Vikings RB Adrian Peterson indicted for child abuse; deactivated for Pats game at Minnesota

[SB39]

What you think is clear to all of us isn't clear at all, IMO. It has little to do with what the NFL should do and everything to do with the position that it put itself in by voluntarily assuming (or, more aptly, demanding) these responsibilities.

Goodell rode into town and made it very clear that he was going to be the judge, jury, and executioner when it came to player conduct. Now he's paying the price for being inconsistent and generally ****ty at the job that he demanded.

Problem is, he **wasn't** being inconsistent with Ray Rice. That punishment given Rice was very much in line with the 50+ other men arrested for domestic violence under his watch (if anything, Rice got the strict end of the punishment spectrum).

The inconsistency comes from the media and fandom. None of us gave a **** about this issue in the NFL until there was video.

 

[mgteich]

Problem is, he **wasn't** being inconsistent with Ray Rice. That punishment given Rice was very much in line with the 50+ other men arrested for domestic violence under his watch (if anything, Rice got the strict end of the punishment spectrum).

The inconsistency comes from the media and fandom. None of us gave a **** about this issue in the NFL until there was video.

Does anyone have any data on the punishments for those men arrested for spousal abuse under Goodeell's watch?

BTW, some think that the inconsistency comes not from the initial action (i know that many disagree with me), but rather from the decision to change the penalty to an indefinite sentence, even when the enhanced new rule calls for 6 games.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Of course, the "enhanced" indefinite suspension comes from Goodell being an egotist and quite possibly a liar as well.

He's basically claiming that the reason Rice was suspended indefinitely is not because of what Rice did to his fiancée, but because he lied to Goodell.

 

[BradyFTW!]

So, you have NO OPINION on what should be done in either case, or what should have been done. What you seem to want to tell us is that Goodell is wrong.

Not at all. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting what people are saying or if you're just failing pretty badly at reading comprehension. In any case, my stance is as follows, in bullet points to try to make it especially easy to understand:

• I don't think the NFL has an inherent obligation to police player conduct
• I think that the league would have been best served by making a point of NOT policing player conduct. Simply stating that any player who is legally able to play is eligible to play, and that they won't police player conduct except where it concerns the integrity of the game. If players ran afoul of the law, the league would let the legal system take care of that and would leave it at the discretion of the team whether or not to punish the players accordingly.
• The league clearly feels differently about its role in policing player conduct, as even before Goodell there were stupid, unnecessary policies in place like testing for recreational drugs.
• Goodell doubled down on this by making it extremely clear that he intended to police player conduct very closely in an unchecked role. He has long made a habit of suspending players for being arrested.
• Once you've opened that box, you can't close it. Once you've determined that player conduct unrelated to the integrity of the game falls under your purview, you open yourself up to criticism when you fail spectacularly at consistency of punishment, as the NFL has.
• Specifically, when you put asinine policies in place that allow someone who fails some drug tests to be suspended for a year, while a wifebeater is suspended for two games and a childbeater isn't suspended at all, criticism of how utterly ******ed your policies are is legitimate. This calls into question your priorities and your ability to wield the authority that you so insistently claimed in the first place.
• While the initial Ray Rice punishment wasn't lacking compared to other domestic abuse cases, it was extremely out of line compared to other personal conduct penalties, most notably the substance abuse policy. It's no coincidence that the uproar was largely centered around the fact that Josh Gordon was banned for a year--and Prater for 4 games--around the same time that Rice got his 2 games. Because no matter how much they want to hide behind the technicality of the drug suspension being in line with CBA, the fact is that that's making an implicit stand on which offense is worse. And that stand happens to be ludicrous. Again, this all could've been avoided if the NFL adopted a more sensible, hands-off approach to player conduct.
• In short: once you set a precedent, be prepared to abide by it. If failing a couple of weed tests is worth a year's suspension, beating your wife should probably be more. If you've established that you're going to suspend players for domestic abuse arrests even without a trial and conviction, based entirely on the player's admission to said acts, then you'd better be prepared to take that action consistently and uniformly. That means suspending Peterson for admitting to beating his child. Otherwise, you open yourself up to the kind of justified criticism that we're seeing now.

