Adrian Peterson Status Updates (1 Viewer)

[I Am the Stig]

I actually don't have a problem with how the NFL is playing this out, even considering the agreement between NFL/NFLPA/Vikings. JMHO, people are completely ignoring the final sentence of the NFLPAs own description of the agreement:

The player agrees that, effective as of yesterday (September 17, 2014), he is placed on the Commissioner-Exempt list with full pay until the criminal charges currently pending against him are adjudicated. No discipline will be processed or imposed against the player, by the Club or the League, until after the pending criminal charges are adjudicated.

So, the league has promised not to "process" discipline until after the legal resolution, which is exactly what it is doing.

After the Ray Rice debacle, the NFL and Ravens were rightfully pummeled for not even attempting to get a tape that existed, and then it wound up on TMZ. Consequently, the NFL is (wisely I'd say) trying to get the facts that would otherwise have become public at trial, and could certainly become public, which makes sense. The NFL undoubtedly expects to be denied access to the AP evidence, but last thing the NFL needs is to decide not to punish AP based on assumption it won't have access, and then lo and behold 'unavailable' new photos are released by TMZ. Then the NFL is crucified for, not once but twice in the same season, failure to use all efforts possible to seek evidence. If they are denied the info legally, they have cover. Just as they'd have had cover if they had better proof of demand and denial of that Rice video.

Any event, to read the NFL/NFLPA/Viking agreement and conclude the NFL had to act immediately after this case was settled behind closed doors with sealed records is not logical. It's plainly agreed the NFL could not begin processing possible discipline until the legalities were adjudicated, and that is exactly what they are attempting now. That processing is complicated by limited access to the types of information the NFL should absolutely be considering, given the alleged/admitted abuse of a 4 year old child.

I stopped reading when you said the NFL failed to get the elevator tape in the Ray Rice case. The problem was they had the tape all along but they failed to look at it at best or saw it and didn't care at worst.

 

[GregR]

I actually don't have a problem with how the NFL is playing this out, even considering the agreement between NFL/NFLPA/Vikings. JMHO, people are completely ignoring the final sentence of the NFLPAs own description of the agreement:

“The player agrees that, effective as of yesterday (September 17, 2014), he is placed on the Commissioner-Exempt list with full pay until the criminal charges currently pending against him are adjudicated. No discipline will be processed or imposed against the player, by the Club or the League, until after the pending criminal charges are adjudicated.”

So, the league has promised not to "process" discipline until after the legal resolution, which is exactly what it is doing.

After the Ray Rice debacle, the NFL and Ravens were rightfully pummeled for not even attempting to get a tape that existed, and then it wound up on TMZ. Consequently, the NFL is (wisely I'd say) trying to get the facts that would otherwise have become public at trial, and could certainly become public, which makes sense. The NFL undoubtedly expects to be denied access to the AP evidence, but last thing the NFL needs is to decide not to punish AP based on assumption it won't have access, and then lo and behold 'unavailable' new photos are released by TMZ. Then the NFL is crucified for, not once but twice in the same season, failure to use all efforts possible to seek evidence. If they are denied the info legally, they have cover. Just as they'd have had cover if they had better proof of demand and denial of that Rice video.

Any event, to read the NFL/NFLPA/Viking agreement and conclude the NFL had to act immediately after this case was settled behind closed doors with sealed records is not logical. It's plainly agreed the NFL could not begin processing possible discipline until the legalities were adjudicated, and that is exactly what they are attempting now. That processing is complicated by limited access to the types of information the NFL should absolutely be considering, given the alleged/admitted abuse of a 4 year old child.

None of that is the issue to me.

The NFL and Peterson agreed for him to be on the CEL until the case was adjudicated. The case has now been adjudicated so he should be removed from the CEL. Peterson didn't agree to stay on the CEL until the NFL imposed discipline, but the NFL is trying to keep him there until they do.

The NFL is free to decide discipline as quickly or slowly as they want. But during whatever time span that turns out to be, Peterson should be removed from the CEL and treated the same as any other player whose punishment is being decided, which means he is allowed to play.

Any deadline on the NFL to impose punishment quickly is self-imposed by the NFL.

 

[Joe Summer]

I actually don't have a problem with how the NFL is playing this out, even considering the agreement between NFL/NFLPA/Vikings. JMHO, people are completely ignoring the final sentence of the NFLPAs own description of the agreement:

“The player agrees that, effective as of yesterday (September 17, 2014), he is placed on the Commissioner-Exempt list with full pay until the criminal charges currently pending against him are adjudicated. No discipline will be processed or imposed against the player, by the Club or the League, until after the pending criminal charges are adjudicated.”

