Speaker 1: The following is a production of Dallas Cowboys dot Com
Speaker 1: and the Dallas Cowboys Football Club. Are you ready for
Speaker 1: a break? Yes? Are you ready for a break? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Ready for a break? Yeah? And so much for that.
Speaker 1: It's time for The Break on Dallas Cowboys dot Com
Speaker 1: and bar Garcia and Derek Eagleton. It is Wednesday, October eighteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, Season thirteen, Episode and fifty six. Welcome to
Speaker 1: another edition of The Break. I'm Derek Eagleton and we're
Speaker 1: gonna talk some Cowboys football here with you guys today.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about some legal stuff here today. And
Speaker 1: I know that over the last few days, really over
Speaker 1: the last few weeks, we've had a lot of legal
Speaker 1: issues with regards to Zeke Elliott, and every day when
Speaker 1: we start those conversations, I always toss it over to
Speaker 1: Nick and Dave and ask them to be our resident attorneys.
Speaker 1: And they've done a fairly good job, fairly fairly good jobs,
Speaker 1: somewhat of a good job being able to explain this stuff.
Speaker 1: But we figured this morning we're going to give it
Speaker 1: to the legal experts. So we're going to have mister
Speaker 1: Daniel Wallace join us here in just a moment. He's
Speaker 1: a sports attorney who is going to give us some
Speaker 1: insights on He's been following this case really closely. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you followed him on Twitter, but he's
Speaker 1: a really great follow on Twitter, has a lot of
Speaker 1: great insight. So we figured we'd have him on and
Speaker 1: let you guys hear from him directly to give us
Speaker 1: some context on the legal side of what's happening with
Speaker 1: ezekiel La. Before we have him on, though, Dave and
Speaker 1: Nick and Amber, I would like to at least get
Speaker 1: us everyone caught up on what happened yesterday. With regards
Speaker 1: of this case. It sounds like at this point it's
Speaker 1: back on he's playing for now? How long is he playing?
Speaker 1: Is it just this week? Is it next week? What
Speaker 1: are we looking at right now? As far as we
Speaker 1: understand it, well, this one, you know, you hear the
Speaker 1: term temporary restraining order. You filed an injunction last time,
Speaker 1: and it was a little more open ended. This one
Speaker 1: has a finite time limit. It's fourteen days or or earlier,
Speaker 1: at the most fourteen days, at the most fourteen days.
Speaker 1: This this issue has to be ruled on by the
Speaker 1: presiding judge by I believe October thirtieth, but it can
Speaker 1: be ruled on before. So it stands to reason that
Speaker 1: he will play against San Francisco and he could potentially
Speaker 1: play against Washington while this is in effect. But basically
Speaker 1: the judge, who you know, judge who's supposed to rule
Speaker 1: on this, is on vacation right now, and so there's
Speaker 1: a four fourteen day window. I don't know when she
Speaker 1: gets back. That's the thing. So a good time for vacations,
Speaker 1: right everybody is not rotator around it. I was thinking
Speaker 1: about that last night. I was like, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: it would be cool to take a vacation in October.
Speaker 1: That's not really he were to us, but yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that sounds great. Though the rest of the world, I'm
Speaker 1: sure it's it's not a bad time. So, like I said,
Speaker 1: it seems like a very good bet he'll be available
Speaker 1: for San Francisco. It's possible or maybe even likely, he'll
Speaker 1: be available for Washington, but maybe not. But he's got
Speaker 1: fourteen days ish before this goes back to a judge
Speaker 1: and then we know what comes next. But even with
Speaker 1: I know that, what I what I thought I saw
Speaker 1: was that by the thirtieth was when this case has
Speaker 1: to be or no, by the twenty ninth is when
Speaker 1: this case has to be heard. Is that accurate? The
Speaker 1: game against Washington is on the twenty ninth, by the
Speaker 1: thirtieth when it has to be heard, and even at
Speaker 1: that when it's heard, that doesn't mean you're necessarily going
Speaker 1: to get a quick response on whatever is is discussed
Speaker 1: in the hearing. Correct. I guess that's technically true. But
Speaker 1: I mean this was save him, Derek. This was heard,
Speaker 1: but I mean this was heard yesterday and decided on yesterday. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't this is I'm I don't think this is
Speaker 1: that like slow grinding legal process where it's going to
Speaker 1: sit in court for uh, you know, weeks and weeks.
Speaker 1: I mean, even you go back to the injunction that
Speaker 1: was filed in Sherman. The judge heard the arguments on
Speaker 1: Tuesday and ruled on Friday. So I think you're talking
Speaker 1: a couple hours to maybe a couple of days at most.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't. I don't think this is gonna
Speaker 1: be something that drags out once it has hurt again. Wait,
Speaker 1: what's that? Yeah, Darren McFadden just got dropped in another
Speaker 1: fantasy league. That's right, Morris too. This keeps happening. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've got that roster alert that says Darren
Speaker 1: McFadden has been dropped in forty six thousand leagues. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean he's is he explaining this week? I mean,
Speaker 1: and that's that's that's good for the Cowboys. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's good for for this team. I Mean we've said
Speaker 1: it all along that he's a dynamic player. I think
Speaker 1: he's the best football player on the team. So obviously
Speaker 1: that that's a good thing. But uh, you have to
Speaker 1: wonder from the mental makeup of him, just like this
Speaker 1: back and forth constant you know, tennis match that's been
Speaker 1: going on with him. I mean, he's he playing, is
Speaker 1: he not playing? And and and what is it like
Speaker 1: for for the team. I know Garrett's gonna stand up
Speaker 1: here and say, you know, we prepare the same, but
Speaker 1: it's got to be weighing on them to just kind
Speaker 1: of go back and forth like this. And this is
Speaker 1: a little bit different too, Becau because you know, he
Speaker 1: got that last injunction before the season even started, and
Speaker 1: it's just kind of been open ended. And then like really,
Speaker 1: you know, over these last two weeks, you know, you
Speaker 1: have your hearing in the circuit court and then they
Speaker 1: rule and he's taken off the roster on Thursday, and
Speaker 1: he's put back on the roster yesterday. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's a little bit different when it's like an open
Speaker 1: ended deal. But now, yeah, tennis match is a good
Speaker 1: way to describe it, where he's kind of ping pong
Speaker 1: And I don't believe anybody that would tell me that,
Speaker 1: you know, this last ten ten or so days hasn't
Speaker 1: weighed on him or people on this team. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: do wonder if it's weighing on people on the team
Speaker 1: as much as weighing on him. I agree with you,
Speaker 1: it's hard to imagine a world where it doesn't weigh
Speaker 1: on him, just because anytime there's it's weighing on us.
Speaker 1: We have I don't know about it, but yeah, we've
Speaker 1: been waiting on it, responds and he goes back and forth.
Speaker 1: There's not a resolution to this whole matter, and that's
Speaker 1: just us like, and we're not even really involved in
Speaker 1: any of that, just from the aside from the fact
Speaker 1: of covering what's going on. I guess the difference is
Speaker 1: when I when you use the word weighing on us,
Speaker 1: I look at them more just kind of like this
Speaker 1: is this big dark cloud. I don't think of it
Speaker 1: like that. Now. Is it a distraction? Yeah? I think
Speaker 1: it's probably a distraction because every few days you're hearing
Speaker 1: something different that's like, oh so it changed again. Oh okay,
Speaker 1: well it can't it change again now? Yeah, it can
Speaker 1: change again tomorrow. Well okay, let's keep an eye on it.
Speaker 1: And so it is a distraction. I don't think of
Speaker 1: it as a weight, though. I think of it as
Speaker 1: a huge weight in the most trivial way possible, because
Speaker 1: you have to write it. I have to do everything.
Speaker 1: I have to feel the texts from the guy I
Speaker 1: haven't talked to since college about who he should pick up. Yes, Annasey,
Speaker 1: But do you think on a Tuesday night to write
Speaker 1: about it? But I care about is that weighing on
Speaker 1: the players like that? If it's weighing on me and
Speaker 1: I'm as tangentially related to it as I am, like,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really affect me all that much. It's yes,
Speaker 1: nobody affects. What I'm saying is the reason why it
Speaker 1: weighs on you is because it affects your ability to
Speaker 1: go to the fair last night. It affects your ability
Speaker 1: to be able to have a quiet evening at home.
Speaker 1: That's the difference. I don't know that this is affecting
Speaker 1: the players being able to prepare for the game. I
Speaker 1: don't know if this is affecting the players being able
Speaker 1: to have whatever time they have a solace. I don't
Speaker 1: think that affects the players the same way that it
Speaker 1: affects Maybe not as much, but it has to affect
Speaker 1: their game plan, like, Okay, what are we doing this week?
