The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Ezekiel Elliott, vacating an injunction and reinstating his six-game suspension. If Elliott’s legal team cannot procure another injunction, he will miss games against the 49ers, Redskins, Chiefs, Falcons, Eagles, and Chargers. He would not eligible to play again until Thursday, Nov. 30, against Washington.

Is this another example of the NFL ultimately “winning” because of language in the CBA as it pertains to the personal-conduct policy?

“I don’t think so because I think here you have a unique set of facts where already one judge has found that there was some sort of a conspiracy by the NFL to hide evidence,” CBS Sports legal analyst Amy Dash said on CBS Sports Radio’s Gio and Jones. “The arbitration, I believe, was not completely fair. If there’s not essential and critical evidence – what’s more critical than an accuser’s testimony? So it’s different from the Brady case in that the unfairness argument was that one of the NFL lawyers didn’t testify. Here, the accuser didn’t testify. I think it’s a big difference. So this whole thing in Texas was just on a technicality.



“The NFLPA, had they waited for that decision to come out and then run and filed in Texas and gotten it into Texas, then he probably would have played the whole season,” Dash continued. “But here’s the thing. They knew that the NFL had an advantage because the NFL knew when the decision was coming down, so the NFL would know when to run to New York – maybe even before Harold Henderson made his decision public. So they didn’t think that they could get it into Texas. That’s why they tried to do this maneuver where they went too early. They won at the district level, but the court of appeals kicked it out because they don’t want everybody’s who bargained for an arbitration to now run to the court before the arbitration is finished.”

That would clog the court system, Dash said.

“You would have people from all types of businesses, sports – anybody who’s got a contract – is now going to say, ‘Well, I don’t have to wait for the arbitration to finish. If I don’t think it’s going well for me, I’m going to run to court,’” Dash explained. “So that’s really why they kicked it out. . . . The court said they didn’t buy the NFLPA’s argument that Harold Henderson was going to rule against him anyway.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Listen Live