- Messages
- 58,597
- Reaction score
- 9,073
Harold Henderson unlikely to alter Ezekiel Elliott*suspension
Posted by Mike Florio on August 28, 2017, 9:55 PM EDT
The Ezekiel Elliott appeal hearing starts on Tuesday. Whenever a ruling comes (and it surely will come before Week One), don’t expect Harold Henderson to reduce or scrap the six-game suspension.
According to Clarence E. Hill of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Henderson is “unlikely” to vacate the punishment without the presentation of “new evidence” that would justify it. Also, Henderson won’t be inclined to reduce the suspension without Elliott showing contrition or admitting responsibility.
Elliott isn’t expected to admit guilt, given that he staunchly has professed his innocence. Likewise, with Henderson not requiring the NFL to make Tiffany Thompson available to be cross-examined, “new evidence” that could come from an aggressive interrogation that undermines her credibility can’t happen. (She also wasn’t cross-examined before the initial decision was made.) With Henderson also refusing to require the NFL to make available to Elliott’s lawyers transcripts and notes of the interviews of Thompson, Elliott’s lawyers won’t be able to search for something/anything that would cause the case against Elliott to collapse.
Henderson’s unwillingness to scrap or shrink the suspension without new evidence or contrition, respectively, highlights the confusion emanating from the entire appeal process. If, as the NFL previously has said, the standard on appeal is whether the initial decision was arbitrary and capricious, new evidence or contrition shouldn’t matter at all. The appeal would be heard based solely on the record of evidence generated in connection with the initial decision, and nothing more.
It seems like the standard on appeal, as a practical matter, is this: “Try to change my mind.” And Elliott’s lawyers will be making that effort with both hands tied behind their backs, given the inability to question Thompson and the reality that any effort by Elliott to prove his innocence will be regarded as a lack of contrition.
Initially, I was reluctant to call these proceedings a “kangaroo court.” Based on the definition of the term, however, it is.
Elliott didn’t get a fair hearing at the lower level (where the person who made the decision didn’t even attend the proceedings). Elliott won’t get a fair hearing on appeal. His only chance at getting a fair shake will be in court.
Yes, the NFLPA under the late Gene Upshaw agreed to this process. But Upshaw surely never intended that the Commissioner’s full power over matters of this nature would be not simply abused but warped, twisted, and bastardized.
It almost seems as if the NFL is pushing the boundaries as aggressively as possible in order to force the union to make a concession in order to change the rules. Ultimately, the question becomes whether all players will give up something in order to protect the small handful of players per year who find themselves on the wrong side of a process that makes third-world judges look like King Solomon.
Posted by Mike Florio on August 28, 2017, 9:55 PM EDT
The Ezekiel Elliott appeal hearing starts on Tuesday. Whenever a ruling comes (and it surely will come before Week One), don’t expect Harold Henderson to reduce or scrap the six-game suspension.
According to Clarence E. Hill of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Henderson is “unlikely” to vacate the punishment without the presentation of “new evidence” that would justify it. Also, Henderson won’t be inclined to reduce the suspension without Elliott showing contrition or admitting responsibility.
Elliott isn’t expected to admit guilt, given that he staunchly has professed his innocence. Likewise, with Henderson not requiring the NFL to make Tiffany Thompson available to be cross-examined, “new evidence” that could come from an aggressive interrogation that undermines her credibility can’t happen. (She also wasn’t cross-examined before the initial decision was made.) With Henderson also refusing to require the NFL to make available to Elliott’s lawyers transcripts and notes of the interviews of Thompson, Elliott’s lawyers won’t be able to search for something/anything that would cause the case against Elliott to collapse.
Henderson’s unwillingness to scrap or shrink the suspension without new evidence or contrition, respectively, highlights the confusion emanating from the entire appeal process. If, as the NFL previously has said, the standard on appeal is whether the initial decision was arbitrary and capricious, new evidence or contrition shouldn’t matter at all. The appeal would be heard based solely on the record of evidence generated in connection with the initial decision, and nothing more.
It seems like the standard on appeal, as a practical matter, is this: “Try to change my mind.” And Elliott’s lawyers will be making that effort with both hands tied behind their backs, given the inability to question Thompson and the reality that any effort by Elliott to prove his innocence will be regarded as a lack of contrition.
Initially, I was reluctant to call these proceedings a “kangaroo court.” Based on the definition of the term, however, it is.
Elliott didn’t get a fair hearing at the lower level (where the person who made the decision didn’t even attend the proceedings). Elliott won’t get a fair hearing on appeal. His only chance at getting a fair shake will be in court.
Yes, the NFLPA under the late Gene Upshaw agreed to this process. But Upshaw surely never intended that the Commissioner’s full power over matters of this nature would be not simply abused but warped, twisted, and bastardized.
It almost seems as if the NFL is pushing the boundaries as aggressively as possible in order to force the union to make a concession in order to change the rules. Ultimately, the question becomes whether all players will give up something in order to protect the small handful of players per year who find themselves on the wrong side of a process that makes third-world judges look like King Solomon.
