So the Cowboys are 1-0, with Ezekiel Elliott logging his first 100-yard game. Everybody's happy, right?
Not quite.
First we had Elliott's tug of war with the NFL over the league's desire to suspend him for allegations of domestic violence. A six-game suspension was upheld by an arbitrator, but then halted by a judge. The NFL has appealed that ruling, and now it's all up in the air. Will the injunction be lifted? Will the suspension kick back in, or will he play the entire season?
And with a judge pondering these matters, another issue arises: What is this matter doing in the courts at all? One can like or not like the prospect of an Elliott suspension, just as we were all free to favor or oppose the suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady on the absurd matter of ball inflation.
But in all cases like this, aren't employers free to enact sanctions against employees based on standards of their own derivation? I've seen people fired for some pretty flimsy reasons in my time, and I don't remember a lot of judges getting those cases.
My supposition has always been: your business, your rules. There are laws against dismissals that violate various basic rights, but this appears to be a case of a sports league levying a sanction after performing an internal investigation. How is that a judge's business?
I make this assertion as someone who thought Elliott's suspension was without sufficient basis. This does not mean I think he is innocent; it means I have the same awareness of evidence that authorities had when they decided not to press charges. The bottom-line question is: Are we sufficiently certain of Elliott's guilt to take away a half-million dollars, a sizable chunk of his season and perhaps his team's prospects for a Super Bowl? My answer is no.
If I knew he was guilty, I would advocate permanent banishment from the league. I'm tired of seeing pro athletes get wrist slaps for a variety of horrible behaviors. The NFL doesn't have magic perceptive powers beyond what police have discerned, but it does have an image problem, amid wide criticism for being unserious in punishing wayward players. Throw in its gutless unwillingness to restrain players from insulting America during the national anthem, and these are not happy times for the sport that has dominated ratings for generations.
So maybe a Zeke suspension was window-dressing, designed to earn back some points for basic decency. The problem is, the six-game tapdance was always absurd. If he is guilty, he deserves a lifetime ban. If his accuser is lying, he deserves to be left alone. The NFL joins the rest of us in having no idea which of those is true.
So they crafted a middling punishment that seems to say, "We think something really bad happened, but we don't really know, so we'll deliver less than what we would do if we knew, because we don't want to do nothing."
As ridiculous as this is, I would suggest it is the NFL's business and not a matter for the courts. Federal Judge Amos Mazzant found that the NFL's procedures were not "fundamentally fair."
Where do the rest of us sign up to tell the stories of employers who have given us the shaft? I know the NFL world is saddled with contracts and unions that don't necessarily apply to your brother's job at the auto parts store, but it has always been a tricky road when judges start telling private business what to do about firing, hiring or other decisions central to the rights of the business.
So no, I'm not totally comfortable with Zeke on the field. I'm less comfortable with harsh consequences without sufficient proof. But whatever the NFL decides to do, I know I'm not comfortable at all with the courts butting in.