Speaker 1: Like do we still have Zeek? Are we gonna still
Speaker 1: have him on the field? Okay? Now are we prepared
Speaker 1: to get Darren McFadden on here? Like how are we
Speaker 1: gonna work on opening spats? But do the players get?
Speaker 1: Is that a way on the coaches? Yes? Is that
Speaker 1: a way on the players? I'm not a little bit.
Speaker 1: I think the players kind of they're like, I gotta
Speaker 1: block the same guy regardless of whether Zeke's running or
Speaker 1: whether mc patten's running, and probably the same thing. I
Speaker 1: see your point, Derek. It probably affects a couple of players,
Speaker 1: I mean the bag. Yeah, not everyone, but it affects
Speaker 1: different packages because I mean, I'm not gonna let the
Speaker 1: Cowboys the coaches sit here and say that we prepare
Speaker 1: exactly the same because in less and less Alfred Morris
Speaker 1: gets of the carries and McFadden gets too. Then yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess they are preparing the same. But if it's
Speaker 1: more of a fifty fifty sixty forty split, then definitely
Speaker 1: things are changing, which means the receiver tight ends packages
Speaker 1: are changing a little bit. It changes a lot of
Speaker 1: the offense when you have a dynamic back who's not there.
Speaker 1: And I get your point, like football players are pretty
Speaker 1: remarkable about only caring about the assignment directly in front
Speaker 1: of them for a whole week. Yeah, but I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, also this is their friend. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: places their friend and their teammate and a guy that
Speaker 1: we spent a year crediting for being like a big
Speaker 1: part of the you know, the chemistry in the locker
Speaker 1: room and kind of the loose vibe and yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe you don't go home and worry about
Speaker 1: it and refresh your Twitter feed the way I do,
Speaker 1: because it's my job, But you know, they also he's
Speaker 1: their friend and teammate and a great player, and not
Speaker 1: knowing whether or not he's to be there, not knowing
Speaker 1: you know, how does that affect our game planning, the
Speaker 1: plays we can call, the plays we want to run. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, any like I said, I think they're not
Speaker 1: telling the truth if it if it doesn't weighing on
Speaker 1: him a little bit. Has Jason talked about this at all,
Speaker 1: about how they'll attack this if if he's dere versus
Speaker 1: not there, or how much they have to change things
Speaker 1: if he's deare versus not there. I honestly, it feels
Speaker 1: like it's been three weeks since we've talked to Jason Garrett.
Speaker 1: But if we ask him that today, he'll probably just
Speaker 1: tell us it doesn't matter. Just you know, parking lot
Speaker 1: Moon try to have the best Wednesday possible with the
Speaker 1: players that you know the players are here and work
Speaker 1: with the guys to go Wednesday. Yeah, exactly. Not really
Speaker 1: much you can do about it anyway. I mean, for
Speaker 1: from their standpoint, they they have to sit back and
Speaker 1: just wait for an answer. There's not really much they
Speaker 1: can do about it. But it's okay. It's like Nick's
Speaker 1: it's okay to tell the truth and be like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, this will affect how we game plan, what
Speaker 1: we want to do with our running backs this week.
Speaker 1: Like that's okay, you can admit that without but he won't.
Speaker 1: He will ever do that. It's not like there's six
Speaker 1: coaches on the defensive side in San Francisco. They're like, ha,
Speaker 1: we got it, now start go to work. Now, they're
Speaker 1: gonna change it up. Because he said they're gonna change it,
Speaker 1: Like yeah, how wow, Garrett admitted it. Garrett admitted that
Speaker 1: it's different having Zeke in the game as opposed to
Speaker 1: thought on Dallas Cowboys dot com. Go do something about it, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, we're still waiting for Daniel Wallack. He's gonna
Speaker 1: be joining us, joining us here momentarily. Um. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: I wanted to go ahead and move on to talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about San Francisco. Um, Cowboys will be
Speaker 1: pacing facing the forty nine ers this Sunday. Um, it'll
Speaker 1: be a three thirty kicks Central time. We'll be out
Speaker 1: there obviously on the West coast, so it's actually three
Speaker 1: three oh five, sorry three oh five kick um, And
Speaker 1: so it'll be a time it's three thirty which way.
Speaker 1: And I don't know, I mean, we didn't We're gett
Speaker 1: into crazy predictions already. I mean we haven't even year
Speaker 1: it was. We haven't even laid it all out for everybody.
Speaker 1: We're already crazy prediction. But in fourteen nothing last now,
Speaker 1: Boys did go down fourteen nothing very quickly last year.
Speaker 1: And all right, I don't know what's going to happen
Speaker 1: this time. Dave, give us a give us your scouting
Speaker 1: report of this offense. Let's talk about the San Francisco offense.
Speaker 1: Let's focus it on that today. Give us a scouting
Speaker 1: report of the players and the specific things about this
Speaker 1: team that should stand out for fans, good or bad. Well,
Speaker 1: what's fun for the Cowboys is it's gonna look completely
Speaker 1: different than you know. I always say I don't go back.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna watch all six games anyway, but I
Speaker 1: don't need to because it's a completely different quarterback. CJ.
Speaker 1: Bethard's going to be your starter going into this game
Speaker 1: after replacing Brian Hoyer mid game against UM against Washington
Speaker 1: last week. And I get it having watched that game,
Speaker 1: because it was a punt fest with Brian Hoyer. I
Speaker 1: think he went four of eleven. They put in CJ. Bethard,
Speaker 1: they punt on their first possession, then they go touchdown
Speaker 1: field goal, missfield goal, touchdown, punt touchdown, and they were
Speaker 1: within two points with a chance to try to win
Speaker 1: the game, and he eventually threw the clinching interception because
Speaker 1: he is a rookie draft pick. Huge, huge penalty that
Speaker 1: changed that whole game. I don't know if you watch that.
Speaker 1: I was watching a little bit. It was earlier in
Speaker 1: the game. No no, no, no no, at the very
Speaker 1: end of the game. Uh sorry, but Garson with an
Speaker 1: offensive past interference that was kind of a pick type play,
Speaker 1: and they're like on the forty yard line, they need
Speaker 1: about five more yards to attempt to field goal to
Speaker 1: win the game, maybe ten, and they get fifteen yards back.
Speaker 1: They don't ever recover from that. It was that that
Speaker 1: changed everything. I mean, an offensive past interference is a
Speaker 1: huge penalty when it's accepted, and that one that changed
Speaker 1: the whole game for them. Sorry, no, you're fine, people, Which,
Speaker 1: well that's a that's kind of a theme. And I know,
Speaker 1: like I just said, the offense is different because they
Speaker 1: changed quarterbacks, but forty nine ers have had their hearts
Speaker 1: ripped out, like five weeks in a row. They lost
Speaker 1: pretty handily to Carolina to start the season. Then they
Speaker 1: lose by three to Seattle. They lose by two to
Speaker 1: the Rams, and they lost an overtime on a field
Speaker 1: goal of the Colts. They lose to the red Skins
Speaker 1: last week with a chance to win in the final
Speaker 1: in it. I mean, I think they've lost five of
Speaker 1: their six games by thirteen combined points. So they're in
Speaker 1: the running for the first overall pick. But it's not
Speaker 1: for lack of trying. They think about this when you
Speaker 1: see the schedule and you see three road games in
Speaker 1: a row, I mean three, That hardly ever happens when
Speaker 1: you do three road games in a row. And what
Speaker 1: have they done. They've gone to overtime twice and lost
Speaker 1: by field goal, and then they also lost this last
Speaker 1: game by two. I mean, I feel I feel bad
Speaker 1: for him, like they should. They deserve a win. Only
Speaker 1: team in the history of the NFL to lose five
Speaker 1: straight games by three points, that's unbelievable. But offensively, it
Speaker 1: doesn't seem like they're doing anything that's particularly good, Like
Speaker 1: they're length ranked down at the bottom half of the
Speaker 1: league in almost every category statistically, and well, between that
Speaker 1: and the fact, I mean you're O and six, you
Speaker 1: pretty much you're out of it, and between that and
Speaker 1: the fact that the offense hasn't been great, I think
Speaker 1: that's why you saw a quarterback change this. You know,
Speaker 1: you know Kyle Shanahan gets he's like this. First of all,
Speaker 1: he's the quarterback whisper, That's what everybody says about him.
Speaker 1: And he's like kind of an old school West Coast guy.