So, the league has promised not to "process" discipline until after the legal resolution, which is exactly what it is doing.

Using your logic, the league could wait until 2018 to process the discipline.

 

[mbuehner]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

 

[Wreckincrew]

But to assume the NFL has been sitting around counting their money up until the plea deal was reached is misguided as well. They've had since early summer (when the 1st grand jury ruled against bringing charges) to start gathering info. Once the court said no to releasing the sealed records what more is there to find out that hasn't already come to light? If they are trying to circumvent the judges ruling and get their hands on the records then they are clearly overstepping their bounds. This is the NFL dragging it's feet. I would imagine if Goodell's career lasted an average of 3 years as a players does he would treat the timeline with a little more urgency. I am almost as disgusted with Goodell & the NFL as I am with Peterson/Rice/Vick/ PacMan/Stallworth/ et al.

I wish there was a way to protest the path the NFL appears to be heading down but unfortunately one person against a 9 billion dollar industry isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. Even if I wanted to quit the NFL I don't think I could go more then one waking hour without seeing something NFL related. On the news, radio, ESPN, NFL network, commercials, billboards, liquor store, Target, Home Depot, car dealerships, video games, co-workers, strangers small-talking in line at the gas station, NFL jackets, hats, jerseys, shirts, license plate frames.... The NFL is EVERYWHERE.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

This really is turning into a joke. Dealing him a penalty or suspension or whatever is one thing, but hanging a player out in limbo like this while weeks go by is ridiculous.

Poor guy. I feel really sorry for him. I mean, all he did was give one son a black eye and give another bloody marks all over their legs. But hey, those will heal, kids are resilient.

I mean, he can't play football this week? Poor guy. I guess he'll just have to cash his weekly check for 691,176.50 and try to put his head down and get through this tough time in his life.

hard to argue with this....

No one is arguing that AP is a good guy or to be felt sorry for. Just that he's served his punishment and it's time to get back to football.

I learned years ago with Michael Vick to isolate character concerns to the field, save for suspension probabilities. As a pitbull owner and a dad, I abhor what these two #######s did. But these situations present a prisoner's dilemma for fantasy football owners, because if you choose not to roster these types of guys, you may be facing them in the playoffs when they go for 40 pts in the second half of week 15 against the Gmen.

A pitbull owner and a Dad.

 

[DropKick]

This really is turning into a joke. Dealing him a penalty or suspension or whatever is one thing, but hanging a player out in limbo like this while weeks go by is ridiculous.

For who, fantasy owners? Peterson brought this upon himself, right?. His case was just resolved last week and there is some dispute regarding his cooperation with the league's investigation.

Where is all the public outcry for Ray Rice?

 

[JimmyJabroni]

This really is turning into a joke. Dealing him a penalty or suspension or whatever is one thing, but hanging a player out in limbo like this while weeks go by is ridiculous.

For who, fantasy owners?

No, for Goodell. He is hanging himself.

 

[DropKick]

This really is turning into a joke. Dealing him a penalty or suspension or whatever is one thing, but hanging a player out in limbo like this while weeks go by is ridiculous.

For who, fantasy owners?

No, for Goodell. He is hanging himself.

Really? Like I said, Peterson brought this upon himself. We can all speculate what is good/bad for Roger, but I think all we have here is FF bias and arm chair lawyers.

 

[JimmyJabroni]

This really is turning into a joke. Dealing him a penalty or suspension or whatever is one thing, but hanging a player out in limbo like this while weeks go by is ridiculous.

For who, fantasy owners?

No, for Goodell. He is hanging himself.

Really? Like I said, Peterson brought this upon himself. We can all speculate what is good/bad for Roger, but I think all we have here is FF bias and arm chair lawyers.

That really is all we have...speculation for the next week till the hearing takes place...

 

[tjnc09]

This really is turning into a joke. Dealing him a penalty or suspension or whatever is one thing, but hanging a player out in limbo like this while weeks go by is ridiculous.

For who, fantasy owners?

No, for Goodell. He is hanging himself.

Really? Like I said, Peterson brought this upon himself. We can all speculate what is good/bad for Roger, but I think all we have here is FF bias and arm chair lawyers.

The problem is how terribly inconsistent and indecisive he is regarding these off the field issues with ALL players - not just Peterson.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Peterson brought this upon himself, right?. His case was just resolved last week and there is some dispute regarding his cooperation with the league's investigation.

The Commissioner does not -- and should not -- have the right to unilaterally violate a player's rights because he decided that a player wasn't providing enough cooperation.

