Adrian Peterson Status Updates (2 Viewers)

[Dimenna]

As he should have declined to go.. NFL is handling this like a circus. Just do everyone in the NFL a favor and resign already Goodell, you're a joke.

 

[Jerry Curl]

As he should have declined to go.. NFL is handling this like a circus. Just do everyone in the NFL a favor and resign already Goodell, you're a joke.

He knows he is going to be reinstated next week and create hell for the NFL. The NFL knows they are in trouble Monday and made this seem like it was more important then the grievance hearing. Hardin and the NFLPA vs. Goodell? Track record says that the NFL is not going to fair well on this. Hardin is wanting to win another headline grabber and the NFLPA wants a new personal conduct policy.

This is going to ruin any negotiations in the future between the NFL and NFLPA since Goodell now has 0 trust from the NFLPA since it was hanging on a thread before this Peterson case. I have said from the beginning this case is the end of Goodell.

 

[BigJim®]

Well, the NFL is clearly showing its cards here by publicizing "We had hoped that Adrian would take advantage of his opportunity to be heard and present whatever information he believes should be considered before a decision on discipline, counseling and services is made."

Let's say the arbitrator rules as expected next Friday - that the NFL must remove AP from the exempt list. The letter agreement provided that punishment would not be doled out until after adjudication - so the exempt list was not itself punishment and this was agreed by all parties. The NFL is then forced to either suspend or not suspend based on available information. The NFL previously communicated: "Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant."

Based solely on Peterson's pleading no contest to assault after announcement of the policy, the NFL then suspends Peterson 6 games, citing Peterson's own unwillingness to meet with the Commissioner with opportunity to give cause to deviate from that policy. Week 12 passes. The NFLPA files some sort of lawsuit against the NFL re: the never before applied policy, and seeks injunctive relief. Tick, tick, tick. A court then requests arguments. Week 13 likely passes. An undetermined time later, a judge either grants injunctive relief pending the outcome of the suit (which he/she does only upon concluding the NFLPA is likely to win what could be an unprecedented sort of case), or does not. If the injunctive relief is granted, this steaming pile of dung is placed at the the Viking's doorstep, and Zygi Wilf must decide whether the upside to playing AP for the final 3 (worst case timing) or 4 (best case timing) games outweighs simply cutting bait and ridding itself of the circus.

Still a hazy outlook for 2014 IMHO.

 

[fatness]

The plot thickens. From Schefter tweet:

Vikings RB Adrian Peterson declined to appear Friday at a scheduled disciplinary hearing with NFL despite agreeing to meeting earlier last week, per an NFL official.

Peterson thought the day for the hearing got switched.

 

[mnmplayer]

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

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

 

[encaitar]

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

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

Peterson didn't "blow it off". Stupid headline and irresponsible reporting. Peterson is being advised by Rusty Hardin and the NFLPA right now. He was told not to go. The league only scheduled this "hearing" after the NFLPA had sued for his reinstatement based on their previous agreement. The real info in that article was that the league was told it was not allowed to have any court documents due to Texas state law. That is the relevant piece of information. So now, the league has to decide whether to levy punishment on a misdemeanor it has no information on.

 

[mnmplayer]

So this article is purely political bs?

 

[Jerry Curl]

So this article is purely political bs?

Yup, put out there by the NFL.

 

[Gopher State]

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

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

agreed, will hurt his chance to hit the field this year

 

[Mr. Retukes]

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

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

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

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

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

He's done for the year - at least. The second he gets removed from the exempt list he will get an indefinite suspension pending the outcome of his disciplinary hearing.

 

[MaxThreshold]

He's done for the year - at least. The second he gets removed from the exempt list he will get an indefinite suspension pending the outcome of his disciplinary hearing.

There is no way that would ever hold up in court. Goodel has put the NFL in a really bad position with making up rules as he goes along. There is no way they have the case to suspend him for the rest of the season, or much less 6 games, if Peterson doesn't voluntarily agree to it.

All Peterson would have to do is take it to court - a judge would immediately suspend any NFL judgement against him until it can hear the case.

Worst case, Peterson pays a fine with time served.

 

[Avery]

I just don't get Goodell's end game here.

Maybe I'm missing some of the facts, as I'm not totally on top of this, but it seems he is violating an agreement he made and demanding that Peterson produce documents that the court says he can't.

