Adrian Peterson Status Updates (2 Viewers)

[Hoot McGoot]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/06/nflpa-reacts-to-nfls-handling-of-adrian-peterson/

 

[Gopher State]

Let's review facts: He was never "suspended" by the league no matter how much it "feels" like it, or incorrectly assumed to have been punished. Peterson voluntarily accepted to be put in the exempt list with pay after close consultation with the NFLPA. He's been getting full compensation of his salary for all the games he was away. No one coerced him to go on the exempt list nor were there any legally binding deals promised to him once he got past the legal process. So explain again how Peterson is being wronged or had a leg to sue the NFL. I'm all ears.

Good post here. As long Peterson is being paid, he has no loss. The NFL is entiled to a reasonable and complete investigation. What is Peterson losing while waiting, full pay full benfits, Peterson agreed to go on the exempt list. NFL is going to take their time and do this right, as Peterson and Rice will set the legal proceedings going forward in these type of cases.

 

[cstu]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/06/nflpa-reacts-to-nfls-handling-of-adrian-peterson/

“Our union worked with the NFL, the Minnesota Vikings and Adrian’s representatives on a mutual agreement pending the adjudication of his legal case,” the union said. “Now that his legal matter is resolved, we believe it is Adrian’s right to be treated in a manner that is consistent with similar cases under our collective bargaining agreement. We will pursue any and all remedies if those rights are breached.”

 

[ILUVBEER99]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/06/nflpa-reacts-to-nfls-handling-of-adrian-peterson/

the NFL is completely butchering everything they do this season. Unless the NFLPA is lying they had an agreement and now the commish office is reneging on it.

 

[ryno1980]

Some useful information on the exempt list:

The Minnesota Vikings took advantage of a rarely-used NFL protocol Wednesday, placing Adrian Peterson on the exempt/commissioner's permission list while the running back goes through the legal process after being indicted for child abuse last week. The list, used to allow players who are dealing with significant off-field situations, will allow the Vikings to remove Peterson from their 53-man roster.

Peterson will be barred from all team activities in the meantime, which sounds like a suspension except that Peterson will be paid during his leave. The decision whether to pay the player falls on the team. Players placed on the exempt list can be held with or without pay at the team's discretion.

Players must consent before being placed on the list, allowing the NFL Players Association to call Peterson's placement a "voluntary leave with pay."

As the name of the list suggests, players can only be placed on the exempt/commissioner's permission list with clearance from Roger Goodell. From the NFL Player Personnel Policy Manual:

The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player's time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List.

As the policy states, players are also removed from the list at the commissioner's discretion. In Peterson's case, he is expected to remain on the list until a resolution has been reached in his child abuse case.

The exempt list allows teams to get around the maximum four-game suspension or deactivation allowed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement for conduct detrimental to the team. In Peterson's case, legal proceedings are expected to extend past the next month.

Notably, Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy may also soon join Peterson on the exempt list. Hardy was convicted in July of assaulting and threatening an ex-girlfriend, but has appealed the decision. As the Vikings did with Peterson, the Panthers decided not to suspend Hardy as he goes through due process. The exempt list, again, would allow the team to get around the four-game maximum penalty for detrimental conduct.

The exempt/commissioner's permission list was used perhaps most notably in the past on Michael Vick when the quarterback finished serving his jail sentence and suspension in 2009 for his participation in a dogfighting ring. The list has been used in less dubious circumstances, however. For example, Jeff Demps was placed on the list in 2013 while the Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back was trying to make the U.S. Olympic track team.

Aware of all this. But it's still essentially a removal from the team.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/10406421_10101130159777565_1205960137648699703_n.jpg?oh=2bde0a2dade1e689f18f61f3b5994255&oe=54E67BD6&__gda__=1424272493_928d5194cef35ccf51268545e88035c6

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10517586_10154946873760105_7805029168905399900_n.jpg?oh=87c6fcf5f3200d48f83b7fe1c261e1ec&oe=54F3469F&__gda__=1423577082_1006cab45915e552257f89214786aeed

 

[Insein]

Let's review facts: He was never "suspended" by the league no matter how much it "feels" like it, or incorrectly assumed to have been punished. Peterson voluntarily accepted to be put in the exempt list with pay after close consultation with the NFLPA. He's been getting full compensation of his salary for all the games he was away. No one coerced him to go on the exempt list nor were there any legally binding deals promised to him once he got past the legal process. So explain again how Peterson is being wronged or had a leg to sue the NFL. I'm all ears.

What was his alternative? Seriously if he said no, what then?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Some useful information on the exempt list:

The Minnesota Vikings took advantage of a rarely-used NFL protocol Wednesday, placing Adrian Peterson on the exempt/commissioner's permission list while the running back goes through the legal process after being indicted for child abuse last week. The list, used to allow players who are dealing with significant off-field situations, will allow the Vikings to remove Peterson from their 53-man roster.

Peterson will be barred from all team activities in the meantime, which sounds like a suspension except that Peterson will be paid during his leave. The decision whether to pay the player falls on the team. Players placed on the exempt list can be held with or without pay at the team's discretion.

Players must consent before being placed on the list, allowing the NFL Players Association to call Peterson's placement a "voluntary leave with pay."

As the name of the list suggests, players can only be placed on the exempt/commissioner's permission list with clearance from Roger Goodell. From the NFL Player Personnel Policy Manual:

The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player's time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List.

As the policy states, players are also removed from the list at the commissioner's discretion. In Peterson's case, he is expected to remain on the list until a resolution has been reached in his child abuse case.

The exempt list allows teams to get around the maximum four-game suspension or deactivation allowed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement for conduct detrimental to the team. In Peterson's case, legal proceedings are expected to extend past the next month.

Notably, Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy may also soon join Peterson on the exempt list. Hardy was convicted in July of assaulting and threatening an ex-girlfriend, but has appealed the decision. As the Vikings did with Peterson, the Panthers decided not to suspend Hardy as he goes through due process. The exempt list, again, would allow the team to get around the four-game maximum penalty for detrimental conduct.