How far will Goodell be allowed to move the goalposts until the players or fans push back?

 

[msommer]

With all the negative press, the sponsors rumbling etc, how is this not 'conduct detrimental'?

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

The NFL could have reinstated him and he'd be back at practice getting ready for football. The story would been gone by next week. Instead they drag it out and tarnish the shield more. Because whether you're embarrassing yourself by showing how incompetent you are at handling a PR situation or showing the general non football public how bad your players are by increasing APs exposure for weeks longer, they are doing more damage to their image by prolonging this than moving to put it behind them.

I think you are way off here, draggin it out does not tarnish the shield at all. Sure it hurts our magic football teams.But ADP not being on the field doesnt hurt the shield one bit and if anything appeases some sponsors

Let's look at his realistically. Not in a moral scope but a view of the masses and their attention span. No one cared about Rice until the video. Few even knew what he did. The video was a game changer but even now, only 2 months later, the majority of people either don't care or do but don't feel like wasting the energy getting angry again.

That's how most PR crisis blow over. You address it in a definitive matter, let the public react and then watch it fade away. If you keep it in the public's face though, you give them a reason to stay angry. Those that want AP done for the year are angry he's not suspended yet. Those that want him back are angry because you're hurting their magic football and they only mildly know what he did.

Quick decisive action is the way to go. That's how you handle a PR crisis.

A quick knee jerk reaction is how you CREATE a PR crisis. The forced outcome here will result in a 6 week suspension.

 

[I Am the Stig]

This really is turning into a joke. Dealing him a penalty or suspension or whatever is one thing, but hanging a player out in limbo like this while weeks go by is ridiculous.

For who, fantasy owners? Peterson brought this upon himself, right?. His case was just resolved last week and there is some dispute regarding his cooperation with the league's investigation.

Where is all the public outcry for Ray Rice?

Simple, Ray Rice sucks as a player now.

 

[I Am the Stig]

This really is turning into a joke. Dealing him a penalty or suspension or whatever is one thing, but hanging a player out in limbo like this while weeks go by is ridiculous.

For who, fantasy owners?

No, for Goodell. He is hanging himself.

Really? Like I said, Peterson brought this upon himself. We can all speculate what is good/bad for Roger, but I think all we have here is FF bias and arm chair lawyers.

The NFL had but one scenario to have a plan for, and that was AP getting cleared. And they had over a month to come up with this plan. It was a far more fluid situation in September when they very quickly acted with the Exempt List, so we know that they can act fast if they are motivated.

 

[Jerry Curl]

LOL at everyone thinking people are only interested in this for fantasy purposes.

This is going to be a landmark decision and it has ramifications of the NFLPA doing honest business with the league again.

Not everything someone discusses is all about fantasy, this has importance to all current and future players.

Does anyone ever seeing the league being able to talk anyone to get on the CEL again to make it easy for the NFL? Peterson did not have to go on the list but he did to make a decision easy for the NFL, now they are breaching the contract to make it easier on the NFL again.

This is why the union is involved, the union needs to defend itsself against a crooked league.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

LOL at everyone thinking people are only interested in this for fantasy purposes.

This is going to be a landmark decision and it has ramifications of the NFLPA doing honest business with the league again.

Not everything someone discusses is all about fantasy, this has importance to all current and future players.

Does anyone ever seeing the league being able to talk anyone to get on the CEL again to make it easy for the NFL? Peterson did not have to go on the list but he did to make a decision easy for the NFL, now they are breaching the contract to make it easier on the NFL again.

This is why the union is involved, the union needs to defend itsself against a crooked league.

The union was actually part of the agreement (which was "from NFLPA general counsel Tom DePaso"), they are just as aggrieved as AP and the league made assurances to it just as they did to AP.

 

[BigJim®]

I actually don't have a problem with how the NFL is playing this out, even considering the agreement between NFL/NFLPA/Vikings. JMHO, people are completely ignoring the final sentence of the NFLPAs own description of the agreement:

“The player agrees that, effective as of yesterday (September 17, 2014), he is placed on the Commissioner-Exempt list with full pay until the criminal charges currently pending against him are adjudicated. No discipline will be processed or imposed against the player, by the Club or the League, until after the pending criminal charges are adjudicated.”

So, the league has promised not to "process" discipline until after the legal resolution, which is exactly what it is doing.

Using your logic, the league could wait until 2018 to process the discipline.