 

[SB39]

Does anyone have any data on the punishments for those men arrested for spousal abuse under Goodeell's watch?

The stat I've seen oft-repeated is 56 arrests resulting in a grand total of 13 games suspension. Obviously not all of those arrests are as bad as what Rice did but let's face it, there was virtually 0 pressure on the Panthers to do anything with Hardy over the summer and training camp.

While the Rice situation is very upsetting, maybe some good will come out of this high profile case in that abusers will get punished more harshly, whether they play in the NFL or are simply the guy next door.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Holy Crap......

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/gloria-allred-in-cobb-to-discuss-alleged-abuse-by-/nhPK2/

Gloria Allred in Cobb to discuss alleged abuse by NFL player

Apparently at 3pm she is going to name yet, another NFL player out for abuse!

I'm guessing by her location it is going to be a Falcon. Goodell it was nice knowing ya, don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out!

I should have known better....

The mouthpiece brings up an old 2009 accusation on Brandon Marshal and has a "friend of a friend" there as a witness.....

Just when my opinion about lawyers can't get any lower, they lower the bar yet again.......

 

[Ring 6]

We disagree. This is not new, although we have agreed on almost all football issues lately.

I think we agree a lot, but we have good discussions when we do not.

THE PLAYERS WORK FOR THE TEAMS
You seem to disagree, and think that the NFL is an employer. The NFL is an association of owners. The players, through their union, have agreed that the NFL has the right to punish certain actions.

Semantics. The league represents the owners, and the league is, in practice, employed by the owners to represent them on certain matters that are to be handled collectively.

NFL
If the union agrees to a max 6 week suspension for spousal abuse, even if not adjudicated in any way by the courts, then so be it. The have not and will not agree to unlimited punishment for any conduct that Commissioner, in his sole discretion, determines damages the good name of the NFL. Such action is being appeal, and will continue to be appealed within the NFL process and in the courts.

The union has agreed to the current system. Punishment is at the discretion of the commissioner if not otherwise spelled out. Grieving the decision is, of course an available remedy.

TEAMS
The teams are free to fire people based on pressure from sponsors. Again, I do not believe that depriving a person a livelihood at the whim of an owner is sustainable in court

You seem to think the players are entitled to a job.
That is not the case. Please show me all of the court cases where a team was taken to court and needed to justify, or even have a reason for releasing a player.
Incognito wasn't charged with anything, and you saying he should go to court and claim it was illegal to suspend and cut him?

. Obviously you disagree, thinking that owners have an unlimited right to fire a player.

How don't they? They fire 37 players from every team in every camp. Players are consistently cut.
No reason is ever required.

In any case, this is NOT the real issue. If MINN chooses to fire Peterson, he can get a job for another team. Unlimited suspension without pay is not allowed under the law.

But Peterson is being paid.

MY EMPLOYER
would almost certainly suspended most of these players without pay. Counseling would have been required for some of these players, likely Rice and Peterson.

So why are you saying it is wrong for the NFL to do so?

I find the Vick case especially ridiculous. Denying a person a livelihood because he abused animals seems very strange for those who do not live on the coasts, or those influenced by their media.

How was he denied a livlihood? He is employed today. He was fired from his job because he committed a morally bankrupt crime and went to prison.
Are you saying the Falcons should have kept paying him while he was in prison?

Do you think that allowing Peterson to report to work and play under these circumstances would be in the best interest of his employer?
Do you not recognize that the negatives he brings now far exceed his value to his employer? Why should they be forced to employ him if doing so has a negative impact on the organization?

 

[Ring 6]

People are using the league as an employer interchangeably with using the team as an employer. I suggest we just look at context to figure out what someone means. For example if someone says Peterson works for the NFL, they probably know that that's not technically accurate and we all probably know what they mean.

Having said that, a great many teams have received large amounts of money from public financing. That simply cannot be denied.

The league represents the teams/employers.