The exempt/commissioner's permission list was used perhaps most notably in the past on Michael Vick when the quarterback finished serving his jail sentence and suspension in 2009 for his participation in a dogfighting ring. The list has been used in less dubious circumstances, however. For example, Jeff Demps was placed on the list in 2013 while the Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back was trying to make the U.S. Olympic track team.

Aware of all this. But it's still essentially a removal from the team.

It's not "essentially" a removal from the team. He was removed from the team. That's exactly what being put on the list did.

But he wasn't suspended. The Vikings could only have suspended him for a maximum of 4 games, per the CBA. Peterson waived his right to be back in week 6 by agreeing to go on the list and continue to be paid instead.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Let's review facts: He was never "suspended" by the league no matter how much it "feels" like it, or incorrectly assumed to have been punished. Peterson voluntarily accepted to be put in the exempt list with pay after close consultation with the NFLPA. He's been getting full compensation of his salary for all the games he was away. No one coerced him to go on the exempt list nor were there any legally binding deals promised to him once he got past the legal process. So explain again how Peterson is being wronged or had a leg to sue the NFL. I'm all ears.

What was his alternative? Seriously if he said no, what then?

Then the Vikings go to whatever their plan B was (suspend him, cut him, put him back on the field, whatever).

 

[ryno1980]

Some useful information on the exempt list:

The Minnesota Vikings took advantage of a rarely-used NFL protocol Wednesday, placing Adrian Peterson on the exempt/commissioner's permission list while the running back goes through the legal process after being indicted for child abuse last week. The list, used to allow players who are dealing with significant off-field situations, will allow the Vikings to remove Peterson from their 53-man roster.

Peterson will be barred from all team activities in the meantime, which sounds like a suspension except that Peterson will be paid during his leave. The decision whether to pay the player falls on the team. Players placed on the exempt list can be held with or without pay at the team's discretion.

Players must consent before being placed on the list, allowing the NFL Players Association to call Peterson's placement a "voluntary leave with pay."

As the name of the list suggests, players can only be placed on the exempt/commissioner's permission list with clearance from Roger Goodell. From the NFL Player Personnel Policy Manual:

The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player's time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List.

As the policy states, players are also removed from the list at the commissioner's discretion. In Peterson's case, he is expected to remain on the list until a resolution has been reached in his child abuse case.

The exempt list allows teams to get around the maximum four-game suspension or deactivation allowed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement for conduct detrimental to the team. In Peterson's case, legal proceedings are expected to extend past the next month.

Notably, Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy may also soon join Peterson on the exempt list. Hardy was convicted in July of assaulting and threatening an ex-girlfriend, but has appealed the decision. As the Vikings did with Peterson, the Panthers decided not to suspend Hardy as he goes through due process. The exempt list, again, would allow the team to get around the four-game maximum penalty for detrimental conduct.

The exempt/commissioner's permission list was used perhaps most notably in the past on Michael Vick when the quarterback finished serving his jail sentence and suspension in 2009 for his participation in a dogfighting ring. The list has been used in less dubious circumstances, however. For example, Jeff Demps was placed on the list in 2013 while the Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back was trying to make the U.S. Olympic track team.

Aware of all this. But it's still essentially a removal from the team.

It's not "essentially" a removal from the team. He was removed from the team. That's exactly what being put on the list did.

But he wasn't suspended. The Vikings could only have suspended him for a maximum of 4 games, per the CBA. Peterson waived his right to be back in week 6 by agreeing to go on the list and continue to be paid instead.

You're missing the point. Removing someone from the team is a suspension no matter what it's actually called.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Let's review facts: He was never "suspended" by the league no matter how much it "feels" like it, or incorrectly assumed to have been punished. Peterson voluntarily accepted to be put in the exempt list with pay after close consultation with the NFLPA. He's been getting full compensation of his salary for all the games he was away. No one coerced him to go on the exempt list nor were there any legally binding deals promised to him once he got past the legal process. So explain again how Peterson is being wronged or had a leg to sue the NFL. I'm all ears.

What was his alternative? Seriously if he said no, what then?

We might never know. Only that he was consulted by the NFLPA at length and ultimately made the decided his own fate. What's the point in dealing with hypotheticals? He made his bed, now must lie in it.

 

[cstu]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10517586_10154946873760105_7805029168905399900_n.jpg?oh=87c6fcf5f3200d48f83b7fe1c261e1ec&oe=54F3469F&__gda__=1423577082_1006cab45915e552257f89214786aeed

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Some useful information on the exempt list:

The Minnesota Vikings took advantage of a rarely-used NFL protocol Wednesday, placing Adrian Peterson on the exempt/commissioner's permission list while the running back goes through the legal process after being indicted for child abuse last week. The list, used to allow players who are dealing with significant off-field situations, will allow the Vikings to remove Peterson from their 53-man roster.

Peterson will be barred from all team activities in the meantime, which sounds like a suspension except that Peterson will be paid during his leave. The decision whether to pay the player falls on the team. Players placed on the exempt list can be held with or without pay at the team's discretion.

Players must consent before being placed on the list, allowing the NFL Players Association to call Peterson's placement a "voluntary leave with pay."

As the name of the list suggests, players can only be placed on the exempt/commissioner's permission list with clearance from Roger Goodell. From the NFL Player Personnel Policy Manual:

The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player's time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List.

As the policy states, players are also removed from the list at the commissioner's discretion. In Peterson's case, he is expected to remain on the list until a resolution has been reached in his child abuse case.

The exempt list allows teams to get around the maximum four-game suspension or deactivation allowed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement for conduct detrimental to the team. In Peterson's case, legal proceedings are expected to extend past the next month.

Notably, Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy may also soon join Peterson on the exempt list. Hardy was convicted in July of assaulting and threatening an ex-girlfriend, but has appealed the decision. As the Vikings did with Peterson, the Panthers decided not to suspend Hardy as he goes through due process. The exempt list, again, would allow the team to get around the four-game maximum penalty for detrimental conduct.