Actually, that is not my logic at all. I never argued that unreasonable delay was acceptable or agreed upon processing of discipline. What I said was this processing of possible discipline is a 2nd significant component of the NFL/NFLPA agreement, and was to commence only after adjudication. Reportedly, the NFL requested certain information reasonably quickly to put the ball in APs court, and has not received any response at all from Peterson or his counsel (who may well have a legal basis for refusal, but have seemingly not so much as communicated it). I'm sure the NFL's perspective is this is an impasse where the NFLPA is trying to force its hands re: one of the agreed terms while the AP camp is being uncooperative re: the second term (ignoring efforts to process discipline after adjudication). The NFL is therefore being left with option (A) not to discipline and be culpable for public outcry, or (B) to suspend Peterson with lack of supporting evidence, facing almost certain NFLPA appeal. I'm not personally outraged by the NFL awaiting arbitrator ruling to use either of those options.

 

[BigJim®]

I actually don't have a problem with how the NFL is playing this out, even considering the agreement between NFL/NFLPA/Vikings. JMHO, people are completely ignoring the final sentence of the NFLPAs own description of the agreement:

The player agrees that, effective as of yesterday (September 17, 2014), he is placed on the Commissioner-Exempt list with full pay until the criminal charges currently pending against him are adjudicated. No discipline will be processed or imposed against the player, by the Club or the League, until after the pending criminal charges are adjudicated.

So, the league has promised not to "process" discipline until after the legal resolution, which is exactly what it is doing.

After the Ray Rice debacle, the NFL and Ravens were rightfully pummeled for not even attempting to get a tape that existed, and then it wound up on TMZ. Consequently, the NFL is (wisely I'd say) trying to get the facts that would otherwise have become public at trial, and could certainly become public, which makes sense. The NFL undoubtedly expects to be denied access to the AP evidence, but last thing the NFL needs is to decide not to punish AP based on assumption it won't have access, and then lo and behold 'unavailable' new photos are released by TMZ. Then the NFL is crucified for, not once but twice in the same season, failure to use all efforts possible to seek evidence. If they are denied the info legally, they have cover. Just as they'd have had cover if they had better proof of demand and denial of that Rice video.

Any event, to read the NFL/NFLPA/Viking agreement and conclude the NFL had to act immediately after this case was settled behind closed doors with sealed records is not logical. It's plainly agreed the NFL could not begin processing possible discipline until the legalities were adjudicated, and that is exactly what they are attempting now. That processing is complicated by limited access to the types of information the NFL should absolutely be considering, given the alleged/admitted abuse of a 4 year old child.

I stopped reading when you said the NFL failed to get the elevator tape in the Ray Rice case. The problem was they had the tape all along but they failed to look at it at best or saw it and didn't care at worst.

No, this actually was not "the problem" at all. What set off the firestorm was the NFL saying they had not seen the tape, and scrutiny that they should have. It only came out later that someone at the NFL had been provided the tape, which BTW remains disputed by the NFL as far as I recall.

 

[Henry Ford]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

That doesn't mean he's allowed to disseminate the information. Sealed records are provided to opposing counsel, but that doesn't mean the defendant gets to scan them and post them on the internet or anything.

 

[Tango]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

That doesn't mean he's allowed to disseminate the information. Sealed records are provided to opposing counsel, but that doesn't mean the defendant gets to scan them and post them on the internet or anything.

That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.

To the extent it doesnt hurt his chances in the hearing, ADP's camp should tell us why they havent released the info. If he is "not allowed" to, as you state, then assuming that's a valid claim....the ball would then be placed back in the NFL's court.

 

[Jerry Curl]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

That doesn't mean he's allowed to disseminate the information. Sealed records are provided to opposing counsel, but that doesn't mean the defendant gets to scan them and post them on the internet or anything.

That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.

To the extent it doesnt hurt his chances in the hearing, ADP's camp should tell us why they havent released the info. If he is "not allowed" to, as you state, then assuming that's a valid claim....the ball would then be placed back in the NFL's court.

Didnt know ADP answered to you or anyone about why he is not releasing sealed info by the court.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

That doesn't mean he's allowed to disseminate the information. Sealed records are provided to opposing counsel, but that doesn't mean the defendant gets to scan them and post them on the internet or anything.

That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.

To the extent it doesnt hurt his chances in the hearing, ADP's camp should tell us why they havent released the info. If he is "not allowed" to, as you state, then assuming that's a valid claim....the ball would then be placed back in the NFL's court.

No, that's exactly what it means, he's not allowed to.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Per PFT this is the info which the NFL wants:

They want to review the case file (which they could have a hard time getting), they want Peterson to meet with experts, they want the experts to make recommendations to Commissioner Roger Goodell, and they want to hold a hearing.

The case file they're not getting.

AP could meet with the NFL's experts but are they really going to examine whether he is a good parent so he can play football?

