There may of course be facts to emerge, and the NFL claims to have documented “photo and digital evidence” that Elliott abused the woman on multiple occasions.
OTOH
The instances of abuse that the NFL claims to have substantiated are not the ones reported by this woman. The woman reported a different instance of abuse, which seems to have been fabricated, and which also followed a threat (in several text messages) to ruin his life and/or career if he broke off a relationship with her. If she had genuine instances of abuse, it’s hard to understand why she would need to fabricate a completely different instance.
Again, there may be more to come. But I suspect that the NFL is overreacting due to criticism of their response to earlier incidents.
Presumably they all have the same evidence. But the police only bring charges if the DA thinks he can prove them in court. The NFL has a much lower standard of proof.
If the NFL takes a hard stance on domestic abuse, applies punishment consistently and proportionately, and this is just the first indication of more to come then that’ll go a long way toward improving its image.
If Elliot is a one-time thing and a sacrificial lamb to throw a bone to critics then screw Goodell.
I wish that sports commissioners would stay out of off the field issues that are related to criminal issues. There is a legal system that is more than capable of handling those.
The NFL, or any sports organization, should only punish players for actions that occur on the field. The legal system doesn’t care if a player writes political messages on his cleats, taunts opponents after scores, or talks shit about the NFL and/or their team during an interview. That’s where the commissioner should step in.
Firstly, the legal system won’t do anything about people who are probably guilty but just not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But there’s no reason the NFL needs to employ such people.
But secondly, the NFL is in the entertainment business. If you’ve done something that ruins the NFL’s entertainment value in the eyes of the customers and potential customers, then they’re perfectly justified in sacking you regardless of whether you’re legally innocent or guilty.
That said, in this case in particular it looks like they might be afraid of their shadow and be overdoing it.
You’re right, the NFL is in the entertainment business. I want to see the finest football players on the field. Cowboys games got great ratings last season and Elliot was a major reason. I want to watch him, not some backup.
Let us say, for example, that a perennial All-Pro player, a shoo-in for Canton, is accused of first-degree murder (and, for purposes of this hypothetical, let’s add to the horror value – the victim was a child).
The player doesn’t deny it, and there is fairly damning video evidence, and eyewitnesses. However, he does demand to have the case go to trial (let’s say that he enters a plea of “not guilty by reason of mental defect”). The judge sets a high bail, but he’s able to easily post it. He surrenders his passport, but there’s no legal reason why he couldn’t play while he awaits trial.
Would you still be saying, “It didn’t happen on the football field, he hasn’t been convicted, the NFL should stay out of it and let the court handle it, let him play”? I’m just curious.
The NFL should stay out of it, but in a case like that, it is most likely that the coach of the team can make a decision that the player will be too distracted with the upcoming trail and media circus.
The NFL has done the math and figured out that getting bad publicity and protests hurts their pockets, more than a few suspensions. The more people who think that the NFL is a league of millionaire thugs and wife-beaters, the fewer people willing to vote the owners 250M in public money to build the owner a new stadium full of 100k/game luxury suites. And the eyeballs lost from TV by pissed-off folks hurts a bunch as well.
I am a harsh critic of the NFL’s authoritarian approach towards its work force but it feels hypocritical to applaud other businesses terminating the employment of those who call unwanted negative attention to them while at the same time criticizing the awful NFL owners for doing the same. Yuck.
Basically, the NFL’s own investigator thought there wasn’t enough evidence to suspend him, Goodell was aware of this, and suspended him anyway.
Whether or not you think he did it and whether or not you think it’s the NFL’s job to police this, it definitely seems like they were planning to make an example of him no matter what.
The suspension was a statement to the fans and advertisers, nothing more. Ultimately I doubt Goodell really cares that much if they lose at this point, as long as they look like they tried to bring the hammer from a PR perspective, but were forced by matters out of their hands to drop it.
Why were Kia Roberts’ report and conclusions suppressed? I’m all for hearings and investigations and punishing bad behaviors, but it’s supposed to be fair, right? Suppressing exculpatory evidence seems more like kangaroo court.
This insanity never ends, Ezekiel Elliot has been given a temporary restraining order and can play this week.
The NFL doesn’t know what a catch is, doesn’t know what a fumble is, and they waste their time on stupid excessive suspensions and trying to make the law review.
This stupid back and forth legal battle is why the NFL needs to quit trying to be a law enforcement agency.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk