Adrian Peterson, retired (3 Viewers)

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

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?

Happens all the time with first timers especially if they have money

 

[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?

Happens all the time with first timers especially if they have money

I assumed but wasn't willing to make the statement without something more than just my hunch from hearing from my mother-in-law who used to work in the Child Welfare Services area of the local county government.

 

[mbuehner]

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?

The better question is how many times do prosecutors overcharge to strong arm the defendant into accepting a plea bargain? Keeps the prosecutors numbers lookin real nice. Its a rampant practice- either take the deal or bankrupt yourself even if you keep yourself out of a long prison stint.

 

[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.

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?

Let me put it this way: What are the particulars of this case that would make it qualify for a greater than 6-week suspension? The way the policy is written, it's clearly expected that most domestic violence cases should get the 6-week suspension. This seems like a pretty standard case.

 

[KellysHeroes]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/us/adrian-peterson-nfl-discipline-hearing/index.html

 

[theplayer11]

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?

Let me put it this way: What are the particulars of this case that would make it qualify for a greater than 6-week suspension? The way the policy is written, it's clearly expected that most domestic violence cases should get the 6-week suspension. This seems like a pretty standard case.

suspended WITH pay, so how was ADP punished? How is missing work while still being paid any type of punishment and why do people consider this "time served"? I'm having a hard time comprehending this point of view. The only people that were hurt with Peterson's so called "punishment" were people who owned him in their fantasy leagues.

 

[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.

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?

Let me put it this way: What are the particulars of this case that would make it qualify for a greater than 6-week suspension? The way the policy is written, it's clearly expected that most domestic violence cases should get the 6-week suspension. This seems like a pretty standard case.

suspended WITH pay, so how was ADP punished? How is missing work while still being paid any type of punishment and why do people consider this "time served"? I'm having a hard time comprehending this point of view. The only people that were hurt with Pederson's so called "punishment" were people who owned him in their fantasy leagues.

You're arguing the wrong point. Read my first post again.

 

[I Am the Stig]

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?

Let me put it this way: What are the particulars of this case that would make it qualify for a greater than 6-week suspension? The way the policy is written, it's clearly expected that most domestic violence cases should get the 6-week suspension. This seems like a pretty standard case.

suspended WITH pay, so how was ADP punished? How is missing work while still being paid any type of punishment and why do people consider this "time served"? I'm having a hard time comprehending this point of view. The only people that were hurt with Peterson's so called "punishment" were people who owned him in their fantasy leagues.

 

[bolzano]

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?

Let me put it this way: What are the particulars of this case that would make it qualify for a greater than 6-week suspension? The way the policy is written, it's clearly expected that most domestic violence cases should get the 6-week suspension. This seems like a pretty standard case.

suspended WITH pay, so how was ADP punished? How is missing work while still being paid any type of punishment and why do people consider this "time served"? I'm having a hard time comprehending this point of view. The only people that were hurt with Pederson's so called "punishment" were people who owned him in their fantasy leagues.

You're arguing the wrong point. Read my first post again.

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. Among the circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty would be a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11425532/roger-goodell-letter-nfl-teams-domestic-violence-policy

 

[JimmyJabroni]

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?

Happens all the time with first timers especially if they have money

Even in cases where a child's well being is at stake? I'm asking seriously because I hope that's not the case. I would hope that if a prosecutor thought a child would be in danger of abuse at the hands of a parent that they would not allow a plea to a lesser charge that would allow the parent to continue to have unsupervised contact.

 

[GregR]

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.

I disagree. I think a child having been the victim is such a circumstance.

The policy gives some examples of circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty. It isn't an all inclusive list. If they felt such actions in the presence of a child warranted more severe discipline, I would assume said actions committed on a child would too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

I disagree. I think a child having been the victim is such a circumstance.

The policy gives some examples of circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty. It isn't an all inclusive list. If they felt such actions in the presence of a child warranted more severe discipline, I would assume said actions committed on a child would too.

That doesn't make sense, why then would they put in writing the example of abuse in the presence of a child and not that of a child itself?

Because they did not consider it, just as they did not consider having a domestic abuse policy for years in the first place. It's sloppy, it's poor drafting on their part, and they will get caught on it just like they did with Ray Rice. Unless they just make it up on the spot like they did with Rice, which they very well might.

 

[GregR]

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.