Speaker 1: They gave a fullback like crazy money and free agency
Speaker 1: Kyle juice check and you see that when you watch them,
Speaker 1: and I you know, I think you're probably in a
Speaker 1: little bit working with what you have because there's not
Speaker 1: a lot of guys that really wow you in this
Speaker 1: skill player department. You have Carlos Hide, you have Pierre
Speaker 1: Garson who they signed in free agency, but other than that,
Speaker 1: there's not a ton of it. And so when you
Speaker 1: watch these guys, it's like tight ends everywhere. Fullback on
Speaker 1: the field a lot of times like twelve personnel out
Speaker 1: the wazoo. I think, you know, in watching in watching
Speaker 1: this game against Washington, I think I saw maybe I
Speaker 1: would I would venture a guest at like five snaps
Speaker 1: where it was just the offensive line upfront, like just
Speaker 1: the five guys, you know, like it's usually like seven,
Speaker 1: maybe sometimes even eight if they want to do, you know,
Speaker 1: power running plays. And I think first of all, you
Speaker 1: don't trust your quarterback play, whether because it's bettered because
Speaker 1: he's a rookie or Brian Hoyer because he's bad. Uh
Speaker 1: I mean sorry, Um, so you're trying to give him
Speaker 1: easy throws, protection, keep guys close to the line of scrimmage.
Speaker 1: And that's a lot of what this looks like once
Speaker 1: Bethard went in there. Carlos Hyde has twenty three receptions
Speaker 1: on the year. He got five of them in this game. Um.
Speaker 1: George Kittle is another name. I think you really gettle Kittle. Oh,
Speaker 1: he's another name you really need to know. He's a
Speaker 1: rookie tight end that they drafted in the fifth round
Speaker 1: and they already trust him to do everything. I mean
Speaker 1: he's out there, he's blocking, he's going downfield. I think
Speaker 1: he had four catches for fifty yards in this game. Um.
Speaker 1: Like I said, a lot of a lot of dump
Speaker 1: offs to running backs, a lot of out routes to
Speaker 1: tight ends. But Bethard is not afraid to go downfield either.
Speaker 1: Like he hit some nice balls down the seam and
Speaker 1: found Garson for decent games A couple of times, but
Speaker 1: this is a I would call this offense really cautious. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's just it's you know, dancing dunks. Like everything that
Speaker 1: that people said about Dak and the Cowboys last year,
Speaker 1: That's what this reminded me of. All Right, we're gonna
Speaker 1: take a really quick break. When we come back from
Speaker 1: our break, we actually have mister Daniel Wallack on the line.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk to him a little bit about
Speaker 1: the legal matters with regard to Zekiel Elliott. We'll do
Speaker 1: that when we come right back. This is Dallas Cowboys
Speaker 1: dot Com Radio. We the entertainment loving people want a
Speaker 1: smartphone built for us. With AT and T and Direct TV,
Speaker 1: you can get the Samsung Galaxy Saight with an Infinity
Speaker 1: edge to edge screen. It's perfect for entertainment. We want
Speaker 1: exactly what you just said. Buy a Samsung Galaxy sa
Speaker 1: and get one free after bill credits when you buy
Speaker 1: both on AT and T Next and a Direct TV.
Speaker 1: Visit your local AT and T store today. By each
Speaker 1: seven hundred fifty dollars on installment agreement with eligible service,
Speaker 1: new line is three have to seven hundred fifty dousand
Speaker 1: credits over thirty months credits starting in two to three
Speaker 1: bills if service cancel, visoundands two taxes, fees and restrictions,
Speaker 1: topline limited time office these dweft details. Star Sports Tours
Speaker 1: is the only official fan travel partner of the Dallas Cowboys,
Speaker 1: offering exclusive game weekend travel packages with sideline access and
Speaker 1: photo ops with current players, alumni and cheerleaders. That's not all, though,
Speaker 1: You'll get to talk xs and os with Senior Director
Speaker 1: of Player Personnel Will mc and of course with yours
Speaker 1: truly me, Brian broad Us. You can trust the official
Speaker 1: fan travel partner of the Dallas Cowboys, and with us
Speaker 1: you'll travel like a pro. Visit Cowboys travel dot com
Speaker 1: to book your travel package today. Cowboys fans know that
Speaker 1: the second best of anything simply won't cut it, and
Speaker 1: your skincare should be no different. A long time locker
Speaker 1: room favorite of the players and the official men's skincare
Speaker 1: brand of the Dallas Cowboys, Dallas based Jack Black is
Speaker 1: the number one best selling men's skincare brand in the country.
Speaker 1: Because we make products that help guys look, smell, and
Speaker 1: feel better. Visit get Jack Black dot com slash Cowboys
Speaker 1: to get ten dollars off your first order of fifty
Speaker 1: dollars or more. Jack Black Look Good, Smell Good, Feel Good,
Speaker 1: official men's skincare brand of the Dallas Cowboys. I hear
Speaker 1: all this talk about what it takes to be a cowboy.
Speaker 1: Everyone's got their ideas, but I just say to myself,
Speaker 1: it's what's up top that matters. Sure, you need men
Speaker 1: with the muscle and heart to get her done. But
Speaker 1: if your scouts and coaches are listening out there, a
Speaker 1: word of advice. Pick the man with the most well
Speaker 1: worn stetson. It's the one most cut out to be
Speaker 1: a cowboy. Stetson hats her hand made right here in
Speaker 1: Texas and have been on cowboys heads for over one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty years. The rest of you can visit
Speaker 1: stetson dot com slash cowboy to find a retailer nearest you.
Speaker 1: Back to the break Welcome back. We're in the second
Speaker 1: segment of the breaklock from the SWBC Mortgid Studios, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna take a little time to get ourselves a
Speaker 1: little more acquainted with the legal aspects of what's happening
Speaker 1: with Ezekiel Elliott. We have joining us now Daniel Wallack,
Speaker 1: who is a sports and gaming attorney for Becker and Poliakoff,
Speaker 1: and he's also the Coast of Conduct Detrimental. It's a podcast.
Speaker 1: Check it out if you get a chance. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the show, Daniel. Thanks for having me on my debut
Speaker 1: on the podcast. Yeah, we're very excited. We really appreciate
Speaker 1: you taking some time with us. I'll just say real quick,
Speaker 1: the work you've been doing on Twitter has been phenomenal.
Speaker 1: I know I'm following, and the stuff that you put
Speaker 1: out there recording regarding this case has been really interesting
Speaker 1: and for people like us that aren't that aren't legal experts,
Speaker 1: it helps kind of break it down. So thanks a
Speaker 1: lot for what you've been doing there. Yeah, it's my
Speaker 1: place where all those years of going to law school
Speaker 1: and practicing law. I guess have you trained me eventually
Speaker 1: to weigh in on this. And I didn't realize it
Speaker 1: at the time, but now I just feel every situation
Speaker 1: that comes up in a federal case involving, you know,
Speaker 1: an NFL discipline matter I've experienced personally in one form
Speaker 1: or another throughout my career. So I think I can
Speaker 1: lend a unique, uh you know, insights to what I
Speaker 1: project will likely occur awesome, So give us, give us
Speaker 1: just a big I'm sorry, Daniel. So you've experienced something
Speaker 1: like this before, not quite like this, but offense. I've
Speaker 1: played offense and defense in temporary restraining order practice, preliminary injunctions, appeals,
Speaker 1: petitions for rehearing on bonk, arbitration vacators, arbitration confirmations. Everything
Speaker 1: has just come up. You know. The thing about the
Speaker 1: legal practice is, while you know, there are no new
Speaker 1: there are no new cases, just new faces and on
Speaker 1: this one, and there's probably a few more zeros involved
Speaker 1: in a few more high profile individuals. But this is basic,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of federal court practice, but it's elevated
Speaker 1: because of how hotly contested and the hatred between the
Speaker 1: union and management. So they take it to the nth
Speaker 1: degree and try every loophole, every available legal avenue. And
Speaker 1: sometimes in real life litigation, the clients aren't going to
Speaker 1: spend that kind of money. But with the NFL and
Speaker 1: the players Association, we're talking about not just a principle,
Speaker 1: but millions of dollars of potential loss salary. So it's
Speaker 1: more than just a principle here, So give us an idea.
