Yep. And one thing that I really do not understand, is how the league suspends these guys and they sometimes never serve those suspensions. I remember several years ago when the league suspended two huge Vikings linemen and some judge up there threw up an injunction to block the suspension. I never understood how baseball suspends players quite a bit for taking illegal substances and they all stand yet football players get off scot free? Is this because the NFL's contract with players is weaker than baseball's?
I can't speak for baseball, but in football there's an appealing process. When it goes to courts, the player/NFLPA or the NFL can continue to fight the case, based on the decision of the courts(e.g. appealing to a higher court). That's what often makes some of these suspension cases convoluted.
My issue is that the Ezekiel Elliott(among others) case has nothing to do with football. It's a legal issue. The NFL acts as it's own legal body, and decides punishment. As far as the CBA goes, pretty sure they're allowed to do that. The problem is that the NFL isn't exactly giving due process to a legal issue.
In a legal(non-football) case, the NFL should defer to the legal system to determine Ezekiel's culpability. That way you have a more airtight case for a suspension, and don't get caught in a ridiculous ring of litigation. It means that the NFL will take longer to actually dole out punishment, but it would save the parties a lot of grief.
If the NFL continues to handle legal cases like they handled Zeke's, they're going to continue fighting these cases in courts, and continue to look bad, regardless of the actual outcome.