I disagree. I think a child having been the victim is such a circumstance.

The policy gives some examples of circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty. It isn't an all inclusive list. If they felt such actions in the presence of a child warranted more severe discipline, I would assume said actions committed on a child would too.

That doesn't make sense, why then would they put in writing the example of abuse in the presence of a child and not that of a child itself?

Because they did not consider it, just as they did not consider having a domestic abuse policy for years in the first place. It's sloppy, it's poor drafting on their part, and they will get caught on it just like they did with Ray Rice. Unless they just make it up on the spot like they did with Rice, which they very well might.

They were clear each situation would be considered on its own merits ("with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant").

The wording is clear they were giving some but not all examples. ("Among the circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty would be..."). The word "among" means these are some of the group but not the entirety of the group.

I don't see room for this kind of objection to how it's written. There's a ####-ton of things the NFL has done wrong over the entirety of these situations that are valid to criticize them for. Not enumerating every last worse-than-normal offense is not one of them.

Edit to add: Having the forethought to realize they won't have thought of everything and so wording it appropriate is something they did right.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There's a ####-ton of things the NFL has done wrong over the entirety of these situations that are valid to criticize them for. Not enumerating every last worse-than-normal offense is not one of them.

Greg, isn't that precisely how the Rice situation developed? The domestic violence situation was not spelled out in the PCP. So they leveled a penalty under the PCP, then the outcry when RG was caught at having evidence he said he didn't have, then he wrote a new policy and penalized Rice under a policy which did not exist at the time of the events or original penalty. This is post hoc rule-making at its worst. Would they do it again? Sure, but that's exactly what they will be doing.

 

[bolzano]

There's a ####-ton of things the NFL has done wrong over the entirety of these situations that are valid to criticize them for. Not enumerating every last worse-than-normal offense is not one of them.

Greg, isn't that precisely how the Rice situation developed? The domestic violence situation was not spelled out in the PCP. So they leveled a penalty under the PCP, then the outcry when RG was caught at having evidence he said he didn't have, then he wrote a new policy and penalized Rice under a policy which did not exist at the time of the events or original penalty. This is post hoc rule-making at its worst. Would they do it again? Sure, but that's exactly what they will be doing.

I might be wrong, but I believe Rice's primary argument is that his indefinite suspension violates the one penalty provision in the most recent CBA. i.e. Since the league imposed a two game suspension for his behavior in the summer, the NFL cannot suspend him again. Unless I'm missing something, AP cannot make the same argument since he hasn't yet been officially disciplined by the league.

 

[GregR]

You're complaining about not having a policy and then complaining when they came up with a policy which actually fills in the hole.

They were wise enough (a term I don't use often for the NFL these days) to realize they weren't going to be able to list every single circumstance that might ever occur. But they gave a decent list where a reasonable person can look at it and say, "Oh, beating a child is worse than beating someone in front of a child, so it would stand to reason that could incur greater punishment."

If not what they did, how do you envision this working? What is your all-inclusive list of circumstances that should have been in there that is going to cover every conceivable case?

 

[Road Warriors]

He's going to whip this thing. You just watch.

That's just nuts. I can't see how the league would switch their position like that

 

[Henry Ford]

He's going to whip this thing. You just watch.

That's just nuts. I can't see how the league would switch their position like that

Mark it down. This guy's career has legs. He'll be back.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

@RapSheet: The Adrian Peterson hearing is now over. The wait begins.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You're complaining about not having a policy and then complaining when they came up with a policy which actually fills in the hole.

They were wise enough (a term I don't use often for the NFL these days) to realize they weren't going to be able to list every single circumstance that might ever occur. But they gave a decent list where a reasonable person can look at it and say, "Oh, beating a child is worse than beating someone in front of a child, so it would stand to reason that could incur greater punishment."

If not what they did, how do you envision this working? What is your all-inclusive list of circumstances that should have been in there that is going to cover every conceivable case?

This was prescient, from Florio on 9/21/14:

When rolling out the new domestic violence policy in late August, Commissioner Roger Goodell admitted that, as to the Ray Rice investigation, the NFL didn’t get it right. But in preparing the new domestic violence policy, the NFL got it wrong, again.

The new domestic violence policy wasn’t a policy; it was a formula for penalties to be imposed on players who have committed domestic violence or sexual assault. For a first offense, the player will be suspended a baseline amount of six games, with the number possibly going up or down based on the surrounding circumstances. For a second offense, the player will be banished for life, with the opportunity to reapply after one year.