Per ABC this is what they want:

Among the information Peterson has been requested to submit are photographs, witness statements, and the names of any counselors or other professionals he has been consulting with the past two months, the source told Werder.

The NFL is not getting photos or witness statements, those would be part of the case file.

AP could provide the names of counselors or other professionals he has sought help from. But then they would be obligated by law to not turn over anything they have unless AP authorized them to do so. I don't know why the NFL should get to read the medical or psych notes or files of any counselor that AP is seeing, that's really intrusive.

 

[Tango]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

That doesn't mean he's allowed to disseminate the information. Sealed records are provided to opposing counsel, but that doesn't mean the defendant gets to scan them and post them on the internet or anything.

That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.

To the extent it doesnt hurt his chances in the hearing, ADP's camp should tell us why they havent released the info. If he is "not allowed" to, as you state, then assuming that's a valid claim....the ball would then be placed back in the NFL's court.

Didnt know ADP answered to you or anyone about why he is not releasing sealed info by the court.

Of course, yes...but the consequence is that he has given the NFL the upper hand in the PR department.

 

[Henry Ford]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

That doesn't mean he's allowed to disseminate the information. Sealed records are provided to opposing counsel, but that doesn't mean the defendant gets to scan them and post them on the internet or anything.

That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.

To the extent it doesnt hurt his chances in the hearing, ADP's camp should tell us why they havent released the info. If he is "not allowed" to, as you state, then assuming that's a valid claim....the ball would then be placed back in the NFL's court.

That's interesting. What is your impression of what it means?

 

[Tango]

I don't know why the NFL should get to read the medical or psych notes or files of any counselor that AP is seeing, that's really intrusive.

The NFL needs to appear that it is doing everything humanly possible to try to gather all available evidence before it makes a decision. It needs to ask for everything known or unknown lest they be accused of repeating the Rice scenario. The NFL is likely perfectly aware whether they should " get to read the medical or psych notes or files of any counselor that AP is seeing" or not; that does not matter....they need to ask anyway to appear as if they have learned their lesson to all of those idiots that want the NFL to act like a shadow police force.

 

[Jerry Curl]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

That doesn't mean he's allowed to disseminate the information. Sealed records are provided to opposing counsel, but that doesn't mean the defendant gets to scan them and post them on the internet or anything.

That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.

To the extent it doesnt hurt his chances in the hearing, ADP's camp should tell us why they havent released the info. If he is "not allowed" to, as you state, then assuming that's a valid claim....the ball would then be placed back in the NFL's court.

Didnt know ADP answered to you or anyone about why he is not releasing sealed info by the court.

Of course, yes...but the consequence is that he has given the NFL the upper hand in the PR department.

Ummm, sorry, but NFL matters never ever trump legal matters.

 

[Tango]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

That doesn't mean he's allowed to disseminate the information. Sealed records are provided to opposing counsel, but that doesn't mean the defendant gets to scan them and post them on the internet or anything.

That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.

To the extent it doesnt hurt his chances in the hearing, ADP's camp should tell us why they havent released the info. If he is "not allowed" to, as you state, then assuming that's a valid claim....the ball would then be placed back in the NFL's court.

Didnt know ADP answered to you or anyone about why he is not releasing sealed info by the court.

Of course, yes...but the consequence is that he has given the NFL the upper hand in the PR department.

Ummm, sorry, but NFL matters never ever trump legal matters.

You guys think you're lawyers on this case. You are not. Stop making assumptions about what sealed means or doesnt mean...because your opinions mean nothing.

If AP's hands are tied (and they may very well be), then it would be a good idea to detail that to the media as a rebuttal to the NFL's "request" for everything under the sun. Assumptions dont cut it.

 

[Ojaays]

I have to say, this thread is not nearly as good as the Gordon thread was in its heyday.

 

[Tango]

Does everyone understand what "sealed" records are? especially in the case of a juvenile? We got some posters that still think they can be handed over to the NFL, Peterson or anyone else besides "the public". That's simply not the case. The judge is NOT going to release the records because of the age of the child, and certainly not to the NFL.

I don't know how the NFL can even ask Peterson for them. The NFL simply has no grounds to keep him off the field anymore. They have ZERO case.

Yes, I am a Peterson owner.

There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.

That doesn't mean he's allowed to disseminate the information. Sealed records are provided to opposing counsel, but that doesn't mean the defendant gets to scan them and post them on the internet or anything.

That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.

To the extent it doesnt hurt his chances in the hearing, ADP's camp should tell us why they havent released the info. If he is "not allowed" to, as you state, then assuming that's a valid claim....the ball would then be placed back in the NFL's court.

