OT: 2017 Football Thread II: Rofl.

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

Apparently Hart was playing injured last night. Not to excuse him, but he was good in preseason when healthy.

mas0764 · Sep 11, 2017

silverfish said:
I think Dallas is totally ****ed if Zeke gets what's coming to him.

I hate to break it to you but there's not a shred of evidence that Zeke did anything to that girl. There's mountains of evidence that she made it all up.

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

mschmidt64 said:
I hate to break it to you but there's not a shred of evidence that Zeke did anything to that girl. There's mountains of evidence that she made it all up.

There's plenty of evidence. Unless photographical evidence is somehow new to you and doesn't count (along with the forensic examination of such evidence and the corresponding messages surrounding it as well).

mas0764 · Sep 11, 2017

Hunter Gathers said:
There's plenty of evidence. Unless photographical evidence is somehow new to you and doesn't count (along with the forensic examination of such evidence and the corresponding messages surrounding it as well).

There's evidence of bruises.

There's no evidence that Zeke did it. There is, however, as I said, mountainous evidence that she made it up. Such as, like, 6 affidavits from people including her own friend that she was involved in bar fights with Zeke's other side women.

It's quite literally her word versus his word and everyone else's word, and there is a litany of other people. Everyone who has talked to her has concluded she isn't telling the truth.

sbjnyc · Sep 11, 2017

Hunter Gathers said:
There's plenty of evidence. Unless photographical evidence is somehow new to you and doesn't count (along with the forensic examination of such evidence and the corresponding messages surrounding it as well).

There's the fact that the nfl's own lead investigator, the only one to interview the accuser, testified that she would have recommended no suspension but the NFL did not consult her. This is going to be a problem for the NFL and makes it seem, rightly or wrongly, that they didn't want to let facts get in the way of good PR.

mschmidt64 said:
Everyone who has talked to her has concluded she isn't telling the truth.

Including the only NFL investigator to actually interview her.

mas0764 · Sep 11, 2017

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

mschmidt64 said:
There's evidence of bruises.

There's no evidence that Zeke did it. There is, however, as I said, mountainous evidence that she made it up. Such as, like, 6 affidavits from people including her own friend that she was involved in bar fights with Zeke's other side women.

It's quite literally her word versus his word and everyone else's word, and there is a litany of other people. Everyone who has talked to her has concluded she isn't telling the truth.

I donâ€™t know if you understand how this works, but abuse is almost never on video.

And the last paragraph is false. Blatantly so. There wasnâ€™t enough evidence to press charges. If â€œeveryoneâ€ thought she was lying, sheâ€™d be charged with filing a false police report and sued by EE.

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

Also, Kia Roberts testified at the arbitration at the request of the arbitrator and all six games were upheld. This idea that she was the only person with anything to say on this is laughable and so utterly disingenuous.

It also shows a vast ignorance about how arbitration and other legal (or quasi legal) processes in general go.

mas0764 · Sep 11, 2017

Hunter Gathers said:
I don’t know if you understand how this works, but abuse is almost never on video.

I don't know if YOU know how it works.

There has to be some level of evidence that something has occurred to conclude guilt. In this case there is nothing but her word, which was deemed completely worthless by multiple experts (police and former prosecutors), and pictures that don't prove literally anything; and in fact are explained quite well by multiple affidavits and statements.

There is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is not even preponderance of evidence.

So anyone who says "Zeke did it" or "Hopefully Zeke gets what is coming to him" is making a conclusion that the vast weight of the evidence contradicts, and is only supported by Big Blue biases.

And the last paragraph is false. Blatantly so. There wasn’t enough evidence to press charges. If “everyone” thought she was lying, she’d be charged with filing a false police report and sued by EE.

That is not even remotely correct. Charging alleged DV victims with false statements is extraordinarily rare for the frequency with which it happens.

Also, who is to say Zeke isn't gonna sue her? And if he chooses not to, who is to say it's not because it's a waste of time? She's a waste herself and has nothing he can get from her, so there's no point other than vindictiveness. Clearing his own name would be revenge enough.

mas0764 · Sep 11, 2017

Hunter Gathers said:
Also, Kia Roberts testified at the arbitration at the request of the arbitrator and all six games were upheld.

The arbitrator did not address evidence, only process. Said so openly in his opinion. A process which was torn apart by a truly unbiased party, by the way, in Judge Mazzant.

So it really changes nothing I said.

No one who has spoken to her, NFL included, has concluded she's believable.

All the NFL said was, we have other pictures, so he's guilty even though our only investigator to talk to her thinks otherwise.

Uh huh.

This idea that she was the only person with anything to say on this is laughable and so utterly disingenuous.

Oh? I suppose I'm supposed to take Lisa Friel's opinion over Roberts?

It also shows a vast ignorance about how arbitration and other legal (or quasi legal) processes in general go.

Don't lecture me as if you have any idea of my background please.

Also, apparently the NFL is the party with no idea about how arbitration works, cause they are in the process of getting their arbitration destroyed in federal court.

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

mschmidt64 said:
I don't know if YOU know how it works.

There has to be some level of evidence that something has occurred to conclude guilt. In this case there is nothing but her word, which was deemed completely worthless by multiple experts (police and former prosecutors), and pictures that don't prove literally anything; and in fact are explained quite well by multiple affidavits and statements.

There is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is not even preponderance of evidence.

So anyone who says "Zeke did it" or "Hopefully Zeke gets what is coming to him" is making a conclusion that the vast weight of the evidence contradicts, and is only supported by Big Blue biases.

Uh, all of this is wrong. There were a number of individuals who decided that there this satisfied the preponderance of evidence standard since you had an entire group of well educated and respected individuals conclude as such (which is roughly what the process is decided on). All of this "everyone" this, "no one" that is basically you lying. There's no other way to put it.

The idea that this was deemed "worthless" is simply not true. It's an outright lie and you should feel ridiculous for perpetrating it. What was decided was that there wasn't enough to charge. And that's because it's a he-said, she-said incident. All we have is a scenario in which a criminal charge wouldn't fit (and I wholeheartedly agree with that decision).

Stop saying that everyone has considered her a liar and that anything was decided one way or the other. Until you stop that nonsense, you'll simply be a liar.

mschmidt64 said:
That is not even remotely correct. Charging alleged DV victims with false statements is extraordinarily rare for the frequency with which it happens.

Also, who is to say Zeke isn't gonna sue her? And if he chooses not to, who is to say it's not because it's a waste of time? She's a waste herself and has nothing he can get from her, so there's no point other than vindictiveness. Clearing his own name would be revenge enough.

So you rally don't know how this works? You just said that "everyone" concluded that she wasn't telling the truth. Which is, again, an outright lie.

The fact that you're lying about this is comical, man. There is plenty for you to hit on without diving into lies. No clue why you're going this route. It's not a good look at all.

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

mschmidt64 said:
Don't lecture me as if you have any idea of my background please.

Also, apparently the NFL is the party with no idea about how arbitration works, cause they are in the process of getting their arbitration destroyed in federal court.

I'll gladly lecture you in subjects where you need it.

sbjnyc · Sep 11, 2017

Hunter Gathers said:
Also, Kia Roberts testified at the arbitration at the request of the arbitrator and all six games were upheld

She testified that she'd recommend no suspension but the NFL didn't consult her despite being their lead investigator and the only one within the NFL to interview the accuser. So what exactly are you saying about her testimony and the arbitration process itself? Let's not forget that the arbitrator was an ex-NFL exec himself.

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

sbjnyc said:
She testified that she'd recommend no suspension but the NFL didn't consult her despite being their lead investigator and the only one within the NFL to interview the accuser. So what exactly are you saying about her testimony and the arbitration process itself? Let's not forget that the arbitrator was an ex-NFL exec himself.

Let's also not forget that Jerry Jones came out and said he'd trust the arbitrator as well. The entire commission was well aware of what her views were. I have zero issue if someone wants to say that they feel that Elliott is innocent. That's what opinions are for. This idea that "everyone" feels that the woman is a liar and other nonsense is just ridiculous, though. It takes a special kind of character to continually try to push that.

It's not like this was a panel of idiots that decided the suspension.

mas0764 · Sep 11, 2017

Hunter Gathers said:
Uh, all of this is wrong.

No, it's actually entirely right.

There were a number of individuals who decided that there this satisfied the preponderance of evidence standard

No; that is false.