Speaker 1: At this point, kind of where we are and how
Speaker 1: we've gotten here. I know that it started with the
Speaker 1: case back here in Dallas and kind of got then
Speaker 1: pushed to New York to kind of give us a
Speaker 1: big overview in layman's terms of kind of how we
Speaker 1: got to where we are right now. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're gonna need two hours if we're going to cover
Speaker 1: all background. But essentially shortly after Elliott had his six
Speaker 1: game suspension imposed by committe Goodell, the Players Association had
Speaker 1: had a choice to make. Actually before Harold Henderson upheld
Speaker 1: the discipline the NFL, the Players Association remembered the lessons
Speaker 1: from the Flate Gate if you remember two years ago,
Speaker 1: the union was caught flat footed when, while waiting for
Speaker 1: the decision from Goodell, they had The Union had expected
Speaker 1: to be able to file a lawsuit in the District
Speaker 1: of Minnesota, where they have constantly brought these discipline cases
Speaker 1: over the years, but the NFL controlled the timing of
Speaker 1: the decision and whey and was able to quickly file
Speaker 1: suit in the Southern District of New York, in its
Speaker 1: home forum. So the Union tried a different tack this
Speaker 1: time and tried to beat the NFL to the Courthouse
Speaker 1: by winning the race before the race even started, and
Speaker 1: that set into motion a whole series of events that
Speaker 1: led us to New York. And while ultimately the NFL
Speaker 1: was vindicated on the jurisdictional battle, Elliott and the Players
Speaker 1: Association gained two very significant benefits from going to Texas.
Speaker 1: One was just a mere delay of being able to
Speaker 1: get an injunction early on at the beginning of the
Speaker 1: season and have that stretch out into week six. But
Speaker 1: more importantly, Elliott and the Union now traveled to New
Speaker 1: York bolstered by two very significant federal court opinions, one
Speaker 1: from Judge Mazant and one from Fifth Circuit Judge James
Speaker 1: Graves in the Descent, which give credence to the union's
Speaker 1: argument that Elliott was deprived of fundamental fairness. So it
Speaker 1: essentially lowered the bar for Elliott and the Players Association
Speaker 1: in New York. And I think it took what was
Speaker 1: like a thirty or forty percent likelihood of success and
Speaker 1: put it into the seventy five percent range. And now
Speaker 1: we're basically going through a replay of the Texas action
Speaker 1: in that we're going through a temporary restraining order in
Speaker 1: two weeks the federal court judge that comes back from
Speaker 1: vacation will likely schedule a more full blown motion for
Speaker 1: preliminary injunction. There will be a hearing, there'll be some
Speaker 1: additional briefing, and in two weeks we'll likely learn the
Speaker 1: status of Eliot's I guess eligibility for the rest of
Speaker 1: the season, because this tro is a temporary victory, but
Speaker 1: I think it bolsters his chances of success before Judge
Speaker 1: Faila in about two weeks, and if he can get
Speaker 1: a preliminary injunction, he's probably going to be safe for
Speaker 1: the rest of the season, and then the fight will
Speaker 1: be over the appeal in the offseason. We're joined right
Speaker 1: now about Daniel Wallack, who's a sports and gaming attorney.
Speaker 1: He's talking to us about the Execuel Elliott legal issues.
Speaker 1: To this point, it seems like most of the rulings
Speaker 1: have had to do with things that were more procedural,
Speaker 1: stuff like right venue or timing and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: At what point or is it ever going to get
Speaker 1: to a point where the question at hand is the
Speaker 1: fairness of the process, because we keep hearing that from
Speaker 1: the NFLPA. As you said, there are two judges that
Speaker 1: have now had opinions that point to some unfairness that
Speaker 1: may have occurred. At what point does that become the
Speaker 1: main issue and they will be ruling on the fairness
Speaker 1: of the process to hopefully for the Cowboys get Zekiel
Speaker 1: It back on the field. Well, that began yesterday. The
Speaker 1: jurisdictional and venue battle is essentially over. I mean, the
Speaker 1: NFL Players Association could still attempt to hail Mary to
Speaker 1: bring this case back to the Eastern District of Texas
Speaker 1: where they have a guaranteed victory before Judge Amos Mazant.
Speaker 1: They have a high likelihood of victory at least on
Speaker 1: a preliminary injunction before Judge Faila, but there's no guarantee
Speaker 1: that she will abide by Judge Crowdy's ruling yesterday. I mean,
Speaker 1: but it's it's highly likely in that we've had three
Speaker 1: four Federal court opinions. We've had two from Judge Mazant,
Speaker 1: one on the preliminary injunction and one on the denial
Speaker 1: of the stay, and an opinion from James from James
Speaker 1: Graves and the Descent, and also from Judge Karty yesterday.
Speaker 1: All four judges weighed in at various levels on the
Speaker 1: principle of fundamental airness and either forcefully ruled or hinted
Speaker 1: at the likelihood that Elliott was deprived of fundamental fairness
Speaker 1: by being deprived and not having the opportunity to confront
Speaker 1: and cross examine the accuser of the domestic violence allegations,
Speaker 1: whose credibility is directly at issue in the threshold that
Speaker 1: the NFL has to prove under its own personal conduct
Speaker 1: policy that there is credible evidence to support the allegations.
Speaker 1: And if Elliott does not have the opportunity to test
Speaker 1: the credibility of his accuser, either through direct cross examination
Speaker 1: or by having all of the investigator's notes, he's being
Speaker 1: deprived of a very essential thing that's necessary, relevant, and
Speaker 1: material to his defense and the arbitration. Daniel David Helman here,
Speaker 1: Thanks for coming on with us my pleasure. I can
Speaker 1: appreciate that you're probably not privy to Judge Fayla's vacation plans,
Speaker 1: so I'm sorry if I'm putting you on the spot,
Speaker 1: but I'm just that's the one thing that I'm really
Speaker 1: kind of wrestling with right now is so we know
Speaker 1: that the hearing has to happen by October thirtieth, but no, No,
Speaker 1: the tro expires on exactly as a practical matter, Judge
Speaker 1: Failo will have to schedule something pretty quickly or Elliott
Speaker 1: will be in a position where the TRO is expired
Speaker 1: and then he faces a possible suspension. But here's the reality.
Speaker 1: If Judge fail is on vacation for two more weeks
Speaker 1: in October thirtieth comes and goes, you'll see the Players
Speaker 1: Association file an application with Judge Crowdy to extend the
Speaker 1: TRO by you know, by a week or more. I've
Speaker 1: seen that happen in many federal cases. Fourteen days is
Speaker 1: not the absolute end of the road. It's the initial
Speaker 1: period of the TRO. So if there's this gap that
Speaker 1: needs to be filled, Judge Crowdy will fill it. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly what I was looking for, I guess. So really, overall,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm wondering for an idea or a resolution of
Speaker 1: when we might expect to finally have this settled by
Speaker 1: Judge fail I guess. But I guess you're saying it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily a guarantee that it even has to happen
Speaker 1: by October thirtieth. No. No, again, the big scoop in
Speaker 1: the world of the NFL is what our Judge fail
Speaker 1: As vacation plans that is now on par with like
Speaker 1: the biggest stories in the National Football League. And someone
Speaker 1: suggested that she's on vacation for two weeks, but I
Speaker 1: don't know whether those two weeks are measured from yesterday
Speaker 1: or from the beginning of the week. If she's going
Speaker 1: to be back before October thirtieth, I believe her clerks
Speaker 1: are going to be in a position, her office is,
Speaker 1: her chambers are definitely going to be operational while she's
Speaker 1: on vacation, and she could communicate with her staff by phone,
Speaker 1: and she's well aware of what's going on, I would imagine,
Speaker 1: and sometime soon you will see a briefing notice or
Speaker 1: some kind of order coming from Judge fail As Chambers
Speaker 1: setting this down for briefing in an oral argument sometime
Speaker 1: before October thirtieth, And if she's away and can't handle
Speaker 1: that hearing, then Judge Crotty will extend the tro by
Speaker 1: whatever period of time is necessary. I mean, there's an
Speaker 1: outer or limit how far he can extend it. But
Speaker 1: I believe you know one week would be permissible under
Speaker 1: the federal rules of civil procedure. So what we basically
Speaker 1: know is that she's not having much of a relaxing vacation.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, no, she is, she is. It's summertime.
Speaker 1: She has hundreds of cases, and I believe she's probably
Speaker 1: on a beach somewhere and not even thinking about this case.
Speaker 1: It's her law clerks that are scrambling to kind of
Speaker 1: figure out how to how to put this matter on
Speaker 1: the docket while she has hundreds of other cases, including
Speaker 1: federal criminal trials, which have to take priority. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a Speedy Trial Act in under federal law, and
Speaker 1: her docket is mainly dominated by trials throughout the week.
Speaker 1: So for for a preliminary injunction hearing, she'll have to
Speaker 1: find an hour or two hours, or even a half
Speaker 1: hour somewhere. But I think that the hearing on the
Speaker 1: on the PI is likely going to be much longer
Speaker 1: in duration than the forty five minutes or so that
Speaker 1: we're allotted to the tro If she has to find
Speaker 1: two hours in the evening or after her criminal trial
Speaker 1: concludes for a day, that's when it will take place.