Perhaps he is doing everything he can to "pass the buck" to the arbitrator or simply stall until he can give a six week suspension which will take him through the regular season and put this situation off until next year.

If it's the latter, I think this is all unnecessary because in the court of public opinion, the public has largely moved on to the next thing to be outraged about. Not that I'm excusing anything, but we as a culture have a very short attention span.

 

[tjnc09]

I just don't get Goodell's end game here.

I don't think he knows either.

 

[nelly29]

What's stopping the vikes from taking him back but not dressing him? Just curious? Not like getting a worse draft pick next year cause they win an extra game or 2 with him will help the franchise?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Rog is just trying to act tough so it doesn't look bad that he's welcoming Peterson back with open arms next week.

 

[Avery]

What's stopping the vikes from taking him back but not dressing him? Just curious? Not like getting a worse draft pick next year cause they win an extra game or 2 with him will help the franchise?

The Vikings are actually not out of the playoff picture.

Beyond that, what would be the point? If you don't want him, cut him. There is nothing to be gained by alienating your franchise player... and keeping him.

 

[nelly29]

What's stopping the vikes from taking him back but not dressing him? Just curious? Not like getting a worse draft pick next year cause they win an extra game or 2 with him will help the franchise?

The Vikings are actually not out of the playoff picture.

Beyond that, what would be the point? If you don't want him, cut him. There is nothing to be gained by alienating your franchise player... and keeping him.

Might be able to get a pick for him?

 

[BigJim®]

I just don't get Goodell's end game here.

Goodell's end game is easy to see. He plans to suspend Peterson, and this will be part of the basis. Whether or not that holds up in court, the NFL is off the hook, having shown sponsors it takes child abuse seriously.

What I don't understand is Peterson's end game. I don't think Peterson showing up for a meeting with the Commissioner has any bearing whatsoever on merits of a case re: NFL overstepping its authority to punish a misdemeanor. But after the NFL/NFLPA situation plays out, he still need to be viewed positively to have a chance to play in Minnesota in 2014. Based on some initial reader comments I see posted to the Star Trib story, this decision could turn what was becoming a sympathetic opinion of Peterson in Minnesota. I'm sure Wilf would rather make the case to field a player who was not thumbing his nose at authority as an NFLPA pawn.

 

[Franknbeans]

He's done for the year - at least. The second he gets removed from the exempt list he will get an indefinite suspension pending the outcome of his disciplinary hearing.

and that may be as it should be anyway but the handling of this by the NFL has been for them, par for the course. I hope they find out Goodell saw the tape and lied. Go retire you hack.

 

[shader]

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

 

[tjnc09]

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

How can you be that oblivious to why people think that?

 

[Tango]

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

There are different factions to the Goodell-must-go-choir; all of them will say Goodell must go. For simplicity's sake, let's slice it into just 2 groups:

1) Those that think that football is unbearably violent and/or that the NFL is full of criminals and is not being cleaned up properly: People like Rachel Maddow might be in this group. Applying this to AP, they think he should be disciplined more.

2) Those that are so po'd that Goodell actually listens to group #1 about anything and that he doesnt realize that group #1 will never thank him for all of the causes and PC B.S. that the NFL engages in...instead they'll just continue to ask for more and more. Applying this to AP, we're PO'd RG is involved much at all. The NFL should not setup a shadow police force and court system b/c there is no way it can ever execute that mission effectively.

As a member of group #2, I think RG should be fired not as much because he has mishandled the AP case, but because he has willfully made this bed that requires him to handle it in-this-manner/to-this-extent.

 

[Young 8]

I just don't get Goodell's end game here.

Compensating for what the Judge should have done.

 

[BigJim®]

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

Agree completely.

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

 

[Insein]

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

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

Reneging on a deal made just 3 months ago. Refusing to make a decision for fear of making the wrong one. Iconsistency on levels of punishment based on his arbitrary declaration of "damaging the image of the league."

He may keep his job, but he brought relations with he NFLPA and the general public to the worst its been since the 87 strike. With 7 years to go in the CBA, expect another work stoppage thanks to violations like this.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

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

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

Reneging on a deal made just 3 months ago. Refusing to make a decision for fear of making the wrong one. Iconsistency on levels of punishment based on his arbitrary declaration of "damaging the image of the league."