The exempt/commissioner's permission list was used perhaps most notably in the past on Michael Vick when the quarterback finished serving his jail sentence and suspension in 2009 for his participation in a dogfighting ring. The list has been used in less dubious circumstances, however. For example, Jeff Demps was placed on the list in 2013 while the Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back was trying to make the U.S. Olympic track team.

Aware of all this. But it's still essentially a removal from the team.

It's not "essentially" a removal from the team. He was removed from the team. That's exactly what being put on the list did.

But he wasn't suspended. The Vikings could only have suspended him for a maximum of 4 games, per the CBA. Peterson waived his right to be back in week 6 by agreeing to go on the list and continue to be paid instead.

You're missing the point. Removing someone from the team is a suspension no matter what it's actually called.

So next time you take a paid vacation from the office, you're technically suspended?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

 

[ryno1980]

Some useful information on the exempt list:

The Minnesota Vikings took advantage of a rarely-used NFL protocol Wednesday, placing Adrian Peterson on the exempt/commissioner's permission list while the running back goes through the legal process after being indicted for child abuse last week. The list, used to allow players who are dealing with significant off-field situations, will allow the Vikings to remove Peterson from their 53-man roster.

Peterson will be barred from all team activities in the meantime, which sounds like a suspension except that Peterson will be paid during his leave. The decision whether to pay the player falls on the team. Players placed on the exempt list can be held with or without pay at the team's discretion.

Players must consent before being placed on the list, allowing the NFL Players Association to call Peterson's placement a "voluntary leave with pay."

As the name of the list suggests, players can only be placed on the exempt/commissioner's permission list with clearance from Roger Goodell. From the NFL Player Personnel Policy Manual:

The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player's time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List.

As the policy states, players are also removed from the list at the commissioner's discretion. In Peterson's case, he is expected to remain on the list until a resolution has been reached in his child abuse case.

The exempt list allows teams to get around the maximum four-game suspension or deactivation allowed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement for conduct detrimental to the team. In Peterson's case, legal proceedings are expected to extend past the next month.

Notably, Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy may also soon join Peterson on the exempt list. Hardy was convicted in July of assaulting and threatening an ex-girlfriend, but has appealed the decision. As the Vikings did with Peterson, the Panthers decided not to suspend Hardy as he goes through due process. The exempt list, again, would allow the team to get around the four-game maximum penalty for detrimental conduct.

The exempt/commissioner's permission list was used perhaps most notably in the past on Michael Vick when the quarterback finished serving his jail sentence and suspension in 2009 for his participation in a dogfighting ring. The list has been used in less dubious circumstances, however. For example, Jeff Demps was placed on the list in 2013 while the Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back was trying to make the U.S. Olympic track team.

Aware of all this. But it's still essentially a removal from the team.

It's not "essentially" a removal from the team. He was removed from the team. That's exactly what being put on the list did.

But he wasn't suspended. The Vikings could only have suspended him for a maximum of 4 games, per the CBA. Peterson waived his right to be back in week 6 by agreeing to go on the list and continue to be paid instead.

You're missing the point. Removing someone from the team is a suspension no matter what it's actually called.

So next time you take a paid vacation from the office, you're technically suspended?

horrible analogy.

Better one:

A leave of absence (LOA) is a period of time that one must be away from his/her primary job, while maintaining the status of employee. This contrasts with normal periods away from the workplace, such as vacations,holidays, hiatuses, sabbaticals, and "working from home" programs, in that they are considered exceptional circumstances, rather than benefits. Generally such an arrangement has a predefined termination at a particular date or after a certain event has occurred.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I like the "it wasn't a suspension, but it sounds a lot like a suspension, therefore it was a suspension" shtick. At least it's a diversion from the same stuff that's been repeated by apologists since September.

 

[Insein]

Let's review facts: He was never "suspended" by the league no matter how much it "feels" like it, or incorrectly assumed to have been punished. Peterson voluntarily accepted to be put in the exempt list with pay after close consultation with the NFLPA. He's been getting full compensation of his salary for all the games he was away. No one coerced him to go on the exempt list nor were there any legally binding deals promised to him once he got past the legal process. So explain again how Peterson is being wronged or had a leg to sue the NFL. I'm all ears.

What was his alternative? Seriously if he said no, what then?

We might never know. Only that he was consulted by the NFLPA at length and ultimately made the decided his own fate. What's the point in dealing with hypotheticals? He made his bed, now must lie in it.

Just that if your boss comes to you and says "I suggest you take an indefinite paid leave," that's not a suggestion. That's pretty much an order.

 

[Insein]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

And if they decide later you have 6 more weeks off without pay for the same reason you got 8 weeks off, what then? Can't equate it to real life.

 

[ryno1980]

I like the "it wasn't a suspension, but it sounds a lot like a suspension, therefore it was a suspension" shtick. At least it's a diversion from the same stuff that's been repeated by apologists since September.

Let's review facts: He was never "suspended" by the league no matter how much it "feels" like it, or incorrectly assumed to have been punished. Peterson voluntarily accepted to be put in the exempt list with pay after close consultation with the NFLPA. He's been getting full compensation of his salary for all the games he was away. No one coerced him to go on the exempt list nor were there any legally binding deals promised to him once he got past the legal process. So explain again how Peterson is being wronged or had a leg to sue the NFL. I'm all ears.

What was his alternative? Seriously if he said no, what then?

We might never know. Only that he was consulted by the NFLPA at length and ultimately made the decided his own fate. What's the point in dealing with hypotheticals? He made his bed, now must lie in it.

Just that if your boss comes to you and says "I suggest you take an indefinite paid leave," that's not a suggestion. That's pretty much an order.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

And if they decide later you have 6 more weeks off without pay for the same reason you got 8 weeks off, what then? Can't equate it to real life.

Sure you can. If my face shows up in the newspaper for the wrong reason, my employer has every right to put me in an out of ordinary leave status, till I am either indicted or cleared. This is not so uncommon as you think.

 

[weebs]

Raider is just grasping at straws. Face it guy you didn't grab Peterson fast enough but you have to accept it....he is playing again this year.