Speaker 1: But this will be this will no doubt be scheduled
Speaker 1: at some point on or about October thirtieth, we're talking
Speaker 1: to Daniel Wallack, who is a sports and gaming attorney
Speaker 1: for Beckert and Poliakoff. He's talking us about the Ezechuel
Speaker 1: Elliott legal battles. One question I have for you was
Speaker 1: with regards to the Tom Brady case, the deflate gate case.
Speaker 1: And We've heard a lot from from different people. I've
Speaker 1: heard a lot from different people that you look at
Speaker 1: that case and although Brady was able to play that
Speaker 1: full season while things were kind of in the courts,
Speaker 1: there still was this overlying thing that it's hard to
Speaker 1: It's hard for judges, as as played out in that
Speaker 1: case just case, it's hard for them to go against
Speaker 1: basically what the players have agreed to, which is that
Speaker 1: the commissioner of the NFL is the arbiter in these
Speaker 1: cases and he has the ability to be able to say, definitively,
Speaker 1: this player is gonna miss x amount of time because
Speaker 1: of this penalty for whatever it was that they felt
Speaker 1: like they did wrong. Is that the same thing in
Speaker 1: this or do the issues of fundamental fairness now change that?
Speaker 1: And cain of court provide remedy for players in these
Speaker 1: kind of situations because it's not so much about the
Speaker 1: right of the commissioner to be the arbiter. As much
Speaker 1: as it is, the commissioner still has to be fair
Speaker 1: in how they adjudicate these these particular issues. Yeah, I mean, Dave,
Speaker 1: you nailed it right on the head. And the Tom
Speaker 1: Brady deflate Gate case, the NFL Players Association raised the
Speaker 1: issue of evident partiality and advanced the argument that um um,
Speaker 1: Roger Goodell was was biased and uh you know, and
Speaker 1: the union sought his removal in the Elliot case. Uh
Speaker 1: you know, the union has recognized that their acquiescence to
Speaker 1: a to a league appointed arbitrator is enshrined in the
Speaker 1: collective bargaining agreement, so that that's almost a non starter,
Speaker 1: and that wasn't raised by the union in their petition.
Speaker 1: What they're arguing, however, is that, um, you know, the
Speaker 1: fact that the NFL can pick and choose its arbitrator
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that the union acquiesces to a fundamentally unfair
Speaker 1: arbitration that will always be recognized in the Federal Arbitration
Speaker 1: Act and by most circuits under the Labor Management Relations Act.
Speaker 1: And this case is brought under the LMR. But the
Speaker 1: case law that recognizes and the statute that recognizes the
Speaker 1: fundamental fairness as one of the limited grounds on which
Speaker 1: the federal judge can vacate an arbitration award. I believe
Speaker 1: that travels to the labor arbitration context. Now, the Brady
Speaker 1: decision did not foreclose the use of fundamental fairness in
Speaker 1: future cases. While the court took great pains to state
Speaker 1: that the fundamental fairness principle is not necessarily recognized in
Speaker 1: the labor context, every court that has ever addressed it,
Speaker 1: in the Second Circuit and in the lower federal courts
Speaker 1: always analyzes the fundamental fairness argument on the merits. And
Speaker 1: then we go to the issue of whether the court's
Speaker 1: finding in deflate Gate is applicable to the Elliot case
Speaker 1: and forecloses that argument on its merits. And I don't
Speaker 1: believe that it does, because in the deflate Gate case,
Speaker 1: the fundamental fairness argument that the Union raised well, the
Speaker 1: main one was that they were denied the opportunity to
Speaker 1: cross examine NFL lawyer and senior Vice president Jeffrey Pash,
Speaker 1: who was one of the co authors of the Wells
Speaker 1: investigative report and played some role in editing that investigative report.
Speaker 1: That is a far cry from the accuser in a
Speaker 1: domestic violence case. Now, the Second Circuit's deflate Gate opinion
Speaker 1: rejected the fundamental fairness argument advanced by the Union because
Speaker 1: it characterized Jeff Pash as a collateral, meaning an unimportant
Speaker 1: or less important witness that was cumulative of much of
Speaker 1: the other testimony from mister Wells and from the findings
Speaker 1: in the Wells report. You can't get anywhere more more
Speaker 1: essential in a domestic violence case than having the ability
Speaker 1: to confront and cross examiner a cross examine the person
Speaker 1: who accuses the player of domestic violence. That is the
Speaker 1: entire there is almost the entirety of the League's case
Speaker 1: against Elliot, And under the Personal Conduct Policy, the threshold
Speaker 1: that the League has to establish is that credible evidence
Speaker 1: supported the allegations. How can you meet that standard if
Speaker 1: Elliot can't test the credibility of the testimony of the
Speaker 1: person who put him under suspension. And that goes to
Speaker 1: the very heart of the Seventh Amendment and sixth Amendment
Speaker 1: right to confront your accuser. While while that principle is
Speaker 1: not necessarily embedded under the rules of arbitration, which are
Speaker 1: somewhat less formal, it does fit the I guess the
Speaker 1: category of fundamental fairness and when an arbitrator deprives a
Speaker 1: party of material and relevant testimony, well that is tant
Speaker 1: amount to a fundamentally unfair arbitration. And this is the
Speaker 1: most essential testimony that you could even conceive of. And
Speaker 1: in a domestic violence case, the accuser in a he said,
Speaker 1: she said situation. All right, Daniel, you kind of said
Speaker 1: this a little bit earlier when we first had you on,
Speaker 1: But do you feel like, not to put you on
Speaker 1: the spot here, but do you feel like there's more
Speaker 1: than one battle going on here that that you know,
Speaker 1: we know the NFLPA and the NFL have have had
Speaker 1: their issues and they're going to probably have more with
Speaker 1: with more labor talks coming up maybe next year. Do
Speaker 1: you feel like this is just the next case in
Speaker 1: what these two sides are have been battling with each
Speaker 1: other that you know, there's a there's a precedence here
Speaker 1: that they want to make sure that as we head
Speaker 1: into labor talks that you know, that their side kind
Speaker 1: of wins here. Yeah, I mean, this case is going
Speaker 1: to really elevate the critical issue going forward in the
Speaker 1: labor negotiations because if Elliott prevails on the principle of
Speaker 1: fundamental fairness, it creates a precedent that the union would
Speaker 1: be able to establish in future domestic violence cases. We're
Speaker 1: going to see if if Elliot wins, the accuser will
Speaker 1: now likely have to participate in future arbitrations under the
Speaker 1: personal conduct policy, and that creates that could create a
Speaker 1: chilling effect for for witnesses and accusers. I mean Tiffany
Speaker 1: Thompson cooperated voluntarily with the NFL during the investigation. If
Speaker 1: she knew that she had to testify and the arbitration
Speaker 1: bebect and be subjected to a withering cross examination from
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Kessler, she might hesitate to cooperate with the NFL.
Speaker 1: So this is a huge victory for the union in
Speaker 1: battling against what they consider to be a one sided
Speaker 1: personal conduct policy that was not collectively bargained. So this
Speaker 1: could create a significant negotiation point when the collective bargaining
Speaker 1: agreement comes to an end. So that's that's what the
Speaker 1: league is fighting for here. It's not simply about Elliot's
Speaker 1: six games, but about reinstating and bolstering its personal conduct policy.
Speaker 1: That policy would be significantly undermined if the players Association,
Speaker 1: we're able to score a victory on fundamental fairness grounds.
Speaker 1: It would establish a precedent going forward and undermine the
Speaker 1: victories that the league has achieved under de flate Gate
Speaker 1: and under the Adrian Peterson case. I mean, while while
Speaker 1: an arbitrator's evidentiary rulings are generally within the scope of
Speaker 1: the arbitrator's discretion, there's a fine line between that discretion
Speaker 1: and then the denial of material and relevant testimony, which
Speaker 1: goes to the heart of the case. It really does
Speaker 1: create some uncertainty going forward for the National Football League
Speaker 1: and will ultimately lead to more challenges by the players
Speaker 1: Association and more court challenges of arbitration decisions. And we're
Speaker 1: going to be in future federal court battles. This is
Speaker 1: not going to be the last one. If the players win,
Speaker 1: it does create a significant opening for the union to
Speaker 1: challenge arbitration decisions going forward. This is Daniel Wallack. We're
Speaker 1: talking to him about the Ezechuel Elliott legal issues. Is
Speaker 1: a sports and gaming attorney. And one more question we
Speaker 1: have for you. We really appreciate your time. One more
Speaker 1: question before you leave. So I know there's a lot
Speaker 1: that we've talked about here, and there's probably some fans
Speaker 1: out there listening that their heads are spinning at this point.
