Not really. OJ Simpson anyone?
A case can be proved on the balance of probabilities despite failing to meet the higher criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecutors may simply have formed a view that the higher criminal standard couldn't be met.
Another example, in NSW it is not uncommon for an assault charge to be dismissed yet the magistrate still finds sufficient proof to justify making an AVO against the defendant, on balance of probabilities.
My point wasn't whether or not a civil case will find him guilty or not ... my point was that the NRL when determining if he should be suspended should view the case in the light of the US prosecutors decision that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
For the NRL to decide there is enough evidence to suspend would be foolishness of Greenbergish proportions.