But the new domestic violence policy said nothing about how an offense would be defined. In the aftermath of the announcement of the new policy, ESPN reported that an offense would be determined once the legal process had ended. The league disputed that, telling PFT by email, “Each case will be addressed individually on its merits.”

And again, from 9/4/14:

So a suspension of a player who was facing an unresolved charge could be contested by the union. And the union didn't simply limit it to that scenario.

At a flag football event Wednesday in Renton, Wash., Goodell said that for the league to impose discipline a person would have to be "not only charged, but we would wait for the legal system to complete its process, particularly in any case on a first (offender). That's something that's very important to us."

To answer your question, the fact they do not define it is in and of itself a problem. A policy that can be expanded to include whatever the commissioner thinks should be included is not in fact a policy at all.

Secondly it's not clear that RG could have done anything to AP under the new DV policy. That's one reason it behooved them as much as AP to enter this agreement. RG could have leveled the discipline under the PCP back after week 1 but he did not.

So how does this work? It doesn't. What circumstances should be included? I don't know, a lot of things, but the key is they weren't, and a policy without a definition (and not bargained under the CBA) is not a policy at all.

 

[mbuehner]

 

[JimmyJabroni]

Peterson ruling could come by Wednesday

Posted by Mike Florio on November 17, 2014, 6:42 PM EST

As expected, arbitrator Shyam Das conducted a hearing on Monday regarding the effort to reinstate Vikings running back Adrian Peterson from the Commissioner-Exempt list. Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the hearing was conducted and fully completed on Monday.

By rule, a decision must come by Saturday, November 22. The source says a ruling likely will come within two days.

If so, it will give Peterson an opportunity to practice with the Vikings in advance of Sunday’s game against the Packers.

Meanwhile, the NFL has taken no action against Peterson under the personal conduct policy. Multiple reports indicated that the league would be suspending Peterson on Monday as punishment for his no-contest plea on misdemeanor assault charges in Texas. The league’s failure to act invites speculation that the parties could be engaged in discussions aimed at resolving Peterson’s status.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

An article on ESPN suggest the ruling may happen tomorrow.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yahoo now projecting points for Peterson in week 12.

 

[theplayer11]

suspend his butt, come on Goodell

 

[GregR]

You're complaining about not having a policy and then complaining when they came up with a policy which actually fills in the hole.

They were wise enough (a term I don't use often for the NFL these days) to realize they weren't going to be able to list every single circumstance that might ever occur. But they gave a decent list where a reasonable person can look at it and say, "Oh, beating a child is worse than beating someone in front of a child, so it would stand to reason that could incur greater punishment."

If not what they did, how do you envision this working? What is your all-inclusive list of circumstances that should have been in there that is going to cover every conceivable case?

This was prescient, from Florio on 9/21/14:

When rolling out the new domestic violence policy in late August, Commissioner Roger Goodell admitted that, as to the Ray Rice investigation, the NFL didn’t get it right. But in preparing the new domestic violence policy, the NFL got it wrong, again.

The new domestic violence policy wasn’t a policy; it was a formula for penalties to be imposed on players who have committed domestic violence or sexual assault. For a first offense, the player will be suspended a baseline amount of six games, with the number possibly going up or down based on the surrounding circumstances. For a second offense, the player will be banished for life, with the opportunity to reapply after one year.

But the new domestic violence policy said nothing about how an offense would be defined. In the aftermath of the announcement of the new policy, ESPN reported that an offense would be determined once the legal process had ended. The league disputed that, telling PFT by email, “Each case will be addressed individually on its merits.”

And again, from 9/4/14:

So a suspension of a player who was facing an unresolved charge could be contested by the union. And the union didn't simply limit it to that scenario.

At a flag football event Wednesday in Renton, Wash., Goodell said that for the league to impose discipline a person would have to be "not only charged, but we would wait for the legal system to complete its process, particularly in any case on a first (offender). That's something that's very important to us."

To answer your question, the fact they do not define it is in and of itself a problem. A policy that can be expanded to include whatever the commissioner thinks should be included is not in fact a policy at all.

Secondly it's not clear that RG could have done anything to AP under the new DV policy. That's one reason it behooved them as much as AP to enter this agreement. RG could have leveled the discipline under the PCP back after week 1 but he did not.