Speaker 1: Probably got a lot more law than they really expected
Speaker 1: or really can even wrap their arms around. So just
Speaker 1: wrap it up in a bow for us using your
Speaker 1: prognosticator hat. What do you think happens at the conclusion
Speaker 1: of this How do you think this thing all ends?
Speaker 1: From the standpoint of the next decision it has to
Speaker 1: be made and the final decision as to whether Ezechuel
Speaker 1: Elliott wins or doesn't win. Okay, fair point, we'll take
Speaker 1: this in stages. There are three more court rulings that
Speaker 1: are going to occur over the lifetime of the Elliot
Speaker 1: versus NFL case. In two weeks, Judge Faila will in
Speaker 1: all likelihood enter a preliminary injunction in Execuel Elliot's favor.
Speaker 1: She will likely not disagree with her colleague on the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York Bench. Senior Judge Paul Croddy
Speaker 1: is a very respected federal court judge. So when you
Speaker 1: add up all of the decisions that have been issued
Speaker 1: to date, the two from Judge Mazant, the one from
Speaker 1: Judge Graves, and yesterday's TROO order from Judge Crotty. The
Speaker 1: NFL Players Association is now armed with four significant federal
Speaker 1: judicial opinions that I think allow it to clear the
Speaker 1: hurdle of the likelihood of success on the merits. The
Speaker 1: Judge Failure does not need to be persuaded that it's
Speaker 1: certain that Eliot will prevail on the merits. There just
Speaker 1: has to be a likelihood of success, and he already
Speaker 1: has established that. And the key issue for me is
Speaker 1: the irreparable harm if if Elliot misses any games because
Speaker 1: he's denied a preliminary injunction, let's say he would later
Speaker 1: win this case on appeal, Eliot will never be able
Speaker 1: to recapture those games. They're gone forever. No federal court
Speaker 1: has a time machine to restore that playing time. So
Speaker 1: I think the status quo will be maintained on a
Speaker 1: preliminary injunction. And if a preliminary injunction issue, then it
Speaker 1: makes it much more likely than not that Judge Failer
Speaker 1: will ultimately rule on the merits for the Players Association
Speaker 1: on the principle of fundamental fairness. That decision could be
Speaker 1: as quick as a month away. Because I believe all
Speaker 1: of the briefing on this case is pretty close to complete,
Speaker 1: and her decision on the validity of the arbitration award
Speaker 1: will be based entirely on the arbitration record, which has
Speaker 1: already been completed. While Jeffrey Kessler will be eager to
Speaker 1: take Roger Goodell's deposition, I'm not certain that the judge
Speaker 1: will allow open end to discovery in this case. So
Speaker 1: I think you're going to see a decision in favor
Speaker 1: of Elliot on the preliminary injunction in about two to
Speaker 1: three weeks or less, and then a likely victory for
Speaker 1: Elliot on the merits of the motion to vacate the
Speaker 1: arbitration award, and you could see that come down at
Speaker 1: some point in November. And then we head to the
Speaker 1: second Circuit Us Court of Appeals, and the sixty four
Speaker 1: thousand dollars question is whether the second Circuit will come
Speaker 1: out with a ruling that distinguishes the deflate Gate decision.
Speaker 1: Now we will I cannot prognosticate or predict how the
Speaker 1: Second Circuit will rule without knowing the identity of the
Speaker 1: three judges who will serve on the panel. For example,
Speaker 1: if you have two democratically nominated two Democrats, one Republican. Well,
Speaker 1: that certainly bolsters Elliot's chances. If you have one of
Speaker 1: the same judges that ruled for Elliot that ruled for
Speaker 1: Brady in to flate Gate, well that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: But if Barrington Parker and Danny Chinner on that panel,
Speaker 1: it's probably curtains for Elliott. And I believe at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, Elliot is holding a very strong
Speaker 1: argument on fundamental ground fundamental fairness grounds, because Brady and
Speaker 1: Elliott are light years apart, and one can easily distinguish
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Pasha's testimony in de flate Gate or the necessity
Speaker 1: for it from the essential core of of Miss Thompson's testimony,
Speaker 1: which goes to the very heart of the case on
Speaker 1: the continuum of material and relevant testimony. If pass is
Speaker 1: a one or a two, will certainly Tiffany Thompson is
Speaker 1: like a ten or eleven, And I believe that's where
Speaker 1: the two cases part company. And even under the second
Speaker 1: Circuit ruling into flate Gate, I think the panel of
Speaker 1: three judges would likely side with Elliott on the issue
Speaker 1: of fundamental fanners. But it all comes down to the
Speaker 1: luck of the draw and which three judges are assigned
Speaker 1: to the appellate panel. All right, we really appreciate you
Speaker 1: taking some time. Was really informative. We learned a lot
Speaker 1: and we'll hopefully stay in touch if some other legal
Speaker 1: issues come up, or certainly as this case continued, you'd
Speaker 1: love to have you back on. It would be my pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me on today. It was a lot
Speaker 1: of fun. All right, Thanks so much. Take care all right.
Speaker 1: That was Daniel Wallack, who is a sports and gaming
Speaker 1: attorney for Becker and Poliakoff, and he also has a
Speaker 1: podcast of his own Conduct Detrimental. We had a lot
Speaker 1: that he said there, Well, let's take a break. When
Speaker 1: we come back, we'll kind of digest a little bit
Speaker 1: more of that. See if we can get back more
Speaker 1: into the San Francisco game as well. We'll do that
Speaker 1: in the final segment, This is Dallas Cowboys dot Com Radio.
Speaker 1: To work this big land, you need equipment with values
Speaker 1: did as deep in Texas soil as you are, like
Speaker 1: John Deer, Compact tractors with a six year power train,
Speaker 1: warrant to hi big features that help you work less
Speaker 1: so you have more time to do what you love.
Speaker 1: John Deer was first in the Texas Fields and we're
Speaker 1: proud to be on the field as the official agg
Speaker 1: and turf equipment of the Dallas Cowboys. Find Texas sized
Speaker 1: deals at my John Deer Dealer dot com. Slash Football terms, conditions, exclusions,
Speaker 1: and warranty limitations apply. So if you love for details,
Speaker 1: we the entertainment loving people, want a smartphone built for us.
Speaker 1: With AT and T and Direct TV, you can get
Speaker 1: the Samsung Galaxy Saight with an Infinity edge to edge screen.
Speaker 1: It's perfect for entertainment. We want exactly what you just said.
Speaker 1: Buy a Samsung Galaxy sa and get one free after
Speaker 1: bill credits when you buy both on AT and T
Speaker 1: next and a Direct TV. Visit your local AT and
Speaker 1: T store today by each for seven hundred fifty dollars
Speaker 1: on installment agreement with eligible service. Newline is free if
Speaker 1: to seven hundred fifty dollars in credits over thirty months
Speaker 1: credits starting two to three bills. If service canceled by sailers,
Speaker 1: two taxes, fees and restrictions apply. Limited time office the
Speaker 1: Jew Free details. I scold Doctor Pepper and the Dallas
Speaker 1: Cowboys go way back. They belong together, like Texas and
Speaker 1: football Silver and blue shotgun formations and Hail Mary's. Having
Speaker 1: a Cowboys football party without doctor Pepper is like having
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving without the Cowboys. Basically, we wouldn't recommend it. So
Speaker 1: next time you have a tailgate, homegate, or whatever else
Speaker 1: kind of gate, grab some ice called doctor Pepper for
Speaker 1: you and your friends to enjoy. It's a Dallas Cowboys tradition.
Speaker 1: Doctor Pepper the one you crave. It can be hard
Speaker 1: to find the right resource for learning about important financial matters.
Speaker 1: You search how to build savings, you end up reading
Speaker 1: about the one weird ingredient from supermarkets that can make
Speaker 1: you taller. That's why Bank of America build Better Moneyhabits
Speaker 1: dot Com, a safe little corner of the Internet for
Speaker 1: answering your financial questions. Full of simple videos and tips,
Speaker 1: Better Money Habits can show you how to make the
Speaker 1: most of your money without resorting to random searches that
Speaker 1: always seem to lead to unbelievable photos of childhood stars
Speaker 1: grown up. To learn more, visit Better Money habits dot Com.
Speaker 1: Back to the Break, Welcome back. It is the final
Speaker 1: segment of the Break. We appreciate you guys joining us.
Speaker 1: A live from the SWBC Mortgage studios at the Star,
Speaker 1: and that was a really interesting segment that we had there.