He may keep his job, but he brought relations with he NFLPA and the general public to the worst its been since the 87 strike. With 7 years to go in the CBA, expect another work stoppage thanks to violations like this.

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

Totally agree with Shader,

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

Agree completely.

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

Has anyone ever challenged enforcement of the PC Policy in court?

Discipline may take the form of fines, suspension, or banishment from the League and may include a probationary period and conditions that must be satisfied prior to or following reinstatement. The specifics of the disciplinary response will be based on the nature of the incident, the actual or threatened risk to the participant and others, any prior or additional misconduct (whether or not criminal charges were filed), and other relevant factors.

Unless the available facts clearly indicate egregious circumstances, significant bodily harm or risk to third parties, or an immediate and substantial risk to the integrity and reputation of the NFL, a first offense generally will not result in discipline until there has been a disposition of the proceeding (or until the investigation is complete in the case of non-criminal misconduct).

So say the commish loses on the letter agreement, AP is activated, then the commish suspends AP.

Then AP could get an injunction. I guess Rog could argue the failure to cooperate is an egregious circumstance, I guess he could argue that the child suffered significant bodily harm, and I guess he could say the NFL's reputation was put at substantial risk. But if all those things existed then Rog could have levied the discipline immediately. By awaiting the disposition of the legal proceedings the implication is that the NFL felt that no such grounds existed. They do not get to operate on both sides of that provision.

Not saying that's how thing will go. But IF Rog loses this the power of the league and the commissioner will be diminished and their position in the next round of negotiations will be weakened. Rog is playing a serious game of chicken when he does not have to.

 

[DropKick]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jerry Curl]

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

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

Reneging on a deal made just 3 months ago. Refusing to make a decision for fear of making the wrong one. Iconsistency on levels of punishment based on his arbitrary declaration of "damaging the image of the league."

He may keep his job, but he brought relations with he NFLPA and the general public to the worst its been since the 87 strike. With 7 years to go in the CBA, expect another work stoppage thanks to violations like this.

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

Totally agree with Shader,

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

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

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

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The plot thickens. From Schefter tweet:

Vikings RB Adrian Peterson declined to appear Friday at a scheduled disciplinary hearing with NFL despite agreeing to meeting earlier last week, per an NFL official.

...

Just thought I'd post a link and a couple points:

http://blog.startribune.com/sports/access-vikings/report-peterson-skipped-nfl-disciplinary-hearing

The Friday meeting initially was scheduled last Tuesday, but the NFLPA told the league on Thursday that it was unavailable that day, per league official.

So it was the union that blew up the meeting, not necessarily AP. Yeah I'm really sure they couldn't fit it into their schedule.

NFLPA spoksperson George Atallah said Peterson’s attorney Rusty Hardin provided the NFL with a letter saying it is against Texas state law to give the NFL the requested documents. The NFLPA also said it made Peterson’s clinician available to the NFL.

I agree, what's the point? Show up and say, 'hey we told you we have no records.' And then leave?

Also AP offered up his family doctor by the sounds of it. That's something.

Accordingly, we went forward with the review on Friday as scheduled.

So the league had a "hearing" in absentia anyway, how third world.

Finally as someone points out it doesn't make sense to object to the league's right to hold a hearing and then waive that objection by showing up for it.

 

[Insein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One things for certain, the Commissioner's voluntary exempt list will never be accepted again by a player if it is truly "voluntary."

 

[BigJim®]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the PCP need to mention child abuse? It covers assault, which is what Peterson pled no contest to.

 

[shader]

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

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

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

NFL is making loads of money, signing new TV deals and doing just fine without AP. Goodell is doing fine.

 

[shader]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the PCP need to mention child abuse? It covers assault, which is what Peterson pled no contest to.

Then why 6 games under the PCP? Why not 2? Why not 10? Why 15 (a whole season) part paid, part unpaid?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

The response, from Schefters latest tweet:

NFLPA statement on behalf of Adrian Peterson: "The report that I backed out of a meeting with the NFL is just not true. When Roger Goodell's office asked that I attend the hearing on Friday, I consulted with my union and learned that this hearing was something new and inconsistent with the CBA. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of this past week, my union sent emails, letters, and had conversations with his office on my behalf asking about the nature of the hearing, how it was to occur, who would participate, and its purpose. We repeatedly asked them to respond quickly to my questions because I want to cooperate and get back on the field, but they didn't respond until late Wednesday evening, and even then they didn't answer important questions about their proposed hearing.

