Adrian Peterson, retired (3 Viewers)

[Insein]

RW just went out on a major limb:

We tentatively expect Peterson to play in Week 12.

I realize they like to sell copy but...

doenst that pretty much guarantee he wont?

Yeah, seriously, thanks RW.

They are like the Otis of fantasy predictions.

 

[Jerry Curl]

I can't believe some of you think Goodell is handling this wrong? Peterson is the one that beat the kids. Goodell is facing pressure from sponsors who want no part of this. He's doing what he can to ensure that AP doesn't play. I don't see the problem.

Agree completely.The arbitration topic is a total non issue. That's just the interpretation of a letter agreement. The potential of litigation probably does not worry Goodell at all. I'm not so sure I love the facts that NFLPA will be working with. The NFL personal conduct policy says that it is player conduct that matters, and not whether he is convicted of a crime. What's the NFLPA argument? That Peterson's admitted and well documented violence against a 4 year old falls outside the policy? That misdemeanor crime has never been suspended... even though the NFL is absolutely authorized to do that? Roethlisberger was suspended for 6 games under the PCP without any criminal conviction, because "the league's integrity and reputation are at stake." The NFL is just checking the boxes now, following the PCP process so they don't lose on a foot foul. I don't see how the NFLPA brings Peterson's conduct back to the front page and walks off without its own black eye. Goodell? Probably will come out of this unscathed.

Reneging on a deal made just 3 months ago. Refusing to make a decision for fear of making the wrong one. Iconsistency on levels of punishment based on his arbitrary declaration of "damaging the image of the league."He may keep his job, but he brought relations with he NFLPA and the general public to the worst its been since the 87 strike. With 7 years to go in the CBA, expect another work stoppage thanks to violations like this.

rolls eyes, yeah 7 years from now the NFLPA will still be a very weak union and be put over the barrell by the owners, again. and there is no outcry from the general public besides ADP's FFL owners. LMFAOTotally agree with Shader,

Players in unions that are under a collectively bargained contract have certain rights if contract so states. I cant believe some of you think even if someone did something wrong that they are not entitled to those rights afforded to them. This is what this issue is about, not if he should not be suspended but if the NFL did not honor their contract.

There does not need to be outcry from the public, outcry from the public is what is wrong with this from the get go. NFLPA says the NFL is making things up as they go. That is not good for a relationship at all or for how dug in they are.

This is a big event for the league for precedent purposes.

What rights is AP missing out on? The right to play?

Did you really just ask that? How about his right to have a contract honored for starters.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

ESPN's Adam Schefter predicted on Sunday Countdown that Adrian Peterson will resume playing football "sooner rather than later."

"My sense is still that he will play this season," Schefter said, "and sooner rather than later." The NFL and NFLPA are going back and forth through the media, with Peterson issuing a statement on Sunday morning after the NFL accused him of missing a disciplinary hearing on Friday. The statement can be read at the link below. We tentatively expect Peterson to play in Week 12.

Nov 16 - 9:43 AM

 

[RenegadeGM]

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 42m 42 minutes ago
NFL deliberating on discipline for Adrian Peterson & it could come as early as Monday. Nothing definite but possible game-changer.

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 24m 24 minutes ago
By "game-changer" a decision on Peterson discipline could render any arbitrator's decision on reinstatement off paid leave somewhat moot.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I stand by my opinion that Peterson will still get suspended. How could he not? They basically paid him to "go away" for awhile to let the backlash stop. How do you think corporate sponsors will react to the NFL not suspending Peterson? He needs to be suspended for the year. We are wasting the middle of a football season talking about a lowlife who thinks its ok to hit your kids.

I disagree. I think he'll get time served and a fine/forfeit of some game checks.

And, for the record, I think it's perfectly fine to hit/spank your kids if they deserve it. Not saying that what Peterson did was acceptable - he did go a bit to far.

 

[LawFitz]

I stand by my opinion that Peterson will still get suspended. How could he not? They basically paid him to "go away" for awhile to let the backlash stop. How do you think corporate sponsors will react to the NFL not suspending Peterson? He needs to be suspended for the year. We are wasting the middle of a football season talking about a lowlife who thinks its ok to hit your kids.

How could he not? Plenty of scenarios have been laid out in this thread on how.

Restating your opinion over and over again doesn't make it anymore valid. Thanks, we got it, you don't think he'll play this season.

Now let's see what actually happens.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

I stand by my opinion that Peterson will still get suspended. How could he not? They basically paid him to "go away" for awhile to let the backlash stop. How do you think corporate sponsors will react to the NFL not suspending Peterson? He needs to be suspended for the year. We are wasting the middle of a football season talking about a lowlife who thinks its ok to hit your kids.

He pled "no contest" to a non-domestic-violence misdemeanor that will be expunged from his record in a year. That is a far cry from being found guilty of a DV offense.

As for the corporate sponsors, their current silence speaks volumes. Nike may have dropped Peterson as a personal client, but no sponsors have recently threatened to drop the Vikings or the NFL. Anheuser-Busch made a statement in September that they were "increasingly concerned", but they haven't said anything lately (and they haven't pulled any ads).

 

[Jerry Curl]

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 42m 42 minutes ago
NFL deliberating on discipline for Adrian Peterson & it could come as early as Monday. Nothing definite but possible game-changer.

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 24m 24 minutes ago
By "game-changer" a decision on Peterson discipline could render any arbitrator's decision on reinstatement off paid leave somewhat moot.

This is what I was waiting to see from the league. They do not want this going into courts and they still only have one decision to make for this to go away. Reinstate time served and fine. Anything else will have the NFLPA firing up appeals from all angles. You will here of his punishment before 2pm est tomorrow, hopefully.

 

[RenegadeGM]

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 42m 42 minutes ago
NFL deliberating on discipline for Adrian Peterson & it could come as early as Monday. Nothing definite but possible game-changer.

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 24m 24 minutes ago
By "game-changer" a decision on Peterson discipline could render any arbitrator's decision on reinstatement off paid leave somewhat moot.

This is what I was waiting to see from the league. They do not want this going into courts and they still only have one decision to make for this to go away. Reinstate time served and fine. Anything else will have the NFLPA firing up appeals from all angles. You will here of his punishment before 2pm est tomorrow, hopefully.

I hope so, but I think Mort is speculating they will suspend him before the hearing. That would open a whole new mess. I hope a resolution is coming, but things could just be getting started.

 

[cstu]

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 42m 42 minutes ago
NFL deliberating on discipline for Adrian Peterson & it could come as early as Monday. Nothing definite but possible game-changer.

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 24m 24 minutes ago
By "game-changer" a decision on Peterson discipline could render any arbitrator's decision on reinstatement off paid leave somewhat moot.

This is what I was waiting to see from the league. They do not want this going into courts and they still only have one decision to make for this to go away. Reinstate time served and fine. Anything else will have the NFLPA firing up appeals from all angles. You will here of his punishment before 2pm est tomorrow, hopefully.

I hope so, but I think Mort is speculating they will suspend him before the hearing. That would open a whole new mess. I hope a resolution is coming, but things could just be getting started.

If they are going to suspend him then they should do it in the morning before the hearing.

 

[TDorBust]

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 42m 42 minutes ago
NFL deliberating on discipline for Adrian Peterson & it could come as early as Monday. Nothing definite but possible game-changer.

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 24m 24 minutes ago
By "game-changer" a decision on Peterson discipline could render any arbitrator's decision on reinstatement off paid leave somewhat moot.

This is what I was waiting to see from the league. They do not want this going into courts and they still only have one decision to make for this to go away. Reinstate time served and fine. Anything else will have the NFLPA firing up appeals from all angles. You will here of his punishment before 2pm est tomorrow, hopefully.

I hope so, but I think Mort is speculating they will suspend him before the hearing. That would open a whole new mess. I hope a resolution is coming, but things could just be getting started.

If they are going to suspend him then they should do it in the morning before the hearing.

Nope, per the agreement I believe they were not going to leverage any punishment until after he was off the exempt list. I would bet they agree to remove him from the exempt list tomorrow and then suspend him.

After seeing the Vikings vs Bears game today anyone really think the Vikings are in playoff contention? Even if they do come back its against another poor team the Bears. Pretty sure the Vikings front office can now answer the question on if they want him back this year or not.

 

[BigJim®]

Not a good decision blowing it off. At least make an effort and show up. What else is going on more important?

Even if it's posturing this could now drag on? Why delay the meet? What does Peterson have to gain by blowing off the NFL?

If Peterson shows up at the hearing, then he'd be legitimizing Roger Goodell's made-up rules. Peterson and his lawyer are arguing that Goodell has no right to schedule a hearing in the first place.

"Take me off the Exempt List, THEN we'll talk about a disciplinary hearing."