Using public funds to build stadiums is not the same as "NFL teams being funded by the government'.

 

[Ring 6]

People (unfortunately) have short memories. By next season this won't be as much of a hot button issue because we all will have moved on. Ray Rice's poor performance last year will be a bigger impediment to getting signed than his domestic violence charge (assuming he stays out of trouble between now and then)

But you cannot discount that he is now the poster boy for domestic violence and it is enough of a hot button issue that it will follow him.
I would agree that after the initial protests, people would forget, but I'm not sure teams will be willing to endure the initial swarm of criticism. And yes, his performance is a factor, but more to the effect, IMO, that it wasn't good enough to overcome this issue. If he were simply cut for performance he would have not trouble finding a team.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Problem is, he **wasn't** being inconsistent with Ray Rice. That punishment given Rice was very much in line with the 50+ other men arrested for domestic violence under his watch (if anything, Rice got the strict end of the punishment spectrum).

The inconsistency comes from the media and fandom. None of us gave a **** about this issue in the NFL until there was video.

The inconsistency isn't necessarily relative to other domestic abuse arrests. It's relative to discipline related to player conduct. If a couple of weed tests are worth a year, then beating your wife should be worth more.

And separately, Goodell has now rewritten the rules on domestic abuse anyway, and even then he's failed to apply them in subsequent cases. No matter how you feel about the handling of the Rice and Peterson fiascos, it's impossible to argue that there was any consistency to the punishments that were given.

 

[BradyFTW!]

People (unfortunately) have short memories. By next season this won't be as much of a hot button issue because we all will have moved on. Ray Rice's poor performance last year will be a bigger impediment to getting signed than his domestic violence charge (assuming he stays out of trouble between now and then)

Lots of people said the same thing about Richie Incognito last year. Yet last time I checked, a bunch of ****ty guards are on NFL rosters right now, and he isn't.

 

[SB39]

Lots of people said the same thing about Richie Incognito last year. Yet last time I checked, a bunch of ****ty guards are on NFL rosters right now, and he isn't.

That's because Incognito is a ****ty player as well. Oh don't get me wrong, he has talent, but he is a ****ty player in that he can cost his team 15 yards at any moment and has proven time and again his talent level does not justify the distraction.

 

[SB39]

Lots of people said the same thing about Richie Incognito last year. Yet last time I checked, a bunch of ****ty guards are on NFL rosters right now, and he isn't.

That's because Incognito is a ****ty player as well. Oh don't get me wrong, he has talent, but he is a ****ty player in that he can cost his team 15 yards at any moment and has proven time and again his talent level does not justify the distraction.

 

[Ring 6]

QUESTION 1

Peterson is guilty of child abuse in most jurisdictions in the US. What punishment SHOULD be (or should have been) enacted by the NFL? and by the Vikings?

QUESTION 2

Rice is clearly guilty of spousal abuse. What punishment SHOULD be (or should have been) enacted by the NFL? by BALT?

Clearly you all think that the NFL and its member teams should punish these behaviors, independent of any action by society through its legislature, police and courts. I understand that.

So, let's go beyond all the criticism of the NFL and the teams. What SHOULD be done?

Precedent is vital in sentencing, so I will qualify that I am speaking without knowledge of the precedent in place. I am also assuming they would be found guilty of exactly what has been reported. With that in mind.

QUESTION 1
Most importantly Peterson should have parenting rights taken away and should not be allowed unsupervised visits with his children. He should be given mandatory counseling. I would sentence him to 6 months in jail. If I am making decisions for the league, I suspend him for 8 games. I base this on the real purpose of the suspension which is not punitive but is public relations damage control, and a means of making a statement about what morality the league professes. I think the Vikings should welcome him back once the suspension is up. Of course as of now, they have suspended him PENDING the resolution in court, but your question assumes proof of guilt.

QUESTION 2
I would think Rice should get 90 days in jail. Again, no knowledge of precedent leads me to say beating up an adult, even a defenseless one is less egregious than beating a 4 year old child.
I think the 6 game suspension per policy is fine. I think the Ravens should not have released him, let him serve both punishments, but I think the decline in his play made it easy for them to wash their hands, and given that it was a smart move.

