This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Nobody has claimed that AP may not be punished, but the Exempt List is not the punishment. Goodell needs to hold up his end of the bargain and then if he sees fit to punish AP do it through the proper means. Reinstate and then punish AP.
That's the crux of it I think. They would have to make a decision on punishment quicker than they'd like(I'm assuming) once he is reinstated. Once reinstated he is eligible to play unless they issue a punishment which I don't think they are fully prepared to. It's easier for them to keep him in limbo.
This guy seemed to think that the exempt list was the punishment, and that Peterson would sue if he received an "additional" suspension:
I feel like there have been others saying stuff like this, but perhaps that was earlier in the process when things were less clear than they are now.
Unless the rest of the letter absolutely contradicts the blurb I doubt there is much else that is a deal breaker. But, clearly the blurb was released by the AP camp so naturally they are going to release the info that puts them in the best light.
IIRC PFT actually said they had the letter. But I think it's short and sweet, pretty much what PFT published. It's actually an agreement between the NFLPA and the NFL, not between AP & the NFL, which is a factoid that I sense people are missing.
They are going to "delay" this until after week 11. They will then remove him from the list, and hand him a 6 game suspension per the domestic violence policy (thereby ending his season and will not have to deal with it anymore this year). Next year everyone is fine. My opinion.
It's just weird that they have the whole letter but only quoted one part. The article even mentions that, "The letter agreement, which bears signatures of both DePaso and Pash, doesn’t explicitly state that Peterson will be reinstated once the criminal charges are resolved..."
Without hindsight: how solid was the NFL's gamble that AP's case would not be adjudicated before the season ended? Did Peterson/Hardin complete a legal Hail Mary that the league couldn't have reasonably foreseen?
Based on the reported blurb it appears they did violate an agreement, but I cant disagree with you at all. I think ROYALWITHCHEESE is pretty spot on with how it will likely play out.It's just weird that they have the whole letter but only quoted one part. The article even mentions that, "The letter agreement, which bears signatures of both DePaso and Pash, doesn’t explicitly state that Peterson will be reinstated once the criminal charges are resolved..."
Everyone seems so certain that the NFL violated an agreement but we haven't actually seen the agreement. It's certainly possible that Goodell is as grossly incompetent as people think, and he's setting the NFLPA up for an easy win in court, I just feel like there's got to be more than just the details that have leaked to the internet.
No. There never will be. No player will ever agree to be on the CEL again after Goodell and the league flubbed this so badly.
The NFL stated in its agreement that AP would be on the list "until" the charges reached disposition.
I don't know the circumstances but maybe the most telling thing was how Hardin got the hearing date set for just before the bye. I think he had this planned all along and the NFL may have misread the legal situation. And the NFL is revising its conduct policy next year so maybe their thought was that this would come out in the wash at that time but if they were forced to do something this year they might have to acknowledge they really can do nothing or very little. Maybe Rog the player got played.
Perhaps the letter from the NFLPA to Goodell is sitting in the same pile the Ray Rice video sat?
.
Free money? Why not? Goodell and the league didn't do anything. Peterson is the one who beat his kids. Don't forget that. I in no way think Roger Goodell is a saint here, but he is often put in unwinnable situation. He would be ridiculed for this one no matter what he decided.
Pretty much. People get way too emotional about this ####. Just like with Gordon. The anti-pot crowd just frothed for blood. They need to smoke a blunt.
I don't really sympathize with AD or Rice and both of them will face some person who rightly or wrongly treats them with disgust for the rest of their lives... Had to preface that before saying Goodell has painted himself into this corner. He has been inconsistent and by declaring himself judge/jury/executioner has gaped open a black hole of public criticism. If it was an arbitration or a board of discipline the criticism would be spread out and the punishments probably more even handed and not just responding to the latest PR nightmare.
The take everyone seems to have is that the grievance is simply about reinstatement per the exempt list agreement. The exempt list was not considered to be punishment.
It's been indicated that the grievance will only be the decision on reinstatement and then further discipline could still be forthcoming.
No, the player has to agree to go on the list. They have to waive the provision of the CBA that says they can only be deactivated from the 53 man roster for 4 games for off-field issues.