One could take a stubborn stance, but it seems his best chance of seeing the sooner rather than later is in not fighting the league.

I'm not sure of the significance of the Exempt List in that removal doesn't put him on the field. The NFL could slap on a 6 game suspension. I suspect retaining him on the list is just a bridge as, after today's game, 6 games closes out the season.

Lawyers can argue all day long but that's just a time consuming process. Good for the lawyers, not necessarily so for ADP.

Is that 6 games under the domestic violence provision which doesn't mention child abuse? So the penalty for Peterson will be 9 games paid voluntary leave from the game, plus 6 game unpaid suspension. That's his penalty, 15 games, under a provision that doesn't mention what he's being punished for?

While "domestic violence" is typically thought of as spousal abuse it also includes other family violence. I'm sorry that you can't see beating your son and stuffing leaves in his mouth as being "domestic" and "violent".. But, I think the NFL and most rational people, whose judgement isn't clouded by fantasy football, see this differently.

Yes, that it his penalty.

You are speaking generally. Look at the actual domestic violence penalty at issue here, it only mentions children once, and that is when a woman is beat in front of the child. It's badly written but that's on the NFL.

I'm speaking as if the league had broad discretion over personal conduct and other issues. You want to play Philadelphia Lawyer and use the semantics of the rule to decide what is and isn't included. I'm much more in-line with the intent of rules rather than the specific wording.

Semantics don't even matter here. Under the prior CPC, a player can be suspended for conduct generally that reflects poorly on the NFL, whether or not convicted of a crime (see Roethlisberger). Under the new policy "Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant." Anyone who believes the new policy to be limited to their definition of domestic abuse needs to read the policy, and understand what the word "or" means. Peterson pled no contest to assault, which is covered by the policy whether or not it is domestic abuse of a spouse.

 

[Donnybrook]

Where will he play next year?

 

[bill bates hits hard]

Where will he play next year?

J.E.T.S

 

[skol asylum]

Where will he play next year?

Seattle with Lynch coming to Minnesota?

 

[IHEARTFF]

So another 47,150 posts and no new info...can we lock this thread until something newsworthy happens?

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Semantics don't even matter here. Under the prior CPC, a player can be suspended for conduct generally that reflects poorly on the NFL, whether or not convicted of a crime (see Roethlisberger). Under the new policy "Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant." Anyone who believes the new policy to be limited to their definition of domestic abuse needs to read the policy, and understand what the word "or" means. Peterson pled no contest to assault, which is covered by the policy whether or not it is domestic abuse of a spouse.

If we're going to use Big Jim's rule of strict interpretation of the Personal Conduct Policy, then I should first point out that the new policy wasn't enacted until 3 months after Peterson hit his son and therefore might not be able to be applied retroactively.

Second, the policy is vague about whether "physical force" is an element that must be present with all assaults (or if it is only associated with sexual assault). Since Peterson did not use any physical force when disciplining his son, the policy may not apply to his case.

 

[skol asylum]

It doesnt take physical force to swing a switch hard enough to break the skin? Really?

 

[Mr. Retukes]

It doesnt take physical force to swing a switch hard enough to break the skin? Really?

No, it does not. That's kind of the point of using a switch, actually. It allows you to inflict just as much pain without requiring a lot of muscle. That's why it was the preferred method of punishment for grandmothers for hundreds of years.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If we're going to use Big Jim's rule of strict interpretation of the Personal Conduct Policy, then I should first point out that the new policy wasn't enacted until 3 months after Peterson hit his son and therefore might not be able to be applied retroactively.

The "new policy" is just the domestic violence addendum. Peterson can still be punished under the Personal Conduct Policy that's been in existence all along.

Since Peterson did not use any physical force when disciplining his son

wat

What Peterson did can and will be punished under the Conduct Policy. I didn't think there was really any debate about that. The question that remains is whether Peterson has any recourse to fight against the disciplinary action that the league takes (I don't think he really does, but I readily admit that I'm not sure about that - I think we all just have to wait and see).

 

[fatness]

Since Peterson did not use any physical force when disciplining his son, the policy may not apply to his case.

Good lord.

I guess the kid's bleeding was caused by "mental force" then.

 

[skol asylum]

It doesnt take physical force to swing a switch hard enough to break the skin? Really?

No, it does not. That's kind of the point of using a switch, actually. It allows you to inflict just as much pain without requiring a lot of muscle. That's why it was the preferred method of punishment for grandmothers for hundreds of years.

