David Moore: Self-destructive dance between NFL and Ezekiel Elliott continues

FRISCO, Texas _ Harold Henderson was the only person left who had the power to give both sides an out.

The arbiter was the only one in position to find a compromise that Ezekiel Elliott and the NFL would have complained about publicly, yet quietly been thanking him for finding a way out of this high-profile showdown.

That's no longer an option. Henderson has upheld the commissioner's six-game suspension of the league's leading rusher. The only chance for the Cowboys running back now is for the courts to side with the assertion of Elliott's defense team that their client is "the victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by the National Football League and its officers to keep exonerating evidence from the decision-makers."

Good luck.

Before we go any further, let's make this clear. It wasn't Henderson's charge to broker peace. It wasn't his mandate to find a way to minimize the damage for both sides.

Henderson's task was to determine if Roger Goodell's decision was "arbitrary and capricious."

He determined it wasn't. That led to the indignant response by Elliott's representatives.

For the sake of argument let's take this in another direction. How would this have unfolded if Henderson had reduced the suspension to two or three games?

The NFL would have argued that Henderson strayed outside his purview and second-guessed the commissioner. Goodell would have been upset for having his authority undercut. But would he and the league office pursue a legal remedy?

Why, so Elliott's representatives could hammer the commissioner in court about how Kia Roberts, the NFL's lead investigator and the only person in the league office to interview the accuser, wasn't given a strong enough voice? Would the league office want to continually be on the defensive about how her recommendation that Elliott not be punished was ignored?

Unlikely.

Now, let's look at this from Elliott's perspective. The claims by his defense team that the process was inherently unfair would still ring, but would they still embrace this nuclear option over two or three games? Would Jerry Jones and the Cowboys be as hawkish behind the scenes as they are now, or would the owner look at the landscape, argue the running back and the team can live with two or three games and implore Elliott and his team to put all this behind them?

We'll never know. Henderson's ruling ensured there will be no compromise. Neither side is interested in finding middle ground. Both sides are engaged in an all-or-nothing race.

In that respect, it mirrors the political climate in our country today.

Elliott's side was never going to have Goodell's decision vacated on appeal. Their best hope was to box the NFL into a position where it felt compelled to shave some time off the ruling, to leverage the revelation about Roberts into a more beneficial decision for their client.

Again, no one is arguing this is what Henderson should have done. Once he determined "the policy has been followed closely, step by step," there was no latitude for him to find a way to end this self-destructive dance between the NFL and one of its brightest young stars.

But he was the last person who could have altered this contentious path.