So how does this work? It doesn't. What circumstances should be included? I don't know, a lot of things, but the key is they weren't, and a policy without a definition (and not bargained under the CBA) is not a policy at all.

Peterson was charged with felony assault and pled guilty to misdemeanor assault. The policy states it covers assault. There is no way a reasonable person could conclude Peterson's is a case of the policy being "expanded to include whatever the commissioner thinks should be included".

If you have an issue about the policy not being clear enough in defining an offense, that's one thing. Trying to make it out that Peterson's case is an example of it, when it clearly isn't, ends up making it seem like ripping on the NFL for the sake of ripping on the NFL.

Lots of room to criticize the NFL. Keeping him on the CEL was wrong. Handling of Rice and double punishing was wrong. Not being ready to handle Peterson's punishment immediately if they were going to keep him off the field was a blunder.

But this isn't a valid one.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok thanks. This has been said elsewhere.

Goodell is unlikely to impose the domestic violence policy to Peterson’s situation. The policy, as worded by Goodell, does not appear inclusive of violent acts against children and instead seems limited to acts against intimate partners. In his memo, Goodell detailed the circumstances of applying the policy to “a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.” Goodell’s only reference to a “child” is a child being near a violent act by an NFL player, presumably against a spouse or partner.

If Goodell nonetheless cites the domestic violence policy to punish Peterson, Peterson and the NFLPA might seek a grievance proceeding against the league and Goodell. They would argue that Goodell has misinterpreted his own policy.

Florio has also argued this, and as mentioned it was a policy created post hoc and outside the CBA. As such yes RG could levy a penalty under it but I bet AP and the union challenge that immediately.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Ok thanks. This has been said elsewhere.

Goodell is unlikely to impose the domestic violence policy to Petersons situation. The policy, as worded by Goodell, does not appear inclusive of violent acts against children and instead seems limited to acts against intimate partners. In his memo, Goodell detailed the circumstances of applying the policy to a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child. Goodells only reference to a child is a child being near a violent act by an NFL player, presumably against a spouse or partner.

If Goodell nonetheless cites the domestic violence policy to punish Peterson, Peterson and the NFLPA might seek a grievance proceeding against the league and Goodell. They would argue that Goodell has misinterpreted his own policy.

Florio has also argued this, and as mentioned it was a policy created post hoc and outside the CBA. As such yes RG could levy a penalty under it but I bet AP and the union challenge that immediately.

Isn't the switching of a child in his presence?

 

[GreenNGold]

I don't understand why he had to go on the exempt list in the first place, it was his first offense, should have just been given the 6 game suspension to begin with, and this would already be over and he would be back on the field where he belongs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ok thanks. This has been said elsewhere.

Goodell is unlikely to impose the domestic violence policy to Petersons situation. The policy, as worded by Goodell, does not appear inclusive of violent acts against children and instead seems limited to acts against intimate partners. In his memo, Goodell detailed the circumstances of applying the policy to a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child. Goodells only reference to a child is a child being near a violent act by an NFL player, presumably against a spouse or partner.

If Goodell nonetheless cites the domestic violence policy to punish Peterson, Peterson and the NFLPA might seek a grievance proceeding against the league and Goodell. They would argue that Goodell has misinterpreted his own policy.

Florio has also argued this, and as mentioned it was a policy created post hoc and outside the CBA. As such yes RG could levy a penalty under it but I bet AP and the union challenge that immediately.

Isn't the switching of a child in his presence?

Agreed, yes, the NFL could say that. He could also use "violence involving a weapon" and "repeated striking." - And RG could say child abuse is domestic violence, period. And I agree it is. - But this whole thing is outside the CBA, it was created in the midst of the Ray Rice imbroglio, and if you look up every law or good policy in the US on DV it defines the term. Goodell did not. - I'm just saying that if RG uses the DVP the union and AP will challenge that too, maybe in an appeal, maybe in court. - And again, others have written/said this.

 

[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.

I disagree. I think a child having been the victim is such a circumstance.

The policy gives some examples of circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty. It isn't an all inclusive list. If they felt such actions in the presence of a child warranted more severe discipline, I would assume said actions committed on a child would too.

That doesn't make sense, why then would they put in writing the example of abuse in the presence of a child and not that of a child itself?