Oh ok. :shakeshead:

 

[Oscar]

Does anybody know what time this hearing is taking place today?

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Does anybody know what time this hearing is taking place today?

2pm Eastern I believe...

 

[Jerry Curl]

 

[JimmyJabroni]

It's the calm before the storm. Everyone just waiting to see what happens. Hopefully we get some clarity soon.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2269508-adrian-peterson-isnt-the-victim-his-son-is#articles/2269508-adrian-peterson-isnt-the-victim-his-son-is

 

[weebs]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2269508-adrian-peterson-isnt-the-victim-his-son-is#articles/2269508-adrian-peterson-isnt-the-victim-his-son-is

Tldr

 

[Insein]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2269508-adrian-peterson-isnt-the-victim-his-son-is#articles/2269508-adrian-peterson-isnt-the-victim-his-son-is

No child rea

 

[Jerry Curl]

George Atallah ‏@GeorgeAtallah 38s38 seconds ago
It is now 2:00pm eastern

George Atallah doing some trolling of the NFL.

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 8s8 seconds ago
The grievance hearing has now begun RT @GeorgeAtallah: It is now 2:00pm eastern

 

[Sabertooth]

 

[Henry Ford]

Semantics don't even matter here. Under the prior CPC, a player can be suspended for conduct generally that reflects poorly on the NFL, whether or not convicted of a crime (see Roethlisberger). Under the new policy "Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant." Anyone who believes the new policy to be limited to their definition of domestic abuse needs to read the policy, and understand what the word "or" means. Peterson pled no contest to assault, which is covered by the policy whether or not it is domestic abuse of a spouse.

If we're going to use Big Jim's rule of strict interpretation of the Personal Conduct Policy, then I should first point out that the new policy wasn't enacted until 3 months after Peterson hit his son and therefore might not be able to be applied retroactively.

Second, the policy is vague about whether "physical force" is an element that must be present with all assaults (or if it is only associated with sexual assault). Since Peterson did not use any physical force when disciplining his son, the policy may not apply to his case.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Jerry Curl]

1. George Atallah ‏@GeorgeAtallah 21m21 minutes ago
   It is now 2:00pm eastern
   
   
   
2. 
   Cindy Boren ‏@CindyBoren 17m17 minutes ago
   @GeorgeAtallah Conference call password: Kumbaya.
   
   
   
3. 
   George Atallah ‏@GeorgeAtallah 3m3 minutes ago
   @CindyBoren or the opposite of that...
   
   

 

[cstu]

Second, the policy is vague about whether "physical force" is an element that must be present with all assaults (or if it is only associated with sexual assault). Since Peterson did not use any physical force when disciplining his son, the policy may not apply to his case.

What the hell are you talking about?

He didn't use his hands.

 

[Henry Ford]

Second, the policy is vague about whether "physical force" is an element that must be present with all assaults (or if it is only associated with sexual assault). Since Peterson did not use any physical force when disciplining his son, the policy may not apply to his case.

What the hell are you talking about?

He didn't use his hands.

What did he hold the switch in?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Second, the policy is vague about whether "physical force" is an element that must be present with all assaults (or if it is only associated with sexual assault). Since Peterson did not use any physical force when disciplining his son, the policy may not apply to his case.

What the hell are you talking about?

He didn't use his hands.

 

[TDorBust]

How many dirty looks are going back and forth in the meeting right now likely?

Odds we hear a final verdict of punishment at this meeting? Or will the NFL wait still? I feel they will announce it if any today after they talk with AP and the NFLPA.

 

[Jerry Curl]

How many dirty looks are going back and forth in the meeting right now likely?

Odds we hear a final verdict of punishment at this meeting? Or will the NFL wait still? I feel they will announce it if any today after they talk with AP and the NFLPA.

This is a dirty fight, both parties know it and both parties know they have to reinstate Peterson because the contract states he already should have. This is not domestic abuse law, its contract law.

 

[theplayer11]

How many dirty looks are going back and forth in the meeting right now likely?

Odds we hear a final verdict of punishment at this meeting? Or will the NFL wait still? I feel they will announce it if any today after they talk with AP and the NFLPA.

This is a dirty fight, both parties know it and both parties know they have to reinstate Peterson because the contract states he already should have. This is not domestic abuse law, its contract law.

what contract are you referring to?

 

[Jerry Curl]

How many dirty looks are going back and forth in the meeting right now likely?

Odds we hear a final verdict of punishment at this meeting? Or will the NFL wait still? I feel they will announce it if any today after they talk with AP and the NFLPA.