That's interesting. What is your impression of what it means?

That means we are not lawyers on this case. We do not fully understand what options ADP has, ADPs kid's mom has, etc. about making available some or all of what the NFL is requesting. So we should stop pretending that we know that AP's hands are tied and, preferably in my view, AP's lawyers should tell us their view on what extent they're able to respond to the NFL's request.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't know why the NFL should get to read the medical or psych notes or files of any counselor that AP is seeing, that's really intrusive.

The NFL needs to appear that it is doing everything humanly possible to try to gather all available evidence before it makes a decision. It needs to ask for everything known or unknown lest they be accused of repeating the Rice scenario. The NFL is likely perfectly aware whether they should " get to read the medical or psych notes or files of any counselor that AP is seeing" or not; that does not matter....they need to ask anyway to appear as if they have learned their lesson to all of those idiots that want the NFL to act like a shadow police force.

Ok that's a good point. - ETA: However the league should not hinge or slow the process on providing information which cannot be given over.

 

[Henry Ford]

You guys think you're lawyers on this case. You are not. Stop making assumptions about what sealed means or doesnt mean...because your opinions mean nothing.

If AP's hands are tied (and they may very well be), then it would be a good idea to detail that to the media as a rebuttal to the NFL's "request" for everything under the sun. Assumptions dont cut it.

Well, technically you're probably looking at what a "non-disclosure order" means, because it's Texas, though the order may just call it a "seal." But yes, my opinion means something. And I'm telling you that under Texas law, if these records are subject to a non-disclosure order or "seal" he's breaking the law and subject to penalties if he releases any relevant information gleaned through the discovery or prosecution process to anyone unless he gets a court order granting him that privilege.

 

[Doug B]

A few questions:

a) Did Goodell formally lose the power to impose a Roethlisberger-type suspension on Peterson? What would be the specific fallout if Goodell did this?

b) Does Adrian Peterson have a "constitutional" right to play professional football?

 

[Joe Summer]

With all the negative press, the sponsors rumbling etc, how is this not 'conduct detrimental'?

That's a good point. Goodell's conduct is definitely detrimental to the league.

 

[Insein]

Again they are worried about he wrong appearances. They think that by demanding to see everything it will appease the masses that demanded they look at the Rice tape. In reality though, demanding things that they legally are not allowed to see, it makes them look even more incompetent. They haven't learned any lessons on how to do things right and quick and are trying to do the opposite of what they did wrong last time even if they may not apply to his case.

Just reinforces the "They have no idea what they're doing" sentiment.

 

[Joe Summer]

"We're not going to reinstate you until your counselor violates HIPAA laws".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Again they are worried about he wrong appearances. They think that by demanding to see everything it will appease the masses that demanded they look at the Rice tape. In reality though, demanding things that they legally are not allowed to see, it makes them look even more incompetent. They haven't learned any lessons on how to do things right and quick and are trying to do the opposite of what they did wrong last time even if they may not apply to his case.

Just reinforces the "They have no idea what they're doing" sentiment.

Rice underlies all this, the league (Rog) keeps pretending it was deceived and was not provided all information when everyone knows they received the tape early in the process. But they just keep trying to reinforce this notion that they did not get the full picture.

 

[Tango]

You guys think you're lawyers on this case. You are not. Stop making assumptions about what sealed means or doesnt mean...because your opinions mean nothing.

If AP's hands are tied (and they may very well be), then it would be a good idea to detail that to the media as a rebuttal to the NFL's "request" for everything under the sun. Assumptions dont cut it.

Well, technically you're probably looking at what a "non-disclosure order" means, because it's Texas, though the order may just call it a "seal." But yes, my opinion means something. And I'm telling you that under Texas law, if these records are subject to a non-disclosure order or "seal" he's breaking the law and subject to penalties if he releases any relevant information gleaned through the discovery or prosecution process to anyone unless he gets a court order granting him that privilege.

Thanks for this.

It's an endless decision tree for us to go down. Much easier if AP's side issued a statement.

Some questions:

Who petitions the seal?

Can those that petition it rescind it?

Assuming AP didnt petition it, could he have appealed it?

Are there expiration dates on seals?

Typically how long?

In the case of minors, when they become adults?

Or are there no hard rules; it's case by case?

If its case by case, then we're really in the dark....and would value a statement from APs side. In any circumstance, a rebuttal from AP would be helpful for the armchair-set trying to decipher this.

 

[Henry Ford]

You guys think you're lawyers on this case. You are not. Stop making assumptions about what sealed means or doesnt mean...because your opinions mean nothing.

