On the Kia Roberts issue, the NFL picks its poison

Getty Images

The 30-page petition filed last night by Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott put the NFL in a very tough spot. And the NFL had two options for dealing with that tough spot.

The league on one hand could have admitted that Commissioner Roger Goodell didn’t know about Kia Roberts’ opinions regarding the credibility of Tiffany Thompson or the propriety of a suspension from Commission Roger Goodell, which would cause the case to collapse but would allow Goodell to seem fair and reasonable and willing to admit a mistake, irregularity, whatever in the process. On the other hand, the league could have claimed that Goodell knew about Roberts’ opinions and beliefs, short-circuiting the argument that a deliberate plan to conceal Kia Roberts’ views existed.

The league chose Door No. 2, arguing via NFL spokesman Joe Lockhart that the notion Goodell didn’t know about the opinions of Kia Roberts is false. The problem with that is this: Goodell’s awareness of the opinions of the person who interviewed Tiffany Thompson on multiple occasions makes Goodell’s so decision to suspend Elliott seem even weaker and more wobbly.

While awareness of Roberts’ opinions may help the league eventually prevail in a court of law (where the league usually wins), it will not help the NFL in the court of public opinion (where the league usually loses). Either Goodell didn’t know about Kia Roberts’ opinions, or he did. Neither outcome looks good for the league.

16 responses to “On the Kia Roberts issue, the NFL picks its poison

  1. I suspect Elliot is going to make more money from his lawsuit with the NFL over any salary he makes playing the game.

    They are ruining his reputation based on a witness that lied to the police, threatened a blackmail tape, and tried to wrangle others to lie on her behalf. All which happened after he broke up with her, causing her to threten to ruin his career.

    yeah, she is clearly the abused. abused people often times act just like her – showing up and screaming at a guy that used physical violence against them is exactly how abused people act….NOT

  2. I think you are wrong about something. The league usually wins in the court of public opinion as well.

    Look at their coffers, if they were losing they wouldn’t be making more.

  3. Goodell clearly doesn’t care what people think about him. This moves allows the league to say: we were aware of the info, we just reached a different opinion to the person who spent the most time investigating the case. What of it?

    As dumb is this argument clearly is, it will work as a legal argument. Common sense says you go with the recommendation of the person who investigated the issue most thoroughly, but neither Goodell nor the law care about common sense.

  4. Last paragraph here is the key. The NFL knows the courts are unlikely to weigh in on the fairness or logic of the suspension – only the process. That’s why Elliott and his team have attacked the process and not the decision. Goodell is sacrificing confidence in the decision, in order to defend the process.

  5. truthdispensary says:
    September 1, 2017 at 1:37 pm
    On the Elliott issue, the NFLPA picks it’s poison: It’s either Against Women or against the player. This time, they chose to be against women (again).

    Are you saying Ms Thompson is somehow all women? If so it would seem you are dispensing something that is considerably different than what most us would call truth.

  6. Neither stance looks good because the entire thing is bogus. And I say that as someone who would be very fine with seeing the book thrown at Elliot, IF compelling evidence pointing to his guilt actually existed.

  7. Another thought, most people have heard of the acronym SNAFU. Has it ever been used more appropriately than the when used in conjunction with Roger Goodell and player discipline?

  8. Public opinion? To paraphrase Stalin: “How many tank divisions does Public Opinion have?”

  9. Roger, if you’re going to order investigations then learn to deal openly and honestly with exculpatory evidence. Trials in courts, normal arbitration proceedings and appeals in the legal system all show the existence going the other way and explain why it’s not persuasive. Learn to do the same. That gives the public confidence in your decisions (whether or not they agree) and defangs the union.

    It’s not necessary to pretend the conclusion was “beyond reasonable doubt.”

    Despite whatever impressive credentials your panel had, this process just looks juvenile and the ravings of a tinpot dictator. Which would be conduct detrimental to the league…

  10. herkiethehawk says:
    September 1, 2017 at 1:20 pm

    “…yeah, she is clearly the abused. abused people often times act just like her – showing up and screaming at a guy that used physical violence against them is exactly how abused people act….NOT”


    Actually (and unfortunately), that IS typical of a lot of abused women in toxic relationships. I’m not a fan of the six games ONLY because the police (right or wrong) decided it didn’t deserve any charges… but let’s avoid blaming the alleged victim, shall we?

  11. It’s obvious that Goodell knew everything, but he can’t afford to reverse course on this one, because he is trying to make up for his gross incompetence with Rice and Brown.

    Of course, the irony is that he has been even more incompetent during this case.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.