 

[ryno1980]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

And if they decide later you have 6 more weeks off without pay for the same reason you got 8 weeks off, what then? Can't equate it to real life.

Sure you can. If my face shows up in the newspaper for the wrong reason, my employer has every right to put me in an out of ordinary leave status, till I am either indicted or cleared. This is not so uncommon as you think.

Just seems logical to me that his leave of absence has exceeded the standard procedure for discipline in this case. As many have said, give him a massive fine and move on

 

[Avery]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

And if they decide later you have 6 more weeks off without pay for the same reason you got 8 weeks off, what then? Can't equate it to real life.

Sure you can. If my face shows up in the newspaper for the wrong reason, my employer has every right to put me in an out of ordinary leave status, till I am either indicted or cleared. This is not so uncommon as you think.

Do you belong to a worker association that has a collective bargaining agreement with your employer and have a very specific code of conduct, reiterated through the contract you signed to work there, that has specific penalties for breaking that code?

If not, the parallel to your job might be a bit out of place.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Where's this standard procedure for discipline guidebook you speak of?

 

[Raiderfan32904]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

And if they decide later you have 6 more weeks off without pay for the same reason you got 8 weeks off, what then? Can't equate it to real life.

Sure you can. If my face shows up in the newspaper for the wrong reason, my employer has every right to put me in an out of ordinary leave status, till I am either indicted or cleared. This is not so uncommon as you think.

Do you belong to a worker association that has a collective bargaining agreement with your employer and have a very specific code of conduct, reiterated through the contract you signed to work there, that has specific penalties for breaking that code?

If not, the parallel to your job might be a bit out of place.

To answer your question, the answer is yes. And I don't think my particular situation is all that rare.

 

[ryno1980]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

And if they decide later you have 6 more weeks off without pay for the same reason you got 8 weeks off, what then? Can't equate it to real life.

Sure you can. If my face shows up in the newspaper for the wrong reason, my employer has every right to put me in an out of ordinary leave status, till I am either indicted or cleared. This is not so uncommon as you think.

Do you belong to a worker association that has a collective bargaining agreement with your employer and have a very specific code of conduct, reiterated through the contract you signed to work there, that has specific penalties for breaking that code?

If not, the parallel to your job might be a bit out of place.

I do. As anyone who works in a union would, as well as thousands upon thousands of others in the workforce.

 

[Shutout]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

No kidding. Full pay, no injury risk, likely extending his career.

Face it kiddos, the only people really wanting peterson on the field quickly are the fantasy guys.

Peterson, himself, is probably only giving this lip service to save face and go through the motions. In private, he is counting money, playing video games, and laughing.

 

[bolzano]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

And if they decide later you have 6 more weeks off without pay for the same reason you got 8 weeks off, what then? Can't equate it to real life.

Sure you can. If my face shows up in the newspaper for the wrong reason, my employer has every right to put me in an out of ordinary leave status, till I am either indicted or cleared. This is not so uncommon as you think.

Just seems logical to me that his leave of absence has exceeded the standard procedure for discipline in this case. As many have said, give him a massive fine and move on

But the league doesn't believe that being placed on the exempt list = being disciplined.

Adrian Peterson being on paid-leave since his situation arose is not considered discipline, source points out. Suspension looms.

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/530464074346528769

 

[ryno1980]

8 weeks paid vacation sure sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

No kidding. Full pay, no injury risk, likely extending his career.

Face it kiddos, the only people really wanting peterson on the field quickly are the fantasy guys.

Peterson, himself, is probably only giving this lip service to save face and go through the motions. In private, he is counting money, playing video games, and laughing.

Seriously? He's always struck me as a dude that loves to play. I don't understand this attitude. He's one of the greatest to ever play the game and I'd imagine he wants to begin to restore his legacy as soon as he can.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

I'm not either, but people have been ignoring the obvious since this story broke in week 2. I don't know why - maybe they're Vikings homers, maybe they're Peterson owners, maybe they think beating little kids with sticks is acceptable parenting, whatever - but for some reason people have been burying their heads in the sand when it comes to this whole situation. Some of the stuff I've heard:

- He'll be back on the field in week N (where N = 3, 6, 8, etc... wrong, obviously)

- What Peterson did would not be considered a crime anywhere in the US (false)

- He hasn't been charged with anything/it's just a misdemeanor/the league has no standing to punish him if he's found not guilty/[insert other variants conflating the legal process with the league's disciplinary process] (false and/or irrelevant)

- The new violence policy doesn't mention beating children so the league can't punish him (false)

- The max penalty he can get is six games (false)

- The public doesn't care anymore (false)

- He's been on paid leave for eight weeks, the league can't suspend him for more games (false)

None of us knows how it will play out from here, but as I stated yesterday, I see a lot of hopeful internet posters opining that he'll be back on the field very soon but the actual reports I read that cite "league sources" leave me with the impression that they're not really in any hurry to get him back on the field. When the story broke in September my initial gut reaction was that he was done for the year, and honestly, nothing's happened since then that would really make me change that opinion. This is still a PR nightmare waiting to happen for the league.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Some useful information on the exempt list:

The Minnesota Vikings took advantage of a rarely-used NFL protocol Wednesday, placing Adrian Peterson on the exempt/commissioner's permission list while the running back goes through the legal process after being indicted for child abuse last week. The list, used to allow players who are dealing with significant off-field situations, will allow the Vikings to remove Peterson from their 53-man roster.

Peterson will be barred from all team activities in the meantime, which sounds like a suspension except that Peterson will be paid during his leave. The decision whether to pay the player falls on the team. Players placed on the exempt list can be held with or without pay at the team's discretion.

Players must consent before being placed on the list, allowing the NFL Players Association to call Peterson's placement a "voluntary leave with pay."

As the name of the list suggests, players can only be placed on the exempt/commissioner's permission list with clearance from Roger Goodell. From the NFL Player Personnel Policy Manual:

The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player's time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List.

As the policy states, players are also removed from the list at the commissioner's discretion. In Peterson's case, he is expected to remain on the list until a resolution has been reached in his child abuse case.