 

[mgteich]

OK, I understand your position better. I find all you say to be reasonable, although I have a disagreement with regard to the Rice case.

Rice was punished consistently with league policy (2 games). The policy was subsequently changed to 6 games for a 1st offense. It is not clear that this change should be made retroactively. Certainly, it is not clear that an indefinite suspension is reasonable in any way.

Your objection (and that of many) is that the penalty of 2 weeks is unreasonable GIVEN THE PENALTIES for drug related offense. I agree. The NFL agrees. Penalties for both kinds of offenses need to be changed. Indeed they have been since the original Rice decision. And there is much more work to do in making the penalties more reasonable in both kids of cases.

I don't accept the logic that Rice should have been given a sentence INCONSISTENT with the rules, simply because of penalties for a different offense were (and are) unreasonable.

BOTTOM LINE

If the NFL is going to continue to be the arbiter of morality on these issues, there needs to be much more work on making the punishments more reasonable.

Not at all. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting what people are saying or if you're just failing pretty badly at reading comprehension. In any case, my stance is as follows, in bullet points to try to make it especially easy to understand:

• I don't think the NFL has an inherent obligation to police player conduct
• I think that the league would have been best served by making a point of NOT policing player conduct. Simply stating that any player who is legally able to play is eligible to play, and that they won't police player conduct except where it concerns the integrity of the game. If players ran afoul of the law, the league would let the legal system take care of that and would leave it at the discretion of the team whether or not to punish the players accordingly.
• The league clearly feels differently about its role in policing player conduct, as even before Goodell there were stupid, unnecessary policies in place like testing for recreational drugs.
• Goodell doubled down on this by making it extremely clear that he intended to police player conduct very closely in an unchecked role. He has long made a habit of suspending players for being arrested.
• Once you've opened that box, you can't close it. Once you've determined that player conduct unrelated to the integrity of the game falls under your purview, you open yourself up to criticism when you fail spectacularly at consistency of punishment, as the NFL has.
• Specifically, when you put asinine policies in place that allow someone who fails some drug tests to be suspended for a year, while a wifebeater is suspended for two games and a childbeater isn't suspended at all, criticism of how utterly ******ed your policies are is legitimate. This calls into question your priorities and your ability to wield the authority that you so insistently claimed in the first place.
• While the initial Ray Rice punishment wasn't lacking compared to other domestic abuse cases, it was extremely out of line compared to other personal conduct penalties, most notably the substance abuse policy. It's no coincidence that the uproar was largely centered around the fact that Josh Gordon was banned for a year--and Prater for 4 games--around the same time that Rice got his 2 games. Because no matter how much they want to hide behind the technicality of the drug suspension being in line with CBA, the fact is that that's making an implicit stand on which offense is worse. And that stand happens to be ludicrous. Again, this all could've been avoided if the NFL adopted a more sensible, hands-off approach to player conduct.
• In short: once you set a precedent, be prepared to abide by it. If failing a couple of weed tests is worth a year's suspension, beating your wife should probably be more. If you've established that you're going to suspend players for domestic abuse arrests even without a trial and conviction, based entirely on the player's admission to said acts, then you'd better be prepared to take that action consistently and uniformly. That means suspending Peterson for admitting to beating his child. Otherwise, you open yourself up to the kind of justified criticism that we're seeing now.

 

[shmessy]

I find the action by MINN to be more reasonable than that of patriots. But that is simply my personal opinion.

My point was with SB39 who SOMEHOW believes that the Patriots were LESS quick to act on Hernandez than the Vikings were with Peterson. You seem to agree with me that they were MORE quick to act on Hernandez than the Vikings did with Peterson.

 

[mgteich]

Precedent is vital in sentencing, so I will qualify that I am speaking without knowledge of the precedent in place. I am also assuming they would be found guilty of exactly what has been reported. With that in mind.