Because they did not consider it, just as they did not consider having a domestic abuse policy for years in the first place. It's sloppy, it's poor drafting on their part, and they will get caught on it just like they did with Ray Rice. Unless they just make it up on the spot like they did with Rice, which they very well might.

They were clear each situation would be considered on its own merits ("with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant").

The wording is clear they were giving some but not all examples. ("Among the circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty would be..."). The word "among" means these are some of the group but not the entirety of the group.

I don't see room for this kind of objection to how it's written. There's a ####-ton of things the NFL has done wrong over the entirety of these situations that are valid to criticize them for. Not enumerating every last worse-than-normal offense is not one of them.

Edit to add: Having the forethought to realize they won't have thought of everything and so wording it appropriate is something they did right.

I've been involved with writing policies, and it's hard to write them well. Most of the time it doesn't wind up mattering, as most contracts never get tested. This is not a well-written policy, and it's going to be tested if the NFL tries to overstep its bounds.

When it comes to legal action, the intent of the document will be considered. To me, the document reads as if it's meant to cover the Ray Rice situation--abuse against a female partner--and very much not meant to cover abuse against children. Certainly it's not meant to cover spanking. It was rushed out the door in response to bad publicity, and to address a specific problem, and the people writing it didn't think about the corporal punishment case or how it should be addressed in the policy.

The legal definition of "domestic violence" is somewhat ambiguous; some states (including Texas and Minnesota) include child abuse in the definition, others (including New York, where the NFL is headquartered) do not. New York, in fact, explicitly makes a distinction between domestic violence [the victim must be 16 or older] and child abuse. New York's statue includes language about acts committed in the presence of a minor, even though children cannot be victims of domestic violence under New York's definition. This is the angle that would be attacked in a legal case, and I think the wording of the policy will make it difficult to apply it to child abuse violations in cases like this where the outcome is significantly contentious. If Goodell says "forfeit six paychecks and we'll call it a day", everyone will be on board; if he says "we're suspending you for a year", he's going to get sued and he's likely to lose.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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?

Let me put it this way: What are the particulars of this case that would make it qualify for a greater than 6-week suspension? The way the policy is written, it's clearly expected that most domestic violence cases should get the 6-week suspension. This seems like a pretty standard case.

But it's not a domestic violence case. That's not what Peterson pleaded to.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I still don't understand why it seems everyone's hung up on parsing the Domestic Violence Policy. Peterson could be punished under the existing Personal Conduct Policy, there's no need to even invoke the new domestic violence addendum, so any debate about whether or not it applies seems silly.

 

[GregR]

Ok thanks. This has been said elsewhere.

Goodell is unlikely to impose the domestic violence policy to Peterson’s situation. The policy, as worded by Goodell, does not appear inclusive of violent acts against children and instead seems limited to acts against intimate partners. In his memo, Goodell detailed the circumstances of applying the policy to “a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.” Goodell’s only reference to a “child” is a child being near a violent act by an NFL player, presumably against a spouse or partner.

If Goodell nonetheless cites the domestic violence policy to punish Peterson, Peterson and the NFLPA might seek a grievance proceeding against the league and Goodell. They would argue that Goodell has misinterpreted his own policy.

Florio has also argued this, and as mentioned it was a policy created post hoc and outside the CBA. As such yes RG could levy a penalty under it but I bet AP and the union challenge that immediately.

I'm going to try to spell this out one last time as simply as I can. After that I'm done.

The text of the policy contains two parts. At the start is a list of 4 different offenses it applies to:

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. Among the circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty would be a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.

It does not only apply to domestic violence... that is only one of four things the policy applies to. There is no mention of children needing to be present for it to be an offense. Presence of children is mentioned elsewhere in a part that has nothing to do with what offenses fall under the policy. If the player commits assault, or battery, or domestic violence, or sexual assault, the policy applies.

Did Peterson get charged with felony assault and convicted of misdemeanor assault, and did they involve physical force?

Yes.

Does the policy say assault is an offense covered by it?

Yes?

Does this mean the policy covers Peterson's offense?

Yes.

So if a writer claims the policy doesn't apply to Peterson because it might not fall under "domestic violence", I conclude the writer didn't read or at least didn't comprehend the policy.

The policy goes on to discuss punishment. It states a 6 game suspension with consideration to mitigating factors including a longer suspension where warranted. Then it talks about some of the circumstances that could make it go beyond 6 games:

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. Among the circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty would be a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.

