Hidden detail about new CBA:
For NFL players accused of violating the personal conduct policy, the “credible evidence” standard will apply. Thus, a suspension will be upheld if there is ANY credible evidence to support it, even if outweighed by other evidence.
- See #Zeke case
For NFL players accused of violating the personal conduct policy, the “credible evidence” standard will apply. Thus, a suspension will be upheld if there is ANY credible evidence to support it, even if outweighed by other evidence.
- See #Zeke case
Think about this for a second – even in a case where the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the player’s version of the facts, he will still lose so long as the league can point to a single strand of evidence that would support the accusation.
This is a very low bar – one that the league should be able to clear in just about every discipline case.
Direct quote from the PCP:
“even in cases where a player is not charged with a crime, or is charged but not convicted, he may still be found to have violated the Policy if CREDIBLE EVIDENCE establishes that he engaged in conduct prohibited by this Personal Conduct Policy.”
“even in cases where a player is not charged with a crime, or is charged but not convicted, he may still be found to have violated the Policy if CREDIBLE EVIDENCE establishes that he engaged in conduct prohibited by this Personal Conduct Policy.”
Although the new CBA does not specify a burden of proof in Art. 46 disciplinary proceedings, it does expressly refer to the personal conduct policy, which states that the “credible evidence” standard applies. A very subtle way of sneaking in the lowest burden of proof imaginable.
This is the convoluted explanation offered by Arbitrator Harold Henderson as to why there was “credible evidence” to uphold Ezekiel Elliott’s 6-game suspension in 2017. Still amazed by this. 