If AP's hands are tied (and they may very well be), then it would be a good idea to detail that to the media as a rebuttal to the NFL's "request" for everything under the sun. Assumptions dont cut it.

Well, technically you're probably looking at what a "non-disclosure order" means, because it's Texas, though the order may just call it a "seal." But yes, my opinion means something. And I'm telling you that under Texas law, if these records are subject to a non-disclosure order or "seal" he's breaking the law and subject to penalties if he releases any relevant information gleaned through the discovery or prosecution process to anyone unless he gets a court order granting him that privilege.

Thanks for this.

It's an endless decision tree for us to go down. Much easier if AP's side issued a statement.

Some questions:

Who petitions the seal?

Can those that petition it rescind it?

Assuming AP didnt petition it, could he have appealed it?

Are there expiration dates on seals?

Typically how long?

In the case of minors, when they become adults?

Or are there no hard rules; it's case by case?

If its case by case, then we're really in the dark....and would value a statement from APs side. In any circumstance, a rebuttal from AP would be helpful for the armchair-set trying to decipher this.

Well, there are several things at play here.

There's a general inability of a criminal defendant to disburse information taken from the discovery process under Texas law. You can't just go around sharing witness statements or things like that with the media. And that's probably the majority of the stuff that he'd be wanting to give to the NFL.

The second is the non-disclosure order/seal. They can be petitioned for by a party or set as a matter of law based on a victim of abuse who's a minor (as an example, Art. 57C.02 which states that the Court will seal any medical records related to a minor who is the victim of abuse.) There are a number of little rules under which a non-disclosure order or true seal would take effect, but basically they are challengeable for good cause, and there's always the ability to oppose the records being sealed.

"Good cause" isn't "we really want to know what Adrian did" or "I'd like to show my boss that I didn't do a really bad thing." It's usually related to another criminal or civil proceeding in the courts.

Temporary seals are for limited periods of time. I can't imagine that's what happened in this case. It should be sealed for good, unless a court order unseals it.

 

[KellysHeroes]

A bit off topic but I feel like the next CBA is going to be brutal. Players have got to be getting tired of the vague and liberal use of punishments with no end in sight mentality. The misgivings and low moral fiber of some athletes has been well documented for a long time. They are just like any other entity of society where some are great people and some are horrible and some are in between. The NFL, and more specifically Goodell, is trying to act like no other major sports league has where they dictate whether a player can play based on advertising campaigns and PR hits and mask it under the guise of justice. I still look at Jim Irsay in comparison to this and how quickly he was ushered back in and find this dog and pony show to be a complete scam.

please the NFLPA is least powerful union in sports, what the Owners/ Goodell want, they get.

How about this, stop getting busted for stupid stuff, dont hit women, dont beat your kids with objects and dont get caught doing drugs???

they had their chance and didn't take it

 

[BigJim®]

You guys think you're lawyers on this case. You are not. Stop making assumptions about what sealed means or doesnt mean...because your opinions mean nothing.

If AP's hands are tied (and they may very well be), then it would be a good idea to detail that to the media as a rebuttal to the NFL's "request" for everything under the sun. Assumptions dont cut it.

Well, technically you're probably looking at what a "non-disclosure order" means, because it's Texas, though the order may just call it a "seal." But yes, my opinion means something. And I'm telling you that under Texas law, if these records are subject to a non-disclosure order or "seal" he's breaking the law and subject to penalties if he releases any relevant information gleaned through the discovery or prosecution process to anyone unless he gets a court order granting him that privilege.

Thanks for this.

It's an endless decision tree for us to go down. Much easier if AP's side issued a statement.

Some questions:

Who petitions the seal?

Can those that petition it rescind it?

Assuming AP didnt petition it, could he have appealed it?

Are there expiration dates on seals?

Typically how long?

In the case of minors, when they become adults?

Or are there no hard rules; it's case by case?

If its case by case, then we're really in the dark....and would value a statement from APs side. In any circumstance, a rebuttal from AP would be helpful for the armchair-set trying to decipher this.

Maybe one positive that comes out of this fiasco is better understanding of how the NFL is to discipline alleged child abusers, where outcomes of adjudication are sealed due to age of the victim. Sad to say, this probably won't be the last time these facts are present. Typically it may not involve a player as (seemingly) forthright as AP has been about his conduct. Should the player who pleads no contest benefit from the secrecy? Should the NFL assume worst facts imaginable?