The exempt list allows teams to get around the maximum four-game suspension or deactivation allowed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement for conduct detrimental to the team. In Peterson's case, legal proceedings are expected to extend past the next month.

Notably, Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy may also soon join Peterson on the exempt list. Hardy was convicted in July of assaulting and threatening an ex-girlfriend, but has appealed the decision. As the Vikings did with Peterson, the Panthers decided not to suspend Hardy as he goes through due process. The exempt list, again, would allow the team to get around the four-game maximum penalty for detrimental conduct.

The exempt/commissioner's permission list was used perhaps most notably in the past on Michael Vick when the quarterback finished serving his jail sentence and suspension in 2009 for his participation in a dogfighting ring. The list has been used in less dubious circumstances, however. For example, Jeff Demps was placed on the list in 2013 while the Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back was trying to make the U.S. Olympic track team.

Aware of all this. But it's still essentially a removal from the team.

It's not "essentially" a removal from the team. He was removed from the team. That's exactly what being put on the list did.

But he wasn't suspended. The Vikings could only have suspended him for a maximum of 4 games, per the CBA. Peterson waived his right to be back in week 6 by agreeing to go on the list and continue to be paid instead.

You're missing the point. Removing someone from the team is a suspension no matter what it's actually called.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Drafted AP, dropped him, wished I had him, missed picking him up, trying to trade for him (limited returns offered) is my disclosure...

I expected him to be back based on Mort's report, but heard Jay Glazer interviewed on Mike Francesa's show today, and frankly Glazer is probably more plugged in. Basically said he doesn't expect him back as there was major pressure from team sponsors and AP rather unrepentant about the matter, he didn't see it being resolved this season.

My opinion would be, best bet for all is to serve the six game domestic violence suspension now which has gone unserved with a clean slate for 2015.

The X factor here might be the Ray Rice deposition, and with it looking like Goodell knew more than he's let on, he will either be distracted OR be extra tough on AP. Just can't know.

 

[ryno1980]

Some useful information on the exempt list:

The Minnesota Vikings took advantage of a rarely-used NFL protocol Wednesday, placing Adrian Peterson on the exempt/commissioner's permission list while the running back goes through the legal process after being indicted for child abuse last week. The list, used to allow players who are dealing with significant off-field situations, will allow the Vikings to remove Peterson from their 53-man roster.

Peterson will be barred from all team activities in the meantime, which sounds like a suspension except that Peterson will be paid during his leave. The decision whether to pay the player falls on the team. Players placed on the exempt list can be held with or without pay at the team's discretion.

Players must consent before being placed on the list, allowing the NFL Players Association to call Peterson's placement a "voluntary leave with pay."

As the name of the list suggests, players can only be placed on the exempt/commissioner's permission list with clearance from Roger Goodell. From the NFL Player Personnel Policy Manual:

The Exempt List is a special player status available to clubs only in unusual circumstances. The List includes those players who have been declared by the Commissioner to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Only the Commissioner has the authority to place a player on the Exempt List; clubs have no such authority, and no exemption, regardless of circumstances, is automatic. The Commissioner also has the authority to determine in advance whether a player's time on the Exempt List will be finite or will continue until the Commissioner deems the exemption should be lifted and the player returned to the Active List.

As the policy states, players are also removed from the list at the commissioner's discretion. In Peterson's case, he is expected to remain on the list until a resolution has been reached in his child abuse case.

The exempt list allows teams to get around the maximum four-game suspension or deactivation allowed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement for conduct detrimental to the team. In Peterson's case, legal proceedings are expected to extend past the next month.

Notably, Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy may also soon join Peterson on the exempt list. Hardy was convicted in July of assaulting and threatening an ex-girlfriend, but has appealed the decision. As the Vikings did with Peterson, the Panthers decided not to suspend Hardy as he goes through due process. The exempt list, again, would allow the team to get around the four-game maximum penalty for detrimental conduct.

The exempt/commissioner's permission list was used perhaps most notably in the past on Michael Vick when the quarterback finished serving his jail sentence and suspension in 2009 for his participation in a dogfighting ring. The list has been used in less dubious circumstances, however. For example, Jeff Demps was placed on the list in 2013 while the Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back was trying to make the U.S. Olympic track team.

Aware of all this. But it's still essentially a removal from the team.

It's not "essentially" a removal from the team. He was removed from the team. That's exactly what being put on the list did.

But he wasn't suspended. The Vikings could only have suspended him for a maximum of 4 games, per the CBA. Peterson waived his right to be back in week 6 by agreeing to go on the list and continue to be paid instead.

You're missing the point. Removing someone from the team is a suspension no matter what it's actually called.

A Suspension is a removal from a position. He was removed from his position temporarily whether you want to admit it or not. It's what happened whether the league words it a suspension or not, it was a paid leave from his job. whatever.

I honestly don't care if he comes back. Would prefer he not as my team has two remaining games against the Vikings. Also, a huge factor in the NFL stepping in and doing this exempt list was the Ray Rice PR disaster.

Obviously he went overboard in whipping his kid. He's paying the price and hopefully learning from it.

The NFL has long let many worse criminals continue long careers in the NFL without much discipline at all. Leonard Little got a second DUI - the first one he was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and killed 3 people - gets another DUI in 2004 and doesn't get a single game suspension. Freaking joke. Countless domestic violence issues, Ray Lewis was never suspended despite obstructing justice on a double murder - more than likely guilty of more than that - and you're going to go overboard on Peterson, on his first ever behavior issue, after all that. It's crap.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nike-ends-adrian-peterson-20141106-story.html

"Since the allegation of the child abuse surfaced, Peterson has been on the commissioner's exempt list, meaning he is SUSPENDED with pay until his legal issues are over. At that time, the NFL will reassess the situation."

 

[Gopher State]

Raider is just grasping at straws. Face it guy you didn't grab Peterson fast enough but you have to accept it....he is playing again this year.