Note again that the blue is not a list of offenses covered by the policy. It is a partial list of circumstances that could result in a more severe penalty. Someone else posted that since child abuse wasn't in the list then Peterson wouldn't get more than 6 games. I pointed out the word "among" meant it was a partial list, not a complete list. And that if presence of a child during an assault was enough for extra punishment, reasonably the victim being a child would be a circumstance that warranted more severe punishment too.

At which point you jumped in saying the policy wasn't clear enough and not mentioning beating a child meant Goodell was making it up as he went. I pointed out trying to enumerate every possible circumstance in the penalty severity was impossible.

And then you changed the discussion to be not about the severity of the penalty, but about whether THE OFFENSE was defined clearly enough. And I pointed out the policy covers ASSAULT and what Peterson's charges and convictions were and whether that seemed clear cut.

So I hope if you read that, you understand why the quotes you posted don't sway me at all.

[/drops mic]

 

[CalBear]

The quoter ate my post; I'll summarize and say, the personal conduct policy doesn't place limits on what Goodell could do, but what's been done in the past will be looked at, and no one has been treated like Peterson has been.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

no one has been treated like Peterson has been.

Peterson agreed to take a paid leave of absence while he resolved his legal issues. I think Goodell probably made a mistake by not removing him from the list once the case was resolved, but otherwise what's the problem here? He knew all along he'd likely be facing disciplinary action from the league after his trial was over. Now that time has come, and the NFLPA is trying to paint this like Peterson's been wronged somehow (and people are eating it up).

 

[CalBear]

no one has been treated like Peterson has been.

Peterson agreed to take a paid leave of absence while he resolved his legal issues. I think Goodell probably made a mistake by not removing him from the list once the case was resolved, but otherwise what's the problem here? He knew all along he'd likely be facing disciplinary action from the league after his trial was over. Now that time has come, and the NFLPA is trying to paint this like Peterson's been wronged somehow (and people are eating it up).

I'm not saying Peterson's been wronged, but I am saying that if Goodell is going to try to enforce more than 6 games he's going to have a lot of explaining to do. And even if he's going to try to enforce 6 games starting tomorrow.

 

[cstu]

no one has been treated like Peterson has been.

Peterson agreed to take a paid leave of absence while he resolved his legal issues. I think Goodell probably made a mistake by not removing him from the list once the case was resolved, but otherwise what's the problem here? He knew all along he'd likely be facing disciplinary action from the league after his trial was over. Now that time has come, and the NFLPA is trying to paint this like Peterson's been wronged somehow (and people are eating it up).

That is the problem. Goodell should have reinstated him immediately and then either suspended him 6 games or let him play pending the outcome of the the disciplinary investigation.

 

[GregR]

no one has been treated like Peterson has been.

Peterson agreed to take a paid leave of absence while he resolved his legal issues. I think Goodell probably made a mistake by not removing him from the list once the case was resolved, but otherwise what's the problem here? He knew all along he'd likely be facing disciplinary action from the league after his trial was over. Now that time has come, and the NFLPA is trying to paint this like Peterson's been wronged somehow (and people are eating it up).

I'm not saying Peterson's been wronged, but I am saying that if Goodell is going to try to enforce more than 6 games he's going to have a lot of explaining to do. And even if he's going to try to enforce 6 games starting tomorrow.

I think more than six games should be expected given the policy.

I agree with IE about how the NFLPA are painting it and people eating it up because of (justifiable) anti-Goodell sentiment, even if the criticism isn't really valid yet in this very particular part of the situation (deciding the punishment).

I think a just outcome would be follow the policy and it be 6 + whatever extra appropriate for it being assault of a child... but that at least some, if not all, of his time on the CEL be counted towards it so long as he repays those game checks.

I don't think the NFL will do that though as they will be trying to appease the public and sponsors. I imagine they'll not count any time on the CEL towards it because they won't want him back this season. Or maybe they count just enough to make the suspension last until next season.

This is all unless the NFLPA finds some leverage to use against them and they negotiate it down. But I think the public perception is going to be the primary driver for the NFL, so they may have to be forced to do otherwise.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

no one has been treated like Peterson has been.