This is a dirty fight, both parties know it and both parties know they have to reinstate Peterson because the contract states he already should have. This is not domestic abuse law, its contract law.

what contract are you referring to?

The one he signed when they put him on the CEL.

 

[theplayer11]

How many dirty looks are going back and forth in the meeting right now likely?

Odds we hear a final verdict of punishment at this meeting? Or will the NFL wait still? I feel they will announce it if any today after they talk with AP and the NFLPA.

This is a dirty fight, both parties know it and both parties know they have to reinstate Peterson because the contract states he already should have. This is not domestic abuse law, its contract law.

what contract are you referring to?

The one he signed when they put him on the CEL.

didn't that say the NFL could't punish until the allegations were resolved? Now that they have been, the NFL can suspend him..

no? The dude was being paid this whole time, that is not punishment.

 

[I Am the Stig]

How many dirty looks are going back and forth in the meeting right now likely?

Odds we hear a final verdict of punishment at this meeting? Or will the NFL wait still? I feel they will announce it if any today after they talk with AP and the NFLPA.

This is a dirty fight, both parties know it and both parties know they have to reinstate Peterson because the contract states he already should have. This is not domestic abuse law, its contract law.

what contract are you referring to?

The one he signed when they put him on the CEL.

didn't that say the NFL could't punish until the allegations were resolved? Now that they have been, the NFL can suspend him..

no? The dude was being paid this whole time, that is not punishment.

They could fine him and then call it timed served, or they could just suspend him and claim what you are saying, that CEL wasn't and isn't to be considered "punishment". But they cant punish him until they reinstate him.

 

[nastynate]

This meeting is with a 3rd party arbitrator, to discuss the issue of Peterson being held on the exempt list.

After the hearing, the 3rd party (Shyam Das), will have 5 days to make a ruling.

In the meantime, the NFL could choose to pursue additional disciplinary action. Should they impose additional discipline, Peterson's removal from the exempt list won't change his availability.

That said, if the NFL chooses to suspend Peterson additional games, I'm willing to make a sizable bet the NFLPA and Hardin will immediately file an appeal, that coincides with a request to suspend the ruling, until the appeal is heard.

In short, Peterson coming off the exempt list is today's call, but the NFL still hasn't ruled on whether to suspend him or not. This is just step one in the road back. I fully expect the NFL to try to suspend him within the next 5 days.

 

[GregR]

If we're going to use Big Jim's rule of strict interpretation of the Personal Conduct Policy, then I should first point out that the new policy wasn't enacted until 3 months after Peterson hit his son and therefore might not be able to be applied retroactively.

The "new policy" is just the domestic violence addendum. Peterson can still be punished under the Personal Conduct Policy that's been in existence all along.

Since Peterson did not use any physical force when disciplining his son

wat

What Peterson did can and will be punished under the Conduct Policy. I didn't think there was really any debate about that. The question that remains is whether Peterson has any recourse to fight against the disciplinary action that the league takes (I don't think he really does, but I readily admit that I'm not sure about that - I think we all just have to wait and see).

Good post.

At least as I understand it, the Personal Conduct Policy already gave the league the ability to level these punishments for this kind of behavior. All the domestic abuse policy did was clarify which of those punishments to expect for domestic abuse, etc, cases.

If that isn't the case, I expect we'll see a grievance filed by the NFLPA over it at the first opportunity. The current grievance over Peterson being on the CEL doesn't deal with that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 42m 42 minutes ago
NFL deliberating on discipline for Adrian Peterson & it could come as early as Monday. Nothing definite but possible game-changer.

Chris Mortensen @mortreport · 24m 24 minutes ago
By "game-changer" a decision on Peterson discipline could render any arbitrator's decision on reinstatement off paid leave somewhat moot.

Well this is supposedly maybe happening today, if Mort is right.

After the hearing or tomorrow, the NFL could just preempt the grievance decision, move him off the exempt list and suspend him. Then the union files an appeal, AP files an injunction, yadayada....

 

[GregR]

How many dirty looks are going back and forth in the meeting right now likely?

Odds we hear a final verdict of punishment at this meeting? Or will the NFL wait still? I feel they will announce it if any today after they talk with AP and the NFLPA.

This is a dirty fight, both parties know it and both parties know they have to reinstate Peterson because the contract states he already should have. This is not domestic abuse law, its contract law.

what contract are you referring to?