Your correct, he back by week 15, how long are your FF playoffs

 

[I Am the Stig]

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

I'm not either, but people have been ignoring the obvious since this story broke in week 2. I don't know why - maybe they're Vikings homers, maybe they're Peterson owners, maybe they think beating little kids with sticks is acceptable parenting, whatever - but for some reason people have been burying their heads in the sand when it comes to this whole situation. Some of the stuff I've heard:- He'll be back on the field in week N (where N = 3, 6, 8, etc... wrong, obviously)

- What Peterson did would not be considered a crime anywhere in the US (false)

- He hasn't been charged with anything/it's just a misdemeanor/the league has no standing to punish him if he's found not guilty/[insert other variants conflating the legal process with the league's disciplinary process] (false and/or irrelevant)

- The new violence policy doesn't mention beating children so the league can't punish him (false)

- The max penalty he can get is six games (false)

- The public doesn't care anymore (false)

- He's been on paid leave for eight weeks, the league can't suspend him for more games (false)

None of us knows how it will play out from here, but as I stated yesterday, I see a lot of hopeful internet posters opining that he'll be back on the field very soon but the actual reports I read that cite "league sources" leave me with the impression that they're not really in any hurry to get him back on the field. When the story broke in September my initial gut reaction was that he was done for the year, and honestly, nothing's happened since then that would really make me change that opinion. This is still a PR nightmare waiting to happen for the league.

Do you own any AP stock or are you just playing the part of the Troll?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer 14m14 minutes ago
NFLPA says it will "pursue any and all remedies if (Peterson's CBA) rights are breached". Which obviously leaves open chance for lawsuit.

I think folks are missing this.

And this needs to be mentioned more: Roger Goodell is absolutely, totally, completely filled with 100%, Grade A, certified, brown crusted crap, maneur of the finest quality. He was full of it with SpyGate, he was full of it with BountyGate, he was full of it with Ray Lewis and Leonard Little, he was full of it with Ray Rice, and now with AP the manure is rising up past his shoulders to his neck and soon it will be purging from his orifice.

Baltimore Ravens General Manager Ozzie Newsome testified on Thursday that Ray Rice told NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on June 16 that he hit his then-fiancee, according to sources with knowledge of Newsome's sworn testimony.

NFLPA reacts to NFL’s handling of Adrian PetersonThe NFLPA has issued a statement in response to the NFL’s decision to keep Vikings running back Adrian Peterson on the Commissioner-Exempt list now that his legal case has ended. Drafted in a way that avoids overt accusations or obvious confrontation, the message residing between the lines is unmistakable — the union believes the league is treating Peterson unfairly.

“Our union worked with the NFL, the Minnesota Vikings and Adrian’s representatives on a mutual agreement pending the adjudication of his legal case,” the union said. “Now that his legal matter is resolved, we believe it is Adrian’s right to be treated in a manner that is consistent with similar cases under our collective bargaining agreement. We will pursue any and all remedies if those rights are breached.”

In other words (and as a source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT), the NFLPA believes the league has breached the agreement that Peterson will remain on the Commissioner-Exempt list pending resolution of his legal case. The legal case has ended, and the NFL has refused to reinstate Peterson until after the NFL completes its review of the case under the personal conduct policy.

Apart from being a violation of the deal, it sends a clear message to the NFLPA and all players who find themselves in a similar situation in the future. With the NFL and the Vikings desperate to come up with a way to keep Peterson off the field under circumstances in which neither the league nor the team could discipline him, the NFLPA and Peterson agreed to the use of the Commisioner-Exempt list until the legal case ends. Now that the NFL has gotten what it wanted at a time when it had a high degree of urgency to secure an agreement from the union and the player, the NFL is reneging on its end of the bargain.

In future cases of this nature, then, the NFLPA and the player should refuse to agree to anything. By violating Peterson’s deal, the NFL has shown that, on matters of this nature, it can’t be trusted.

That’s the most disappointing aspect of this. The NFL made a deal and now won’t honor it. At a time when the NFL has insisted that it will be getting its house in order, that’s not the way to do it.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/06/nflpa-reacts-to-nfls-handling-of-adrian-peterson/

Sounds to me like there was a deal in place. Sounds to me like Rog has reneged on it. He again is full of manure. He is about to have his hand forced on the Ray Rice deal. I don't think the commissioner can do "whatever he wants." But it's also apparent that he will lie, cheat and connive for his own purposes and it is almost never apparent what those purposes are. Rog may be a man who believes that power unexercised is power wasted, which is a very dangerous thing.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't think the commissioner can do "whatever he wants." But it's also apparent that he will lie, cheat and connive for his own purposes and it is almost never apparent what those purposes are.

On the contrary, I think it's always been apparent what his purposes are. It's not even a secret. His job is to protect the owners and "the shield." That's what he's paid to do, and everything he's done, even when he's made blunders, has pretty much been consistent with that.

It's also no secret what the purpose of the players' union is. It's not too hard to see why all of this is playing out the way it is when you keep all these things in mind.

The problem the NFL faces now is that Peterson still represents a big PR problem. They can't just reinstate him after an 8-week paid vacation, the optics are all wrong, especially with the timing of the Ray Rice hearings and Josh Gordon still serving a ten game suspension for marijuana use. And despite the speculation in the PFT article, I suspect the NFLPA is strategically misrepresenting whatever "agreement" they had with the league. I highly doubt there was ever an expectation that once the legal case was over, Peterson would be immediately reinstated. They're trying to paint the situation in their favor the same way the league is trying to sway things in theirs.

The NFLPA is threatening to "pursue any and all remedies if those rights are breached" because that's their job. But what rights of Peterson's are really being breached? His case just ended the other day and the Vikings are on bye. Peterson opted to sit out, with pay, while he handled his legal matters, and now the league will determine whether he will face any disciplinary action. Whether or not he receives a suspension is unknown (I think he will but I wouldn't bet a substantial amount of money on it or anything), but in the meantime all this stuff looks like the normal kind of posturing you'd expect from both sides.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

man this thread is great.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Even if the scrotal whipping thing is fully covered by the job designation of the past weeks, what about the pot accusation? Peterson did get caught using. Doesn't that have to be addressed now?