Speaker 1: We had a Daniel Wallace joined us who was an
Speaker 1: attorney who was able to give us some really good
Speaker 1: insight into the Execuel Elliott case. I'll throw it out
Speaker 1: to you guys, like, was there any what thing if
Speaker 1: you had one thing, what one thing did you learn
Speaker 1: there that you didn't quite know whether it was kind
Speaker 1: of hazy to you that you can help make sense
Speaker 1: for fans. Well, for me personally, that whole that was great,
Speaker 1: But it was kind of like like have you ever
Speaker 1: walked on a log, you know, You're just like, oh,
Speaker 1: all right, I got this, I got oh, I'm gonna fall, Okay,
Speaker 1: caught my balance. Like That's how I felt like the
Speaker 1: whole time, just trying not to lose my grasp of
Speaker 1: what he was talking about. Yeah, me personally, the background
Speaker 1: information was really great. I feel like, you know, I've
Speaker 1: been knee deep in this stuff for long enough that
Speaker 1: I had a pretty good grasp on all of that.
Speaker 1: But the big thing I just I wanted to know
Speaker 1: more about what to expect in these next two weeks.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, I get you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's his life and his reputation, and there's more important stuff.
Speaker 1: But I think most fans just want to know Okaya playing,
Speaker 1: when he playing? When? When can he play? How do
Speaker 1: we know when he can play? What's the likelihood? Yeah? So,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it's it sounds to me it's
Speaker 1: not a guarantee, but it sounds to me from talking
Speaker 1: to him that I would I'm leaning toward thinking Zeke
Speaker 1: will be there for the Redskins too. Yeah, and then
Speaker 1: who knows where it goes from there. It's like even
Speaker 1: more than that, well, yeah, way he the way, If
Speaker 1: it goes the way he says it goes, then he'll
Speaker 1: be there play. Yeah, I'm not ready to. I'm not
Speaker 1: ready to take that leap just yet. But so October
Speaker 1: thirtieth is the day that I kind of have circled
Speaker 1: in my mental calendar. What I'm curious and I didn't
Speaker 1: ask him this, I thought about it, is you think
Speaker 1: is it a coincidence that she's on vacation? Just just
Speaker 1: the coincidence. I don't think there's some big, grand conspiracy.
Speaker 1: I mean, why would there be. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: it's a conspiracy that she's on vacation. I'm saying, is
Speaker 1: it this is just this is the judge that has
Speaker 1: to see this case. Well, when it gets to a court,
Speaker 1: it gets to a court by procedure, there's procedure that
Speaker 1: puts it in specific courts. And so yeah, I wonder
Speaker 1: if I don't felt PA maybe sought out this situation
Speaker 1: so they could. But that's the point. They don't get
Speaker 1: to choose which court. Like, if they want to choose
Speaker 1: which court, they'd be back in Dallas. So I don't
Speaker 1: know that they get to say, hey, this judge is gone,
Speaker 1: let's use this court. I don't think it works like that.
Speaker 1: I don't think it does either. Okay, I have a question,
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure if he kind of talked about
Speaker 1: it or not. Again, I was going up and down.
Speaker 1: Well okay, I'm understanding. Okay, Well now I'm kind of confused. Okay,
Speaker 1: to clear this thing up, we're fighting or they are
Speaker 1: fighting against the whole fairness of the case. Right, Let's
Speaker 1: say they say, okay, yes he was indeed treated unfair.
Speaker 1: Now from that point, does he go to another court
Speaker 1: and now they're actually hearing the whole case of what
Speaker 1: really happened here. Let's hear both sides. I actually think
Speaker 1: the way he was talking about it, that actually is
Speaker 1: taking place at this point, because he said before and
Speaker 1: that was the question I had for him about the
Speaker 1: procedural things that have been ruled one at this point.
Speaker 1: They were talking about the timing that they filed it
Speaker 1: before the arbitration was done, and the venue they did
Speaker 1: it in Dallas, it should have been in New York.
Speaker 1: So it's like, those are the procedural things that have
Speaker 1: already been ruled one at this point, from what he
Speaker 1: was saying, the injunction at this point, that's up, that's
Speaker 1: before the court that is going to look at things
Speaker 1: like fundamental fairness, and so they are already looking at
Speaker 1: and really what they're deciding right now is not necessarily
Speaker 1: the case of what happened and whether he was unfairly treated.
Speaker 1: It's more that they're trying to determine is there a
Speaker 1: likelihood that he was unfairly treated and that should matter
Speaker 1: in this case. So if that's the case, we need
Speaker 1: to allow him this injunction so that in the meantime
Speaker 1: he could continue to play while the court here's all
Speaker 1: this stuff, while the court here's the case, while the
Speaker 1: court deliberates on the case and before the court can
Speaker 1: actually make a decision on it. So it's really just
Speaker 1: right now they're trying to figure out is this a
Speaker 1: likelyod It's almost like you're in that process of figuring
Speaker 1: out is this a case worth hearing? And if it's
Speaker 1: a case worth hearing, then you need to give him
Speaker 1: time to continue to play if you believe that, again
Speaker 1: he can lose something that he can't get back, and
Speaker 1: then we would know if in fact he did commit
Speaker 1: domestic violence or not. Right, I don't know that they
Speaker 1: will ever judge on that, but they're judging on what
Speaker 1: they're judging on that's already been judged by the NFL.
Speaker 1: The courts, as far as that's concerned, they decided there
Speaker 1: wasn't enough to even have a case. If you remember
Speaker 1: back before all this started with the NFL, the courts
Speaker 1: already decided that. So the courts right now are not
Speaker 1: deciding whether he's guilty or innocent of domestic violence. What
Speaker 1: they are talking about is was the process fair in
Speaker 1: the NFL determining that he should be suspended? And I
Speaker 1: get I guess the ruling of the NFL when it
Speaker 1: comes to that. I think, obviously if he was treated unfairly,
Speaker 1: it kind of goes into the whole case itself, like
Speaker 1: whether he was, let's say, innocent or guilty, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. So the fact of giving him the
Speaker 1: time or whatever for him to provide all the information
Speaker 1: that needed to be provided and having Tiffany be up
Speaker 1: there in front of him and saying everything. I mean,
Speaker 1: that plays into the case and I don't I don't
Speaker 1: know how to really explain it. It goes into the
Speaker 1: whole unfairness thing, but at the same time it goes
Speaker 1: to is he guilty or not? Aside from that, That's
Speaker 1: where my head kind of gets fuzzy, Like I put
Speaker 1: the fairness aside. Even if he was treated fairly, do
Speaker 1: we have enough proof to where we know if he
Speaker 1: did it or not? And I don't think there is.
Speaker 1: I mean, at the NFL had enough proof where they
Speaker 1: felt like there was a likelihood that something happened inappropriately, right,
Speaker 1: the court said in the very beginning there was not
Speaker 1: enough evidence for them to even take it to trial. Right,
Speaker 1: So if you're trying to get an answer on whether
Speaker 1: he did it or not, I'm sorry to tell you,
Speaker 1: but I don't know if there's enough proof one way
Speaker 1: or the other to say, really did it or did
Speaker 1: The material is out there and you can go read
Speaker 1: it and look through it and come to your own
Speaker 1: determination about you know, how you feel about it. Who
Speaker 1: you feel is, oh, I've looked through all that. Well
Speaker 1: that kind as much as you're gonna that's all you got.
Speaker 1: You gotta you make a determination about how you feel
Speaker 1: about it. But that's I guess for me to feel
Speaker 1: good about this whole thing and come to resolution for
Speaker 1: my own you know inside and my own mind is
Speaker 1: to have both of them in front of me. See Tiffany,
Speaker 1: do your own investigations aside. Let's put aside the whole
Speaker 1: fairness of the lead, you know which, I'm glad that fine,
Speaker 1: if we work. Can we do that on the break.
Speaker 1: Let's do it on the break. Everyone says what actually happened?
Speaker 1: We hear both sides right in front of each Let's
Speaker 1: see if they can both tell them. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: what's interesting that you say that? And I don't know
Speaker 1: if you have to be a female to have this perspective.
Speaker 1: I don't think you do, but I'm curious. It's like
Speaker 1: it's kind of feels weird to like be rooting for Zeke,
Speaker 1: you know, just because he's on this team and all that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems like maybe what you're saying is
Speaker 1: is that you want to know kind of what happened here?