After consulting with the union, I told the NFL that I will attend the standard meeting with the Commissioner prior to possible imposition of discipline, as has been the long-term practice under the CBA, but I wouldnt participate in a newly created and non-collectively bargained pre-discipline hearing that would include outside people I don't know and who would have roles in the process that the NFL wouldn't disclose. At this point, I've resolved my matter in the criminal court; I've worked to make amends for what I've done; I've missed most of the season, and I stand ready to be candid and forthcoming with Mr. Goodell about what happened. However, I will not allow the NFL to impose a new process of discipline on me, ignore the CBA, ignore the deal they agreed to with me, and behave without fairness or accountability. The process they are pushing is arbitrary, inconsistent, and contrary to what they agreed to do, and for those reasons, I never agreed to the hearing.

I'm sorry for all of this, but I can't excuse their refusal to be fair.

-- Adrian Peterson"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So basically a kangaroo court, a show trial. AP's right - no thanks.

- ETA - Here's a thought on the Ray Rice situation. Rice got 2 games because that's all that RG vould do under the PCP without getting sued or pushed to the limit by the NFLPA. The Ravens cut Rice to save the NFL's butt from the fire. But the Vikes won't/cant' cut AP. I don't think AP and the PA think the NFL has the goods to back up a more severe penalty and that's why AP and the union is acting uber-confident. And that's also why the NFL did not just levy punishment back when this all started, because they were limited in what they could do.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm about as anti-Peterson as anyone in any thread about him this year, and I am completely on his side in refusing to attend that meeting.

 

[BigJim®]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the PCP need to mention child abuse? It covers assault, which is what Peterson pled no contest to.

Then why 6 games under the PCP? Why not 2? Why not 10?

Indeed. Why not? Like I said, I don't like these particular facts to crusade against NFL discretion. It will certainly be ironic for AP to argue he's being punished too severely, considering his own position on barbaric punishment of a 4 year old.

 

[DropKick]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that it his penalty.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would the PCP need to mention child abuse? It covers assault, which is what Peterson pled no contest to.

Then why 6 games under the PCP? Why not 2? Why not 10?

Indeed. Why not? Like I said, I don't like these particular facts to crusade against NFL discretion. It will certainly be ironic for AP to argue he's being punished too severely, considering his own position on barbaric punishment of a 4 year old.

Because there's no standard, that's why not. A commissioner can't just pull numbers out of a deck of cards. The 6 games is actually 15 games, part paid, part unpaid. Rice was given 2 games under the PCP, was his offense any less worse than AP's? No. - Oh but hey Rog got caught in a lie so hey let's punish Rice for that and create a new policy which holds 6 games, but that does not apply to AP. Now Rog has been caught in another lie and he is again punishing the player.

 

[fatness]

There does not need to be outcry from the public, outcry from the public is what is wrong with this from the get go. NFLPA says the NFL is making things up as they go.

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying. But I disagree with the bolded as I read it. This entire situation is about what Peterson did to a kid (which we're not allowed to talk about, apparently, in this topic) and about public reaction to it. In a business that relies on that public for its income, the outcry from the public certainly does matter.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that it his penalty.

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

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

RW just went out on a major limb:

We tentatively expect Peterson to play in Week 12.

I realize they like to sell copy but...

 

[DropKick]

Then why 6 games under the PCP? Why not 2? Why not 10? Why 15 (a whole season) part paid, part unpaid?

I'm not sure what answer would satisfy you... but Peterson was caught in a perfect storm of sorts... After numerous player conduct issues (think of how extreme Aaron Hernandez was..) and then the Ray Rice fiasco, and the perception of too light a punishment... The NFL had to go public and face considerable scrutiny regarding their handling of the case. At the end of the day, it is a business and sponsors and public perception far outweigh any one player. So, they can't be too lenient with ADP.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

RW just went out on a major limb:

We tentatively expect Peterson to play in Week 12.

I realize they like to sell copy but...

doenst that pretty much guarantee he wont?

 

[DropKick]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that it his penalty.

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

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

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

RW just went out on a major limb:

We tentatively expect Peterson to play in Week 12.

I realize they like to sell copy but...

doenst that pretty much guarantee he wont?

Yeah, seriously, thanks RW.