 

[Jerry Curl]

A few questions:

a) Did Goodell formally lose the power to impose a Roethlisberger-type suspension on Peterson? What would be the specific fallout if Goodell did this?

b) Does Adrian Peterson have a "constitutional" right to play professional football?

c) Is Peterson a member of a union ?

d) Are unions created to defend members if they are wronged by employers?

 

[Doug B]

A few questions:

a) Did Goodell formally lose the power to impose a Roethlisberger-type suspension on Peterson? What would be the specific fallout if Goodell did this?

b) Does Adrian Peterson have a "constitutional" right to play professional football?

c) Is Peterson a member of a union ?

d) Are unions created to defend members if they are wronged by employers?

Why didn't the NFLPA step in to defend, say, Ben Roethlisberger in 2010?

Also, membership in a union does not confer a "constitutional"-type right. I wouldn't go so far as to say that no matter what a player does, he has that strong of a right to an NFL livelihood. For instance, by what I'm getting from you're reasoning, it's kind of BS that the NFLPA didn't fight hard to somehow keep Rae Carruth and Aaron Hernandez in the league.

I know, I know -- "That's murder! Not comparable!" So OK: if Peyton Manning goes on national TV and pulls something like a Donald Sterling or Jimmy the Greek, is the NFLPA bound to fight hard to keep him on the field? I know -- "Not comparable".

The NFLPA really aren't good guys here. They're no more than morally ambiguous. I have no use for Goodell at all (Saints fan), but I think he should still hold a broad right to suspend players for purely PR reasons, until such right is negotiated away or until he is replaced as commissioner.

That's why I was asking: did something resulting from the Ray Rice fallout actually tie Goodell's hands in similar future scenarios? He suspends Peterson for the rest of the season ... and then, what forces move to accomplish what? Doesn't Goodell still hear the appeals and NFLPA grievances? Where does the buck stop if not Goodell?

Now, if someone argues that if Goodell suspends Peterson, that he'll (finally) be successfully taken to court, I'm intersted to hear that kind of take. Love to see Goodell taken down ... but is it really going to be over a potential Peterson suspension? Why is the suspension of this particular player at this particular time that problematic for Goodell?

Maybe this has all gotten twisted in knots for me, and I'm not following it right anymore.

 

[CalBear]

Now, if someone argues that if Goodell suspends Peterson, that he'll (finally) be successfully taken to court, I'm intersted to hear that kind of take. Love to see Goodell taken down ... but is it really going to be over a potential Peterson suspension? Why is the suspension of this particular player at this particular time that problematic for Goodell?

Because Goodell only has the right to suspend someone as it's codified in his contract and the CBA. If he violates the CBA, he's in breach of contract. If he gets the NFL sued for breach of contract, and loses, the NFL is on the hook for reimbursement plus damages (generally triple), and the owners would not be happy about that.

 

[cstu]

Why didn't the NFLPA step in to defend, say, Ben Roethlisberger in 2010?

Goodell initially gave Ben 6 games, but then reduced it to 4. That was enough to satisfy the NFLPA.

 

[cstu]

Again they are worried about he wrong appearances. They think that by demanding to see everything it will appease the masses that demanded they look at the Rice tape. In reality though, demanding things that they legally are not allowed to see, it makes them look even more incompetent. They haven't learned any lessons on how to do things right and quick and are trying to do the opposite of what they did wrong last time even if they may not apply to his case.

Just reinforces the "They have no idea what they're doing" sentiment.

The league would rather appear in incompetent than stir up the morality police by reinstating him as was agreed.

 

[cstu]

Here's what's going to happen:

- Peterson misses one more game (week 11) than he should

- Court tells Goodell to take Peterson off the exempt list

- Peterson plays week 12

- Public doesn't get outraged

- Goodell keeps his job

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Now, if someone argues that if Goodell suspends Peterson, that he'll (finally) be successfully taken to court, I'm intersted to hear that kind of take. Love to see Goodell taken down ... but is it really going to be over a potential Peterson suspension? Why is the suspension of this particular player at this particular time that problematic for Goodell?

Because Goodell only has the right to suspend someone as it's codified in his contract and the CBA.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the Personal Conduct policy pretty much gives Goodell the right to impose whatever suspension he deems necessary, so this seems like a moot point. (The player can appeal but the hearing is conducted by Goodell, so...)

That's what I don't quite get about the situation. I keep hearing that Peterson/the NFLPA will sue Goodell/the NFL. For what, exactly? I get that if they had a written agreement about when Peterson would come off the exempt list, and Goodell violated those terms, that's one thing (not sure if that actually happened, we'll see, but if it did then I could see him being taken to court over it).

But I don't see why they'd have any grounds to sue for whatever discipline Goodell ends up doling out.