My point was just that the agreement at least in this situation is actually between the union and the NFL, not between the player and the NFL.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/11/09/when-will-adrian-peterson-return-to-the-nfl-hes-getting-closer-but-isnt-there-yet/
If this is accurate, I can't figure out why Greg Hardy allowed himself to go on this list. Unless the Panthers told him, behind the scenes, "Go on the CEL, or we're forced to cut you".
Hardy was convicted and is appealing. McDonald never faced charges.If this is accurate, I can't figure out why Greg Hardy allowed himself to go on this list. Unless the Panthers told him, behind the scenes, "Go on the CEL, or we're forced to cut you".
Meanwhile, McDonald for the 49ers flies way under the radar all season long. Hardy must be kicking himself.
Don't know about everywhere, but in Colorado Sealing is an Order of the Court to Criminal Justice Agencies, agencies over which the Court has jurisdiction, to not disseminate the information absent permission, and with a few law enforcement exceptions. It has jack #### to do with ordering other persons, over whom the Court likely does not have any ongoing jurisdiction, to do anything. Now if the Court chooses to issue a Protective Order enjoining Parties before it from disseminating information it may do so. This is the concept of a Gag Order. The Court also has jurisdiction over attorneys to keep their yaps shut. Further, and whether affirmatively sealed or not, juvenile records have presumptions of confidentiality as to the general public (a prying NFL or media for instance). This is stated public policy. Without looking it up I believe it is at Section 19-1-307 C.R.S.No, that's exactly what it means, he's not allowed to.That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.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.There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.MaxThreshold said: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.
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.
Thanks!Ditkaless Wonders said:Don't know about everywhere, but in Colorado Sealing is an Order of the Court to Criminal Justice Agencies, agencies over which the Court has jurisdiction, to not disseminate the information absent permission, and with a few law enforcement exceptions. It has jack #### to do with ordering other persons, over whom the Court likely does not have any ongoing jurisdiction, to do anything. Now if the Court chooses to issue a Protective Order enjoining Parties before it from disseminating information it may do so. This is the concept of a Gag Order. The Court also has jurisdiction over attorneys to keep their yaps shut. Further, and whether affirmatively sealed or not, juvenile records have presumptions of confidentiality as to the general public (a prying NFL or media for instance). This is stated public policy. Without looking it up I believe it is at Section 19-1-307 C.R.S.Now parents are not covered in most sealing orders or standing orders relating to juvenile records. They may be prohibited from obtaining or using a record if in addition to being parents they have a prohibited status covered by sealing or general privilege. An example of this would be where a parent is an accused.No, that's exactly what it means, he's not allowed to.That doesnt mean he's not either. ADP's camp has been silent for 36 hours since the NFL's statement.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.There also isnt (or shouldnt be) some secret stash of evidence the Peterson defense hasnt seen.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.
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.
What's the upshot of all this in Colorado, well a father such as Peterson an accused, he would only be able to obtain the records through a Court Order. The same would be true as to his legal counsel, the media, and the NFL. The mother, however, could, if she wished, obtain and disseminate the records.
What I do know is this. speaking of "sealing" as if it is a universal concept, functioning the same in all 50 States, is inaccurate. This is particularly so if one does not parse out other concepts like privilege, confidentiality, and Court Orders. other than sealing.
The head coach has made a statement....and it was 100% positive; however, as Ron Rivera can tell you re the Greg Hardy situation, the coaches' views are pretty close to worthless.
I think worrying about sponsor support is overrated in this issue. What sponsors have walked away from the Redskins? They have actually been protested against and that is more of a "franchise" issue than are the legal issues of a single player.
That's how I'm reading the situation. Goodell wants the decision taken out of his hands.
This too is very possible.
This right here is the key. This weeks game will decide which way the Minnesota FO wants to go. Win and they start seeing playoff revenues. Lose and they'll most likely say suspend him.
I agree for the most part the sponsors thing is overblown. An NFL team is going to get sponsors to step up in almost any circumstance, but Minnesota is on the bottom of the totem pole as far as sponsorship revenue so it is probably a more sensitive subject for them than a team like the Cowboys. It wouldn't hurt Peterson to handle this well publicly with some sort of press conference with some accountability and lesson learned.
McKinnon was limited today with lower back pain too. Meanwhile, AP's hearing is set for Monday at 2:00pm. It then needs to be resolved within 5 days.SaintsInDome2006 said:
