I was just eating lunch and reading up on the Ezekiel Elliot stuff. What a circus that is. I hadn't followed it closely at all and didn't know much of the details, but after reading up just now it looks like the NFL looks like complete morons. Again.
What I really don't get is how the NFL got the union to agree to give Goodell almost total power when it comes to discipline. I read that during the last CBA negotiation the union had proposed discipline be handed out by a neutral arbitrator and the NFL said that wasn't going to happen. I suspect that issue is going to be a real sticking point when the current CBA runs out. I can't believe the players are going to sign up for this type of nonsense again.
I have no idea what Elliot did or did not do. It seems ambiguous at best. What I have read is that his accuser has been inconsistent and the NFL's own investigators didn't think she was credible. Maybe her story is true. And, if it is, then it's an injustice that there have been no criminal proceedings here. That could be because the local prosecutors knew they couldn't make a case, but that also doesn't mean the claim isn't true. So, he may be getting away with something here. Who knows?
I'm all for pro sports leagues taking a stand and suspending players for domestic violence and other crimes off the field. I have no issue with that. But, there has to be some level of consistency. Josh Brown, the former Giants kicker, basically admitted to systematically abusing his wife over a period of years and he initially got a 1 game suspension. Btw, the NFL just today increased his suspension to 6 full games due to "new evidence". I think the new evidence is they realized they look like total hypocrites. Also, Brown was cut by the Giants last year after all his admissions became public and does not currently have even a sniff of a job with the NFL. So, that was for appearances only. This "making it up as we go" stuff is preposterous.
The other issue is there needs to be some standard of proof here. I don't think you need to wait until a criminal conviction is had before you suspend a guy. The burden of proof for a conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt". I'm ok with a lower burden of proof but it has to be at least by a preponderance of the evidence. The NFL doesn't even do that.
Elliot may be a bad guy, but, given at least what's been made available to the public, I think he should probably play. We'll see what happens in the courts.