the NFL cleaning up its act. People like Alden Smith should be long gone and standards are encouraged. I just think this one may be off. I know a few people in the service industry at some Dallas bars and they've shared pics of him in the bar and partying at the lake since this came out. I just hope he gets it...

I'm a cowboys fan. But if he's a douche, have at him. I just think the inconsistency in punishment and the whole case seems flawed.

 

[irishog77]

No, it isn't. It's literally 100% analogous except that I substituted a Notre Dame player and the NCAA for Cowboys and NFL.

If you want to give me your favorite NFL player, I'll type out the same analogy with Goodell.

The ncaa and nfl were founded differently, represent 2 completely different sets of people, have completely different pay structures, their numbers are completely different, their influence is different, their accountability is completely different, etc., etc.

So no, I'd definitely say it's not 100% analogous.

 

[irishog77]

...soooo he got suspended SIX games for...not being overly cooperative?


????????????????

Did you miss the Spygate, Bountygate, and Deflategate scandals (among others)?

The league takes non-compliance and being uncooperative pretty seriously.

 

[irishog77]

Completely agree NFL has the right to suspend him for not cooperating.

But they suspended him for violating the league's Personal Conduct Policy in which it was, supposedly, found that "there is substantial and persuasive evidence supporting a finding that [Elliott] engaged in physical violence against Ms. Thompson on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016."

So I don't see how the point, while not wrong in theory, is relevant here.

See my comment above. The league takes cooperation in investigations very seriously.

Look, I don't personally think EE necessarily deserves 6 games, but he (and his advisors) are total idiots if they were uncooperative in the investigation. It's not like they don't have real life examples in front of them of what happens when parties aren't cooperative with the league.

 

[STLDomer]

See my comment above. The league takes cooperation in investigations very seriously.

Look, I don't personally think EE necessarily deserves 6 games, but he (and his advisors) are total idiots if they were uncooperative in the investigation. It's not like they don't have real life examples in front of them of what happens when parties aren't cooperative with the league.

I understand that.

...but they said it was for the domestic violence not for "conduct detrimental to the league" or any of the other BS they could stick on him for not cooperating.

If you're saying they are suspending him for not cooperating and just saying that it's the incident mentioned, then Elliott will easily win in a real court of law, where evidence and due process actually matter (hopefully).

I fully support the NFL cleaning up its act. People like Alden Smith should be long gone and standards are encouraged. I just think this one may be off. I know a few people in the service industry at some Dallas bars and they've shared pics of him in the bar and partying at the lake since this came out. I just hope he gets it...

I'm a cowboys fan. But if he's a douche, have at him. I just think the inconsistency in punishment and the whole case seems flawed.

Oh no a legal adult was drinking at a bar. Better bump it up to 8 games.

 

[irishog77]

I understand that.

...but they said it was for the domestic violence not for "conduct detrimental to the league" or any of the other BS they could stick on him for not cooperating.

If you're saying they are suspending him for not cooperating and just saying that it's the incident mentioned, then Elliott will easily win in a real court of law, where evidence and due process actually matter (hopefully).

I'm saying the league hands down a number for games suspended. How real is that number? I don't know. I'm not totally sure the league knows (perhaps they do) that it's a real number. But these things often get appealed (negotiated) then a new number is (sometimes) given, which then becomes the real number. Maybe the league initially says 6 and hopes the real number is 6...or maybe they hope it's 4 or 2 or whatever. Sure, there are theatrics involved here (especially when Topic ____ is the hot button issue of the day). The league can appear to be tough on ____ when, in reality, maybe they really aren't.

I'm not so sure on the bolded. It's difficult for somebody to win, in a court of law, a matter of discipline between an individual and a private organization. Discipline handed down by the commish's office wasn't specifically collectively bargained (in some instances), but essentially all operations and procedure of the league is collectively bargained between owners and players.

 

[IrishLax]

The ncaa and nfl were founded differently, represent 2 completely different sets of people, have completely different pay structures, their numbers are completely different, their influence is different, their accountability is completely different, etc., etc.

So no, I'd definitely say it's not 100% analogous.

What's complicated about "the only reason I subbed those two is because I don't know what NFL team he roots for."

If you want to give me your favorite NFL team/player, I'll write the same thing. And it'll illustrate the same level of patently absurd conduct by an empowered individual.

"But he was suspended for not cooperating" doesn't fly when the NFL explicitly said something very different. If the NFL said "we don't have enough evidence to justify a suspension under our Personal Conduct Policy for domestic violence, but Ezekiel Elliot obstructed us the whole way so he's suspended X games."... everyone would be like "OK, sure" and move on.

Instead they lied about their findings and hid evidence and obfuscated the reality of the situation to formulate a narrative + suspension that was completely unsupported by facts. Nobody gives a shit whether Goodell has the right to meter out arbitrary and subjective level of discipline... he does. People cared slightly about it being a subjectively "unfair" level of punishment. People care a lot about the NFL lying about their investigation to look tough on domestic violence.

 

[Woneone]

What's complicated about "the only reason I subbed those two is because I don't know what NFL team he roots for."

If you want to give me your favorite NFL team/player, I'll write the same thing. And it'll illustrate the same level of patently absurd conduct by an empowered individual.

"But he was suspended for not cooperating" doesn't fly when the NFL explicitly said something very different. If the NFL said "we don't have enough evidence to justify a suspension under our Personal Conduct Policy for domestic violence, but Ezekiel Elliot obstructed us the whole way so he's suspended X games."... everyone would be like "OK, sure" and move on.

Instead they lied about their findings and hid evidence and obfuscated the reality of the situation to formulate a narrative + suspension that was completely unsupported by facts. Nobody gives a shit whether Goodell has the right to meter out arbitrary and subjective level of discipline... he does. People cared slightly about it being a subjectively "unfair" level of punishment. People care a lot about the NFL lying about their investigation to look tough on domestic violence.

Did the lady who was not invited to the discipline hearing, the co-author, ever say why she didn't believe he should be suspended?

Remember, she didn't say he was innocent, but that she didn't think he should be suspended. That is a huge level of difference. Was that because the witness had credibility issues that she didn't know how would hold up in the long-run? That she didn't think the case would hold up in court on appeal? Her opinion could be that she thinks EE beat the ever-loving piss out of the women, but doesn't believe they have the evidence to uphold such a decision on appeal.

The level needed needed by the commissioner, thanks to the CBA, is much different than that needed in the actual courts. Because her recommendation wasn't to suspend, it isn't some end-all, be-all indictment against the league that they lied or covered anything up. Damn, the entire thing has been published. It's that her recommendation, based on her interpretation (whatever she was basing that on) didn't warrant one. To assume that all individuals involved in this investigation would come to the same conclusion is pretty reckless.

 

[IrishLax]

Did the lady who was not invited to the discipline hearing, the co-author, ever say why she didn't believe he should be suspended?

Yes. Because there was not sufficient evidence of domestic violence. Furthermore, there was a substantial amount of exculpatory evidence. And she refused to sign off on the report the NFL wanted which was misleading vis a vis the actual facts.