Arbitrator isn’t a rubber stamper
Technically, independent arbitrator Harold Henderson will preside over the appeal hearing Tuesday and ultimately render a decision on whether to uphold the six-game suspension the NFL slapped on Ezekiel Elliott for violating its domestic violence policy.
If only it were that simple. In essence, Elliott’s appeal is another indictment of the manner in which Roger Goodell applies the broad powers afforded him as NFL commissioner. So here we go again.
Some might conclude that Henderson’s presence stacks the deck in favor of the league. After all, he was a longtime NFL attorney and previously headed the management council’s executive committee.
But we’ll see. Remember, former commissioner Paul Tagliabue once vacated the suspensions of New Orleans Saints players in the infamous Bountygate case. Henderson has a reputation for personal integrity to uphold, too, so let’s not call it a rubber-stamp appeal.
“Harold has changed and overturned rulings,” Bob Wallace, a longtime sports attorney and former counsel for the St. Louis Rams, told USA TODAY Sports.
Wallace has been tapped as an arbitrator for multiple cases, primarily involving drug suspensions.
“He views these appeals through a narrow frame,” he added of Henderson. “Was the process fair? He’s not looking to retry the case. But he will overturn Goodell if he feels it warrants that. As far as all of the league attorneys, he was all of their bosses at one time. It’s not like he’s intimidated by them.”
Last week, though, Henderson issued a ruling that adds a significant challenge to Elliott’s defense. According to ProFootballTalk.com, Henderson decided the accuser of the Dallas Cowboys star won’t have to testify and her testimony to NFL investigators can’t be used.
Interestingly, in announcing Elliott’s suspension, the league revealed that his accuser, who claimed to be a former girlfriend, lied in contending that he yanked her from a car. And that was just one of several unseemly twists in this case that makes me wonder whether the league seriously fumbled its responsibility to get it right.
Again.
Sure, the NFL needs to get tough on domestic violence. The six games for Elliott was the standard set for first-time offenders when the league crafted its policy upon entering the post-Ray Rice world. Then it made a sham out of that very policy last year by giving Josh Brown just a onegame ban, despite an admission by the former New York Giants kicker that he abused his ex-wife. Go figure. Without divulging details, the NFL maintained there was some “mitigating ” factor that led them to going soft on Brown.
Now Goodell is throwing the book at Elliott, despite multiple reports of factors that raise questions about his accuser’s credibility and motives.
But did Elliott get six games to compensate for the criticism the NFL drew over the Brown suspension? Remember, Elliott was never charged or even arrested after the July 2016 incident in Columbus, Ohio, that led to this, presumably because authorities thought information they’d gathered was inconsistent.
The NFL, though, contended after a 13-month investigation that Elliott, who has denied the allegations, was responsible for bruises that his accuser provided as photographic evidence. It came down to he said-she said. As the NFL saw it, relying on input from outside experts, her version was more believable.
But I’m wondering: If a person lies about a physical confrontation in a car, what other statements might be less than truthful? The Fort Worth StarTelegram reported that Elliott’s accuser, who is white, made a racially based threat to “ruin” his career, in addition to urging another witness to lie to investigators. Also, Yahoo reported that she exchanged text messages that addressed using sex videos in an attempt to extort money from Elliott, according to documents prepared by NFL investigators.
These would seem to be “mitigating ” factors.
In an extraordinary twist, the NFL blasted the NFL Players Association for “victim-shaming ” while alleging that the union was behind leaking information related to the case.
“We have to stand up to the NFL when they repeatedly engage in a bankrupt and corrupt due process,” Carl Francis, NFLPA communications director, told USA TODAY Sports in a text message.
But if the media accounts based on the NFL’s report are ac- curate, the victim might have shamed herself while also underscoring how players are vulnerable to bogus allegations while the league is compelled to carry out its domestic violence policy. And the NFL will likely be the favorite in a legal case, as the courts rarely step across the boundaries of conditions reached through collective bargaining — which is where Goodell’s power flows from. Just ask Tom Brady.
The key is how responsibly the commissioner uses that longstanding power to ensure fairness for all parties.