The one he signed when they put him on the CEL.

didn't that say the NFL could't punish until the allegations were resolved? Now that they have been, the NFL can suspend him..

no? The dude was being paid this whole time, that is not punishment.

They could fine him and then call it timed served, or they could just suspend him and claim what you are saying, that CEL wasn't and isn't to be considered "punishment". But they cant punish him until they reinstate him.

I'm sure the NFL will be arguing that. Though I'm interested to hear an argument that would win for them. The NFL couldn't even keep Steve McNair from using the practice facility while under contract. If they can't bar a player from using their facilities but can bar one from playing without it being punishment for violating his contract, then I'm interested to hear the reasoning why.

 

[CalBear]

Semantics don't even matter here. Under the prior CPC, a player can be suspended for conduct generally that reflects poorly on the NFL, whether or not convicted of a crime (see Roethlisberger). Under the new policy "Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant." Anyone who believes the new policy to be limited to their definition of domestic abuse needs to read the policy, and understand what the word "or" means. Peterson pled no contest to assault, which is covered by the policy whether or not it is domestic abuse of a spouse.

I would point out here that while this policy does allow longer suspensions "when circumstances warrant," it's pretty clear that the circumstances of the abuse don't warrant it here. The policy defines the baseline punishment for domestic abuse first offenders (6 weeks), and this situation is pretty clearly in that bucket. If the kid wound up in the hospital, or Peterson was charged with a felony, there might be a case for a longer suspension, but this situation is pretty much open-and-shut on the baseline punishment being appropriate. This differs from the Ray Rice situation for that reason.

So the question is whether it will be six weeks tacked on after he's reinstated, or whether he'll get credit for time served.

 

[CalBear]

I'm sure the NFL will be arguing that. Though I'm interested to hear an argument that would win for them. The NFL couldn't even keep Steve McNair from using the practice facility while under contract. If they can't bar a player from using their facilities but can bar one from playing without it being punishment for violating his contract, then I'm interested to hear the reasoning why.

I think the most relevant situation is Terrell Owens', where the new CBA explicitly disallows clubs making players inactive as a form of punishment.

 

[TDorBust]

Semantics don't even matter here. Under the prior CPC, a player can be suspended for conduct generally that reflects poorly on the NFL, whether or not convicted of a crime (see Roethlisberger). Under the new policy "Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant." Anyone who believes the new policy to be limited to their definition of domestic abuse needs to read the policy, and understand what the word "or" means. Peterson pled no contest to assault, which is covered by the policy whether or not it is domestic abuse of a spouse.

I would point out here that while this policy does allow longer suspensions "when circumstances warrant," it's pretty clear that the circumstances of the abuse don't warrant it here. The policy defines the baseline punishment for domestic abuse first offenders (6 weeks), and this situation is pretty clearly in that bucket. If the kid wound up in the hospital, or Peterson was charged with a felony, there might be a case for a longer suspension, but this situation is pretty much open-and-shut on the baseline punishment being appropriate. This differs from the Ray Rice situation for that reason.

So the question is whether it will be six weeks tacked on after he's reinstated, or whether he'll get credit for time served.

Wait I thought he was CHARGED with a Felony? He just plead down to a lower charge? Also how often to people charged with the Felony end up with lessor convictions because they plead it down thus saving tax-payer money?

 

[BigJim®]

Semantics don't even matter here. Under the prior CPC, a player can be suspended for conduct generally that reflects poorly on the NFL, whether or not convicted of a crime (see Roethlisberger). Under the new policy "Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant." Anyone who believes the new policy to be limited to their definition of domestic abuse needs to read the policy, and understand what the word "or" means. Peterson pled no contest to assault, which is covered by the policy whether or not it is domestic abuse of a spouse.

I would point out here that while this policy does allow longer suspensions "when circumstances warrant," it's pretty clear that the circumstances of the abuse don't warrant it here. The policy defines the baseline punishment for domestic abuse first offenders (6 weeks), and this situation is pretty clearly in that bucket. If the kid wound up in the hospital, or Peterson was charged with a felony, there might be a case for a longer suspension, but this situation is pretty much open-and-shut on the baseline punishment being appropriate. This differs from the Ray Rice situation for that reason.

So the question is whether it will be six weeks tacked on after he's reinstated, or whether he'll get credit for time served.

All sides agreed in advance that the exempt list was not itself punishment. He was paid, and the letter contemplated any punishment to be assessed only after adjudication. Of course the NFL can decide to give him credit for it, but doesn't seem as if they are intent on that.