Speaker 1: Should I want you to to win this thing? Or
Speaker 1: should should you not? Do you deserve to win? And see,
Speaker 1: that's the thing we don't really we know. And I
Speaker 1: think that's what's so weird about this whole case with
Speaker 1: the NFL and and why I kind of asked that
Speaker 1: question about moving forward. I think this is a really
Speaker 1: big case for you know, does the NFL really get
Speaker 1: to play judge and jury here because you know, the
Speaker 1: court system in Ohio didn't think it needed to go
Speaker 1: to trial, and now that they're you know that they thought,
Speaker 1: well it's worthy of six games. So this is going
Speaker 1: to be a really big case in the new Labor
Speaker 1: talks about how much power Goodell and the NFL really
Speaker 1: has well, And that's It's It's convenient in a way
Speaker 1: because I think you can compartmentalize this whole thing like
Speaker 1: between like this is about domestic violence, but it has
Speaker 1: become about something completely different, Like you can at least
Speaker 1: I can separate the two and say it looked like
Speaker 1: one way or another, some schiv stuff happened here, Like
Speaker 1: this doesn't look good based on you know, court testimony,
Speaker 1: witness testimony, whether it's conflicting or not, whether it's all
Speaker 1: true or not. There's some bad stuff going on here
Speaker 1: that's not great. But then I can look over here
Speaker 1: and everything that's happened since then, how the NFL has
Speaker 1: handled this, the fairness of how they did it, and
Speaker 1: I can say that's not right. And you know, regardless
Speaker 1: of how guilty or innocent he is, the process that
Speaker 1: the league goes through for all this stuff is wrong
Speaker 1: in my opinion, and so you can almost kind of
Speaker 1: have it both ways, and like I don't I don't
Speaker 1: have to condemn or exonerate Ezekiel Elliott to know that
Speaker 1: this is messed up. Well, I agree, you can kind
Speaker 1: of I look at it as almost two completely separate factors.
Speaker 1: And what I think this go ahead and I was
Speaker 1: just gonna say that that's absolutely agree is two different things.
Speaker 1: But to me, it's really sad that the whole procedure
Speaker 1: thing is kind of taking over something that could have
Speaker 1: like if it did indeed happen, like that's something very important,
Speaker 1: Like you know that that's a real deal right there.
Speaker 1: You know, you can't just let something like that just
Speaker 1: fly by and know, we're cool here, we're good. Let's
Speaker 1: just focus on this whole procedure and stuff. That's where
Speaker 1: I guess I just kind of get upset about this
Speaker 1: whole thing, is that that has taken the light of
Speaker 1: the whole case, the whole procedure, and not really focusing
Speaker 1: on what actually happened. You know what, That's a great point,
Speaker 1: but let's not forget the NFL took thirteen months to
Speaker 1: do this investigation, thirteen months on something that, excuse me,
Speaker 1: thirteen months that the court system in Ohio already threw route.
Speaker 1: So and then they made a decision before the season.
Speaker 1: I think that they kind of thought that they would
Speaker 1: just kind of take it and go and and Zeke
Speaker 1: has fought back on this. And think about this, anything
Speaker 1: that you spend a million dollars on, you probably have
Speaker 1: some kind of passion whatever it is, whatever cost a
Speaker 1: million dollars. And when it's all said none, this is
Speaker 1: gonna be about a million dollars for Zeke and legal costs. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, he obviously feels like he's got a case here.
Speaker 1: You don't. You don't spend that much money for it.
Speaker 1: So I agree with your point that technicalities are kind
Speaker 1: of taken over this, But the NFL kind of opened
Speaker 1: this can of worms when they opened up the investigation,
Speaker 1: took thirteen months to do it, and did it right
Speaker 1: before the season. Of course you're going to fight back,
Speaker 1: but I think the thing has to be pointed out
Speaker 1: here Amber, particularly to to what you're saying, is that
Speaker 1: the courts of the legal authorities already have weighed in
Speaker 1: on this, and what they weighed in on was there
Speaker 1: is not enough evidence here for us to sewercase. And
Speaker 1: so I think and that's I think this whole thing
Speaker 1: kind of highlights the problem with the NFL getting into
Speaker 1: the business of judging players, because if you think about
Speaker 1: it this country, there's a lot of rules, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of laws, there's a lot of there's their constitutional
Speaker 1: amendments that are made for the purposes of making sure
Speaker 1: that the rights of the accuser are protected and that
Speaker 1: how we adjudicate wrong crimes is done the right way
Speaker 1: and done by a certain procedure. And when the NFL
Speaker 1: gets into that business, now the NFL has to live
Speaker 1: according those things. As well, and they're not suited for that,
Speaker 1: Like this is a this is a football organization. They
Speaker 1: are not suited to to be able to properly as
Speaker 1: a court would properly adjudicate a like say, adjudicate because
Speaker 1: it makes you sound it does make me sound smart.
Speaker 1: But my point is, My point is that I think
Speaker 1: that's the problem in this whole thing is that the
Speaker 1: NFL is not, I don't think properly equipped to handle
Speaker 1: these kinds of things in the way a court would.
Speaker 1: And if you want to have some kind of guidance
Speaker 1: on what actually happened, I think you have to go
Speaker 1: back to the legal authorities who originally said, hey, there's
Speaker 1: not enough stuff here, because there's so much gray area
Speaker 1: around this whole thing. There are there are lots of inaccuracies,
Speaker 1: and there are a lot of things that have been
Speaker 1: said that that point to the fact that there's not
Speaker 1: enough evidence here for us to be able to even
Speaker 1: take this to trial, not let alone say he's guilty
Speaker 1: or innocent, but to even take it to trial. That's
Speaker 1: what gives me a little more solace in the fact
Speaker 1: that it's hard to believe that then he should have
Speaker 1: to sit for six games. If a court already said
Speaker 1: there's not enough hear of for us to even you know,
Speaker 1: take to court. I agree, And I guess the way
Speaker 1: I see it, or where I come into this whole
Speaker 1: mass in my head is the fact that, yeah, they
Speaker 1: said that, but again, you don't ever really know how
Speaker 1: much you can trust, like sometimes the system is not
Speaker 1: always perfect, absolutely, but that's all you have. Like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: but there's nothing better than the system. We don't we
Speaker 1: don't know. But okay, the court made that decision, all right.
Speaker 1: Then the NFL comes in, and to think that they
Speaker 1: went through all this trouble and all this time and
Speaker 1: actually going against what everyone expected and going against what
Speaker 1: Jerry Jones has said to begin with, you would think
Speaker 1: that they have enough to back that up. Right, So
Speaker 1: now you have what the course said and what the
Speaker 1: NFL is saying. So looking at both of them, it's
Speaker 1: it goes back to him versus him type of thing,
Speaker 1: like one person versus the other. Right, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, I don't understand, like you say this thing,
Speaker 1: this one thing now, Nick is saying this one thing
Speaker 1: right now, it's one against one of what each party
Speaker 1: believes that happened right now. That's where I'm like, Okay,
Speaker 1: I want to know what actually happened here. And although
Speaker 1: we have seen all the whatever they listed that Tiffany
Speaker 1: said and this and that, it just gets a little.
Speaker 1: It creates more questions about the whole thing, and it's
Speaker 1: just it's big. It became really messy and created a
Speaker 1: lot of confusions and questions, and I guess I'm at
Speaker 1: the point to where, Okay, if Sik is indeed going
Speaker 1: through all this trouble too and putting out all this
Speaker 1: money and time and effort, I would say I would
Speaker 1: hope that he is, in fact, you know, innocent, And
Speaker 1: even though we might not ever find out what actually
Speaker 1: happened there, whether he was innocent or not, I think
Speaker 1: that maybe by him doing all this, that does give
Speaker 1: people another perspective of maybe create an idea of like, Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe he is innocent, and now let's just focus on, yeah,
Speaker 1: the whole mess of how the NFL handles every situation
Speaker 1: in case and all that where there's a ton still
Speaker 1: left to go. It sounds like and obviously the next
Speaker 1: couple of weeks they'll be at least one decision that
Speaker 1: will further this thing and kind of move this thing
Speaker 1: along a little bit more. What we do know is
Speaker 1: that Ezekiel Ellet will be there to play against the
Speaker 1: San Francisco forty nine ers this Sunday at three oh
Speaker 1: five Central time, And so tomorrow we'll jump into that
Speaker 1: and talk about the San Francisco forty nine ers and
Speaker 1: what the Cowboys can't expect when they faced them on Sunday.
Speaker 1: Till then for Nick Eaton, Dave Hellman, and regard see,
Speaker 1: I'm Derek Egels and this has been In the Break
Speaker 1: live on Dallas Cowboys dot Com Radio. This has been
Speaker 1: a production of Dallas Cowboys dot Com and the Dallas
Speaker 1: Cowboys Football Club.