Peterson agreed to take a paid leave of absence while he resolved his legal issues. I think Goodell probably made a mistake by not removing him from the list once the case was resolved, but otherwise what's the problem here? He knew all along he'd likely be facing disciplinary action from the league after his trial was over. Now that time has come, and the NFLPA is trying to paint this like Peterson's been wronged somehow (and people are eating it up).

That is the problem.

That is a problem (potentially). The NFLPA, understandably, wants everyone to focus on that as The Problem, and that Goodell's in a lot of hot water and Peterson's had his rights violated and yadda yadda yadda.

The reality of the situation is that Peterson beat a little kid, and he can and will be punished by the league for it. Almost everything else is mostly a diversion promoted by the Peterson camp and fueled by general anti-Goodell sentiment.

Whether Goodell actually violated a contract or something by not immediately reinstating Peterson after his no contest plea remains to be seen. I'm not as convinced as many here that it's a slam dunk win for the NFLPA. But regardless, that is a separate issue from and doesn't invalidate the league's forthcoming disciplinary action, whatever it may be.

 

[Rockchild]

Does the sealing of the court records complicate the disciplining of Peterson? If Peterson can't talk about the case and, I would assume, what he actually did how can the league dole out punishment for something that they don't know what even happened? They may think they know what happened but is that enough to enforce the discipline? Just thinking out loud with my Law and Order legal degree!

 

[towney]

I might be on the way outside but my bet is he plays this Sunday at minimum.

 

[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.

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?

Happens all the time with first timers especially if they have money

Even in cases where a child's well being is at stake? I'm asking seriously because I hope that's not the case. I would hope that if a prosecutor thought a child would be in danger of abuse at the hands of a parent that they would not allow a plea to a lesser charge that would allow the parent to continue to have unsupervised contact.

Who are you referring to that is allowed unsupervised contact with his child?

 

[cstu]

Does the sealing of the court records complicate the disciplining of Peterson? If Peterson can't talk about the case and, I would assume, what he actually did how can the league dole out punishment for something that they don't know what even happened? They may think they know what happened but is that enough to enforce the discipline? Just thinking out loud with my Law and Order legal degree!

It's tricky under the domestic abuse policy, but he plead to misdemeanor assault and that should be enough to suspend him under the personal conduct policy. I don't think Goodell needs to know the specifics of the case in order to suspend him, it just makes it difficult because 6 games would be a lot for a misdemeanor that players get all the time.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

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?

Happens all the time with first timers especially if they have money

Even in cases where a child's well being is at stake? I'm asking seriously because I hope that's not the case. I would hope that if a prosecutor thought a child would be in danger of abuse at the hands of a parent that they would not allow a plea to a lesser charge that would allow the parent to continue to have unsupervised contact.

Who are you referring to that is allowed unsupervised contact with his child?

Referring to the supposed people that are plead down in child cases solely for the purposes of saving money for taxpayers. Again, I hope that's not the case...but I guess nothing would really surprise me.

 

[GregR]

Does the sealing of the court records complicate the disciplining of Peterson? If Peterson can't talk about the case and, I would assume, what he actually did how can the league dole out punishment for something that they don't know what even happened? They may think they know what happened but is that enough to enforce the discipline? Just thinking out loud with my Law and Order legal degree!

I'm not a lawyer...

But Peterson has publicly admitted to what happened. His defense was that it was a parent disciplining his child rather than assault, not that he never did it. The photos of the injury are out there and statements from authorities would seem to verify they are the authentic photos. The NFL knows what the charges are, and know whatever part of the conviction is public.

Combine all that with a conviction and I don't think there's any outcome to be had but that Peterson breached the personal conduct policy, even without the actual court records. Remember, some people have violated it without even being charged with a crime.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...So I hope if you read that, you understand why the quotes you posted don't sway me at all.

[/drops mic]

Hey just a note of thanks for the thought-out reply and comments, in all seriousness I feel edified. Thanks.

 

[GregR]

...So I hope if you read that, you understand why the quotes you posted don't sway me at all.

[/drops mic]

Hey just a note of thanks for the thought-out reply and comments, in all seriousness I feel edified. Thanks.

 

[Dimenna]

It's gonna be hilarious to watch all the tears shed in this thread that are anti-Peterson when he's reinstated by Wednesday morning.

 

[Gopher State]

Holding him in two leagues. But my luck when I hold suspended, injured players they get hurt their first game back. I hope my luck changes on A.P.