QUESTION 1
Most importantly Peterson should have parenting rights taken away and should not be allowed unsupervised visits with his children. He should be given mandatory counseling. I would sentence him to 6 months in jail. If I am making decisions for the league, I suspend him for 8 games. I base this on the real purpose of the suspension which is not punitive but is public relations damage control, and a means of making a statement about what morality the league professes. I think the Vikings should welcome him back once the suspension is up. Of course as of now, they have suspended him PENDING the resolution in court, but your question assumes proof of guilt.

QUESTION 2
I would think Rice should get 90 days in jail. Again, no knowledge of precedent leads me to say beating up an adult, even a defenseless one is less egregious than beating a 4 year old child.
I think the 6 game suspension per policy is fine. I think the Ravens should not have released him, let him serve both punishments, but I think the decline in his play made it easy for them to wash their hands, and given that it was a smart move.

I have no problem at all with your suggested adjudications of these matters. I especially agree that precedents are important. I also agree that we do not pretend to know the precedents of the courts involved.

I have 2 nitpicks.

I am fine with the Peterson suspension of 8 games, if it is consistent with precedents set in previous NFL cases. If it is NOT, then I would suggest that new policies should be set for future offenses, and that Peterson be punished under present precedent. If there is NO precedent that your suggestion would make a good first precedent.

With regard to Rice, I have problems with the retroactive application of the 6 game penalty. After all, the rule was changed because the then current policy was so unreasonable.

 

[shmessy]

shmessy said: ↑
SB39 thinks the Patriots did not act as quickly and decisively with Hernandez...........

While I said I am letting this matter drop, I just want to quickly add a request that you stop blatantly lying about things I have said.

Nowhere did I ever state the above so stop lying.

Accuse someone of lying and then say you are 'letting this matter drop'. Like egging someone's home and running away.

Pathetic.


Post #751;

"I've heard multiple people kiss Kraft and Belichick asses for their actions last summer, but saying they moved "swiftly and decisively" is revisionist history.
It was a full week between the time the Hernandez investigation began and the moment the Patriots cut him. Hernandez was reported as being directly involved with a homicide 6 days before the Pats cut him, and even then they only cut him once it was obvious he'd pretty much be spending the rest of his life in jail.
So can we please stop acting like the Patriots found out Hernandez was involved with a homicide and cut him that same day?"

Post #753:

"Weak.
Hernandez was going to be charged with murder. Since he wasn't really a flight risk, and since he was a very high profile rich guy, the authorities made sure they did every single thing by the book.
I know it's not popular to be anything but a total homer in this forum, but the Patriots were not as "decisive" and "immediate" as some would like to believe.

Post #786:

"Because as the week progressed, every single person following this story knew the arrest was coming and it was only a matter of time.
Like I said, failing to be a top Patriots homer on this board is a very unpopular position, and I've discussed this enough and don't want to hijack the thread so I'll leave it at this. I just don't see them as deserving the amount of fawning we are seeing on this matter when what they did was literally wait until the guy was completely (and probably permanently) removed from society before they acted."

 

[Ring 6]

Taxpayer subsidies in the form of tax-exempt status for the league office and, for the teams, public funds for stadium and facility construction.

The league office is not for profit.
Contributing public funds for stadium construction does not equal the league being funded by the government. The municipalities do it for their own benefit

 

[Ring 6]

I have no problem at all with your suggested adjudications of these matters. I especially agree that precedents are important. I also agree that we do not pretend to know the precedents of the courts involved.

I have 2 nitpicks.

I am fine with the Peterson suspension of 8 games, if it is consistent with precedents set in previous NFL cases. If it is NOT, then I would suggest that new policies should be set for future offenses, and that Peterson be punished under present precedent. If there is NO precedent that your suggestion would make a good first precedent.

With regard to Rice, I have problems with the retroactive application of the 6 game penalty. After all, the rule was changed because the then current policy was so unreasonable.

I'm saying what I feel is appropriate.
I think goddell for it wrong with 2 games and right with 6.
Had he handled it right to begin with rice would be suspended and never have been released IMO