There was a four person panel who advised Goodell. That four person panel was "made aware" of the opinion of their lead investigator by Friel, who amazingly also communicated to Elliott that Roberts' opinion was "cumulative" of Friel's own. Which has now been shown to be an outright lie.

The extent that the panel or Goodell knew of Roberts' opinion is extraordinarily unclear, but at best it appears Friel suppressed the opinion of the victim's lack of credibility.

In any case, the panel advised, mostly on Friel's questionable recommendation, and Goodell decided, that the "credible evidence established" that Elliott was guilty. This is the language set out in the CBA, and it is not the same as preponderance of the evidence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a standard entirely up to the whim's of the Commissioner. Whereas preponderance of the evidence means 51-49, the CBA's standard can mean 10% he did it, 90% he didn't, but we think it's enough to punish. It is a completely undefined term.

So no, no one decided there was a preponderance of the evidence.

And if you were weighing it under the courtroom interpretation of what that term means, it fails miserably.

since you had an entire group of well educated and respected individuals conclude as such (which is roughly what the process is decided on). All of this "everyone" this, "no one" that is basically you lying. There's no other way to put it.

I said no one who talked to her determined she was believable.

Which is true.

Friel, Goodell, and the four person panel did not speak to her.

The idea that this was deemed "worthless" is simply not true.

No, it is true. Everyone who has talked to her on this subject feels she has no credibility.

I'm inserting my own two cents calling it "worthless." Maybe you have a point there. I mean, I guess I don't speak for everyone on message boards with an opinion.

Every decision maker involved in investigating any matter with her and Elliott who has interviewed her. Has found her to be incredible. True statement.

Stop saying that everyone has considered her a liar and that anything was decided one way or the other. Until you stop that nonsense, you'll simply be a liar.

Please point me to who interviewed her and felt she was telling the truth.

I'll wait. Family members don't count.

I'll gladly lecture you in subjects where you need it.

I don't need it... unlike the league. They are taking a nice lecturing from a federal judge.

mas0764 · Sep 11, 2017

Hunter Gathers said:
Let's also not forget that Jerry Jones came out and said he'd trust the arbitrator as well.

Those were not exactly his words.

The entire commission was well aware of what her views were.

The NFL claims that without substantiation.

It conveniently didn't make Goodell available for cross examination on the matter.

I have zero issue if someone wants to say that they feel that Elliott is innocent. That's what opinions are for. This idea that "everyone" feels that the woman is a liar and other nonsense is just ridiculous, though. It takes a special kind of character to continually try to push that.

I didn't say everyone feels she is a liar.

I said everyone who has talked to her -- and I am implying anyone who has talked to her with an eye towards making an honest credibility determination -- has found her lacking.

Which is the truth.

It's not like this was a panel of idiots that decided the suspension.

That is also extremely debateable; or at least their integrity has been called into question by a federal judge.

So we'll see about how much their recommendation should matter.

Hint: Very little.

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

mschmidt64 said:
No, it's actually entirely right.

mschmidt64 said:
No; that is false.

There was a four person panel who advised Goodell. That four person panel was "made aware" of the opinion of their lead investigator by Friel, who amazingly also communicated to Elliott that Roberts' opinion was "cumulative" of Friel's own. Which has now been shown to be an outright lie.

The extent that the panel or Goodell knew of Roberts' opinion is extraordinarily unclear, but at best it appears Friel suppressed the opinion of the victim's lack of credibility.

In any case, the panel advised, mostly on Friel's questionable recommendation, and Goodell decided, that the "credible evidence established" that Elliott was guilty. This is the language set out in the CBA, and it is not the same as preponderance of the evidence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a standard entirely up to the whim's of the Commissioner. Whereas preponderance of the evidence means 51-49, the CBA's standard can mean 10% he did it, 90% he didn't, but we think it's enough to punish. It is a completely undefined term.

So no, no one decided there was a preponderance of the evidence.

And if you were weighing it under the courtroom interpretation of what that term means, it fails miserably.

Are you somehow unaware that this is not a courtroom proceeding? I'm not sure what you don't get, here. Those individuals aren't deciding on a 10% "he did it" scenario. Considering who the individuals are, it's pretty clear of that. The fact that the term is undefined is meaningless.

mschmidt64 said:
I said no one who talked to her determined she was believable.

Which is true.