 

[I Am the Stig]

Even if the scrotal whipping thing is fully covered by the job designation of the past weeks, what about the pot accusation? Peterson did get caught using. Doesn't that have to be addressed now?

They have tests for that and those limits have been raised so it may or may not be an issue.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think the commissioner can do "whatever he wants." But it's also apparent that he will lie, cheat and connive for his own purposes and it is almost never apparent what those purposes are.

On the contrary, I think it's always been apparent what his purposes are. It's not even a secret. His job is to protect the owners and "the shield." That's what he's paid to do, and everything he's done, even when he's made blunders, has pretty much been consistent with that.

It's also no secret what the purpose of the players' union is. It's not too hard to see why all of this is playing out the way it is when you keep all these things in mind.

The problem the NFL faces now is that Peterson still represents a big PR problem. They can't just reinstate him after an 8-week paid vacation, the optics are all wrong, especially with the timing of the Ray Rice hearings and Josh Gordon still serving a ten game suspension for marijuana use. And despite the speculation in the PFT article, I suspect the NFLPA is strategically misrepresenting whatever "agreement" they had with the league. I highly doubt there was ever an expectation that once the legal case was over, Peterson would be immediately reinstated. They're trying to paint the situation in their favor the same way the league is trying to sway things in theirs.

The NFLPA is threatening to "pursue any and all remedies if those rights are breached" because that's their job. But what rights of Peterson's are really being breached? His case just ended the other day and the Vikings are on bye. Peterson opted to sit out, with pay, while he handled his legal matters, and now the league will determine whether he will face any disciplinary action. Whether or not he receives a suspension is unknown (I think he will but I wouldn't bet a substantial amount of money on it or anything), but in the meantime all this stuff looks like the normal kind of posturing you'd expect from both sides.

He's not protecting the shield by screwing up. You think he can do whatever he wants? What if the judge hearing the Rice case overthrows what Goodell did there? He was forced to testify personally on what Rice told him and what evidence he had. Also the Saints players sued Goodell, it looked like he might have to testify and guess what happened, he dropped the whole thing.

If Goodell goes down this road yet again, holding his cards close to his chest like some 8 year old playing go-fish, he is going to get sued, he is going to be forced to testify, and this deal where (allegedly) he promised AP and the NFLPA that AP would be on the exempt list just so long as his case lasted will be thoroughly examined and Goodell's history on this kind of thing has become rotten to the core.

what rights of Peterson's are really being breached

Contractual rights, due process rights, the right to pursue his career, the right to be treated according to the CBA, the right to defend (in his mind) his name, the right to work.

FF-wise, it would also potentially mean owners are SOL until week 15-16 or altogether though.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You think he can do whatever he wants?

Of course not.

What if the judge hearing the Rice case overthrows what Goodell did there? He was forced to testify personally on what Rice told him and what evidence he had. Also the Saints players sued Goodell, it looked like he might have to testify and guess what happened, he dropped the whole thing.

Those are all different cases with differing factors. Maybe Peterson ends up with some grounds to sue Goodell, maybe he doesn't. We don't know that yet. But the fact that Goodell has been sued multiple times before just leads me to believe that he'll exercise more caution going forward, not that he'll continue to make the same mistakes he's made in the past. Like him or not, he's not a stupid man.

If Goodell goes down this road yet again, holding his cards close to his chest like some 8 year old playing go-fish, he is going to get sued, he is going to be forced to testify, and this deal where (allegedly) he promised AP and the NFLPA that AP would be on the exempt list just so long as his case lasted will be thoroughly examined and Goodell's history on this kind of thing ahs become rotten to the core.

But again, I think folks aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Goodell isn't holding his cards close to his chest. The league just made a statement outlining the next steps in the process yesterday:

"The NFL advised Adrian Peterson this afternoon that following his plea agreement to resolve his criminal case in Texas his matter will now be reviewed for potential discipline under the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy," the statement reads. "As part of the process, the NFL has requested that Peterson submit relevant information regarding his case and meet with designated experts who will make recommendations for the Commissioner's consideration.

"Peterson also will have the opportunity to have a hearing prior to the issuance of any discipline. Pending completion of the process, Peterson's status on the Reserve/Commissioner Exempt list will remain unchanged."

It seems like you may be letting your opinion of Goodell cloud your perception of what's actually happening. I don't think it was ever in doubt that Peterson's case would be reviewed by the league after his legal case was resolved to determine if he'd face discipline from the league, it shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone that this is happening now.

Contractual rights, due process rights, the right to pursue his career, the right to be treated according to the CBA, the right to defend (in his mind) his name, the right to work.

What you've listed are really just buzzwords, appeals to some vague notion that Peterson's rights are being violated - can you detail exactly which rights he has are being violated, and in what ways? (That's a serious question, I'm not trying to be argumentative or imply that you can't answer any of those questions. Perhaps there are some specific contractual rights of his that have been breached, and if you know what they are I'd like to hear them so I can know, too.)

What contractual rights does he have that are being breached?

What due process rights does he have that are being breached?

What "right to pursue his career" is being breached?

What right to be treated according to the CBA is being breached?

What "right to defend his name" is being breached?

What right to work is being breached?

 

[RealReactions]

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

I'm not either, but people have been ignoring the obvious since this story broke in week 2. I don't know why - maybe they're Vikings homers, maybe they're Peterson owners, maybe they think beating little kids with sticks is acceptable parenting, whatever - but for some reason people have been burying their heads in the sand when it comes to this whole situation. Some of the stuff I've heard:- He'll be back on the field in week N (where N = 3, 6, 8, etc... wrong, obviously)

- What Peterson did would not be considered a crime anywhere in the US (false)

- He hasn't been charged with anything/it's just a misdemeanor/the league has no standing to punish him if he's found not guilty/[insert other variants conflating the legal process with the league's disciplinary process] (false and/or irrelevant)

- The new violence policy doesn't mention beating children so the league can't punish him (false)

- The max penalty he can get is six games (false)

- The public doesn't care anymore (false)

- He's been on paid leave for eight weeks, the league can't suspend him for more games (false)

None of us knows how it will play out from here, but as I stated yesterday, I see a lot of hopeful internet posters opining that he'll be back on the field very soon but the actual reports I read that cite "league sources" leave me with the impression that they're not really in any hurry to get him back on the field. When the story broke in September my initial gut reaction was that he was done for the year, and honestly, nothing's happened since then that would really make me change that opinion. This is still a PR nightmare waiting to happen for the league.

Do you own any AP stock or are you just playing the part of the Troll?

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

I'm not either, but people have been ignoring the obvious since this story broke in week 2. I don't know why - maybe they're Vikings homers, maybe they're Peterson owners, maybe they think beating little kids with sticks is acceptable parenting, whatever - but for some reason people have been burying their heads in the sand when it comes to this whole situation. Some of the stuff I've heard:- He'll be back on the field in week N (where N = 3, 6, 8, etc... wrong, obviously)

- What Peterson did would not be considered a crime anywhere in the US (false)

- He hasn't been charged with anything/it's just a misdemeanor/the league has no standing to punish him if he's found not guilty/[insert other variants conflating the legal process with the league's disciplinary process] (false and/or irrelevant)

- The new violence policy doesn't mention beating children so the league can't punish him (false)

- The max penalty he can get is six games (false)

- The public doesn't care anymore (false)

- He's been on paid leave for eight weeks, the league can't suspend him for more games (false)

None of us knows how it will play out from here, but as I stated yesterday, I see a lot of hopeful internet posters opining that he'll be back on the field very soon but the actual reports I read that cite "league sources" leave me with the impression that they're not really in any hurry to get him back on the field. When the story broke in September my initial gut reaction was that he was done for the year, and honestly, nothing's happened since then that would really make me change that opinion. This is still a PR nightmare waiting to happen for the league.

Do you own any AP stock or are you just playing the part of the Troll?

He clearly missed ap on the wire and is now pissed that a contender smartly grabbed him and is praying ap doesn't return. By the way half the stuff you said false to is actually false

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ig...

But the fact that Goodell has been sued multiple times before just leads me to believe that he'll exercise more caution going forward, not that he'll continue to make the same mistakes he's made in the past. Like him or not, he's not a stupid man.

You must be kidding. Absolute power leads people to being more bold, not less. The Saints embarrassment didn't stop him from ruling without due process in the Rice case, the Rice case isn't going to stop him from doing the same with AP. The NFLPA is saying that Goodell deceived them right now at this very moment.

Goodell isn't holding his cards close to his chest. The league just made a statement outlining the next steps in the process yesterday:

Really? There was an agreement with AP to go on the exempt list. Do we know what happened? This is from the article I posted:

"With the NFL and the Vikings desperate to come up with a way to keep Peterson off the field under circumstances in which neither the league nor the team could discipline him."

That bargain worked two ways. The NFL got something out of it too. A deal was made, an agreement.

I don't think it was ever in doubt that Peterson's case would be reviewed by the league after his legal case was resolved to determine if he'd face discipline from the league

Wait a second and back up - IF the deal was that AP would be released from the exempt list (IF, as the NFLPA claims) then he should have been released at that time as agreed and then the NFL could proceed with its determination. AP should be returned back to square 1 and the NFL and the Vikes have to deal with the situation. They do not get to hold AP in limbo ad infinitum.

(I will deal with the contractual rights thing separately as I don't want to crowd this thread).

 

[FlapJacks]

But the league doesn't believe that being placed on the exempt list = being disciplined.

I just can't see such a position standing up to scrutiny

Sure, he got paid his regular salary, but he was denied all of the other benefits of playing

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Ironic that AP owners are calling those who are objectively bringing facts and information relating directly to Peterson's reinstatement or suspension to the thread are called trolls. It's like arguing with 11 year olds.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

But the league doesn't believe that being placed on the exempt list = being disciplined.

I just can't see such a position standing up to scrutiny

Sure, he got paid his regular salary, but he was denied all of the other benefits of playing

If he was denied anything like you say, the benefit of playing say....just remember it was voluntary. No one kicked him out or forced him in any way. It was of his own choosing.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

ig:

What contractual rights does he have that are being breached?: IF there was an agreement to release AP from the exempt list after conclusion of the case, then you are looking at breach of oral contract, bad faith on the NFL, good faith by AP and the union, and possible fraud and detrimental reliance.

What due process rights does he have that are being breached?: AP doesn't know what evidence Rog has looked at, he doesn't know what policy is being applied, and he does not know all of whom is involved in the process. - See Ray Rice, See Bountygate.

What "right to pursue his career" is being breached?: See the above, if someone makes an assurance to another person that they will take certain action allowing him to conduct business then renegs on that assurance then most definitely one has a right not to have his business/in come unreasonably interfered with.

What right to be treated according to the CBA is being breached?: The right for the CBA to be adhered to which applies to every player in the union. Ask the NFLPA, they don't think it is.

What "right to defend his name" is being breached?: he is currently in limbo, if he was freed the NFL and the Vikes would have to make their case against him. As long as AP is held in this situation he is more or less being punished without evidence.

What right to work is being breached?: the right to exercise a contract, see above. The Vikes are paying him to work, he has a right under that contract to work. Note, the Vikes have NOT acted here.

 

[FlapJacks]

But the league doesn't believe that being placed on the exempt list = being disciplined.

I just can't see such a position standing up to scrutiny

Sure, he got paid his regular salary, but he was denied all of the other benefits of playing

If he was denied anything like you say, the benefit of playing say....just remember it was voluntary. No one kicked him out or forced him in any way. It was of his own choosing.

but we all know that it wasn't truly voluntary and if it went to court, a judge would see how flimsy "voluntary" is....

 

[JoeyJoJoJuniorShabadoo]

He clearly missed ap on the wire and is now pissed that a contender smartly grabbed him and is praying ap doesn't return. By the way half the stuff you said false to is actually false

Funny. I get the feeling those that keep arguing for AP to come back ASAP are desperate owners who held onto him all this time (or Vikings homers). Works both ways...think about that before you start throwing this around