Friel, Goodell, and the four person panel did not speak to her.

And that's factually incorrect. It's not true at all. What was found was there wasn't enough evidence to bring a criminal proceeding. Not that she wasn't believable, that she was a liar, etc.

mschmidt64 said:
No, it is true. Everyone who has talked to her on this subject feels she has no credibility.

I'm inserting my own two cents calling it "worthless." Maybe you have a point there. I mean, I guess I don't speak for everyone on message boards with an opinion.

Every decision maker involved in investigating any matter with her and Elliott who has interviewed her. Has found her to be incredible. True statement.

This is comical at this point. There's no indication of that whatsoever. There was not enough to file a criminal case. The fact that you think that means that she had no credibility is absurd. Either you don't understand how the law works or you are lying. Take your pick.

mschmidt64 said:
Please point me to who interviewed her and felt she was telling the truth.

I'll wait. Family members don't count.

I don't have to since that's not my job. I find them both to have holes in their story and neither is completely credible. The prosecutor who declined to charge himself was sure that there was a level of violence in their relationship (it's comical that you don't cite anything damaging to Elliott in your posts).

Peter Harvey thought that Elliott was full of ****. In particular: "We also examined the arguments made by Mr. Elliott’s representatives, and the arguments seemed to be theoretical. They did not seem to be supported by any witness, any document, any other substantive evidence. And so as I evaluated the information, I came to the conclusion that physical force was used by Mr. Elliott against Ms. Thompson, that it caused her injury, and it violated, in my view, the personal conduct policy."

mschmidt64 said:
I don't need it... unlike the league. They are taking a nice lecturing from a federal judge.

You actually need it quite a bit since you have no clue how all of this works. You also only present evidence in favor of the side you support. It's comical.

Both parties come off as complete scum throughout all of this (Elliott's text messages to Thompson are straight up bizarre for someone trying to escape this jilted ex lover as the story he told). I have no clue what went on, but like the prosecutor in Ohio, I do think that something violent happened during this relationship.

This idea that no one believes her and that everyone thinks she is a liar is a flat out lie. Stop perpetuating this garbage because it's not true.

nyr2k2 · Sep 11, 2017

He was very good for me in fantasy last night! The catches and receiving yards turned it from a mediocre night to an 18-point night. Glad I grabbed him when I did.

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/8/29/...-violence-police-report-nfl-suspension-appeal

SBNation has probably what is the best timeline of this entire Elliott cluster****. Unlike the nonsense that mschmidt is spewing in here, it's fair to both parties and presents the evidence without any real commentary. They did a great job at going through all of the weeds, here, in what is an absurdly annoying case to follow.

sabremike · Sep 11, 2017

The one guy is right that Elliot shouldn't have been suspended 6 games for domestic violence. He should've been suspended 6 games for publicly molesting a woman at a parade.

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

sabremike said:
The one guy is right that Elliot shouldn't have been suspended 6 games for domestic violence. He should've been suspended 6 games for publicly molesting a woman at a parade.

I think no matter how you cut it, Elliott comes off as a really scummy dude. He's pretty gross, really.

nyr2k2 · Sep 11, 2017

My fantasy team has no moral standards.

RangerBlues · Sep 11, 2017

The only way to enjoy football is to completely ignore everything that goes on off the field.
There is really not much worth liking about most of the people involved in the game.

Griffinbw · Sep 11, 2017

nyr2k2 said:
My fantasy team has no moral standards.

This. Idc about your track record as long as you put up points. Elliott, Mixon, and Bryant are all welcome here

Hunter Gathers · Sep 11, 2017

Griffinbw said:
This. Idc about your track record as long as you put up points. Elliott, Mixon, and Bryant are all welcome here

Elliott fell in our league and went one pick before me. This is the first year I don't have a complete piece of garbage on my team. And of course the first game I lose Allen Robinson for the year.

OT: 2017 Football Thread II: Rofl.

The Crown

Registered User

The Crown

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

The Crown

The Crown

Registered User

Registered User

The Crown

The Crown

Registered User

The Crown

Registered User

Registered User

The Crown

Can't Beat Him

The Crown

Friend To All Giraffes And Lindy Ruff

The Crown

Can't Beat Him

Registered User

Registered User

The Crown

Ad

Ad

Ad