Adrian Peterson Suspended for Remainder of 2014 Season

[KD in CA]

The deadspin article linked covers both the idea that the nfl and its media create an echo chamber effect - coupled with who the hell wants to speak up when it's child abuse. It's an easy place to railroad someone for PR instead of justice.... if that's your goal.

I think the NFL's goal has been pretty obvious: to limit the portrayal by the media of the league as enablers for domestic abusers.

 

This all started with the Ray Rice case, where the NFL initially gave the fans what they wanted: a token suspension and Rice back on the field ASAP. The NFL suspended him 2 games because that's how much they care about him punching out his wife. They suspended him an additional 14 games because of bad PR that followed the unexpected media spotlight.

 

That's why I consider those who whine about idiots like Rice or Peterson's suspensions to be either disingenuous phonies or clueless morons. What else could they have done?? Despite the ending whining about the capricious nature of suspensions, I'm pretty sure no one would have been happy if Rice and others had received consistent year-long suspensions right off the bat.

 

 

I'd love to hear from one of those who are so unsatisfied with the league's conduct policies and enforcement explain exactly how the Rice case should have been handled all along.

[FireChan]

 

I think the NFL's goal has been pretty obvious: to limit the portrayal by the media of the league as enablers for domestic abusers.

 

This all started with the Ray Rice case, where the NFL initially gave the fans what they wanted: a token suspension and Rice back on the field ASAP. The NFL suspended him 2 games because that's how much they care about him punching out his wife. They suspended him an additional 14 games because of bad PR that followed the unexpected media spotlight.

 

That's why I consider those who whine about idiots like Rice or Peterson's suspensions to be either disingenuous phonies or clueless morons. What else could they have done?? Despite the ending whining about the capricious nature of suspensions, I'm pretty sure no one would have been happy if Rice and others had received consistent year-long suspensions right off the bat.

 

 

I'd love to hear from one of those who are so unsatisfied with the league's conduct policies and enforcement explain exactly how the Rice case should have been handled all along.

 

Goodell should have done nothing. The Ravens organization, who really are Rice's employers, should have weighed his value, and come to a conclusion. Whether that's to suspend him for 4 games, stand by him or cut him.

 

Most importantly, they should have stood by their guns. How is this not disingenuous? "We stand by Ray during this difficult time where he made a mistake. He's a guy with a good history who made a horrible mistake." Two days later, "Ray Rice is cut and banned." That's ridiculous, both to my personal beliefs and from a PR standpoint.

 

You want an NFL case handled correctly? Look at McDonald of the 49ers. They stood by due process, said this guy helps us win football games and that's that. The PR crisis for them lasted two days. Goodell, with his constant concession to the whims of the masses, attempted to please everyone and instead made everything worse from a PR standpoint. Like an idiot. All Goodell had to say was, "this is our policy, that's what the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed on, we'll reevaluate it." And then push a Peyton vs. Brady storyline and it'd be over.

Edited November 20, 2014 by FireChan

[KD in CA]

Goodell should have done nothing. The Ravens organization, who really are Rice's employers, should have weighed his value, and come to a conclusion. Whether that's to suspend him for 4 games, stand by him or cut him.

 

Most importantly, they should have stood by their guns. How is this not disingenuous? "We stand by Ray during this difficult time where he made a mistake. He's a guy with a good history who made a horrible mistake." Two days later, "Ray Rice is cut and banned." That's ridiculous, both to my personal beliefs and from a PR standpoint.

 

You want an NFL case handled correctly? Look at McDonald of the 49ers. They stood by due process, said this guy helps us win football games and that's that. The PR crisis for them lasted two days. Goodell, with his constant concession to the whims of the masses, attempted to please everyone and instead made everything worse from a PR standpoint. Like an idiot. All Goodell had to say was, "this is our policy, that's what the NFL and the NFLPA have agreed on, we'll reevaluate it." And then push a Peyton vs. Brady storyline and it'd be over.

 

You are ignoring the realities of the information/media age we live in. The NFL doesn't have that luxury. The Rice and McDonald cases became very different the moment the elevator video was posted on the web. That story was not going away in two days or even two weeks. The NFL tried to cover up the video but they weren't able to and were forced to backtrack and hammer Rice once it went public.

 

It's not possible to 'stand by' a guy after tens of millions see him lay out his wife with one punch, not without incurring a major PR and financial hit. No one player is worth that to the league.

 

As far as Goodell handing out the suspension rather than the teams, that is merely a business decision the owners have agreed upon.

[FireChan]

You are ignoring the realities of the information/media age we live in. The NFL doesn't have that luxury. The Rice and McDonald cases became very different the moment the elevator video was posted on the web. That story was not going away in two days or even two weeks. The NFL tried to cover up the video but they weren't able to and were forced to backtrack and hammer Rice once it went public.

 

It's not possible to 'stand by' a guy after tens of millions see him lay out his wife with one punch, not without incurring a major PR and financial hit. No one player is worth that to the league.

 

As far as Goodell handing out the suspension rather than the teams, that is merely a business decision the owners have agreed upon.

 

See, you wonder why this topic frustrates me, then you say the video tape changed the situation. How did it change the situation? What new fact came to light that we didn't know? And, I know, I know, it's illogical and emotional but that's the way it is. That's crap, and I refuse to be okay with that.

 

Why is Greg Hardy still suspended and talked about, while McDonald isn't?

[Rob's House]

You are ignoring the realities of the information/media age we live in. The NFL doesn't have that luxury. The Rice and McDonald cases became very different the moment the elevator video was posted on the web. That story was not going away in two days or even two weeks. The NFL tried to cover up the video but they weren't able to and were forced to backtrack and hammer Rice once it went public.

 

It's not possible to 'stand by' a guy after tens of millions see him lay out his wife with one punch, not without incurring a major PR and financial hit. No one player is worth that to the league.

 

As far as Goodell handing out the suspension rather than the teams, that is merely a business decision the owners have agreed upon.

 

The NFL did what a lot of otherwise intelligent people do when they find themselves in the media crosshairs: they panicked. The public fury is always short-lived and was barked about loudest by people who don't give much of a !@#$ about football anyway. FC's right. If they'd stuck to their guns, said it's up to the team to decide, and said this is the policy we agreed to, all this would have gone away much more quickly.

 

By caving to the pressure they validated the outrage. They told the raging morons that they were not morons (even though they were) and that their rage was justified (even though it wasn't) and now they're stuck in that position.

[KD in CA]

See, you wonder why this topic frustrates me, then you say the video tape changed the situation. How did it change the situation? What new fact came to light that we didn't know? And, I know, I know, it's illogical and emotional but that's the way it is. That's crap, and I refuse to be okay with that.

 

Why is Greg Hardy still suspended and talked about, while McDonald isn't?

 

It changed the situation by giving the media the ammo to make it a 24x7 news story. And yes that just feeds into the people who don't really understand the situation but want to be 'outraged' by something every day and I agree with you guys that is a crappy reason to motivate policy. But that's our world now; that's what you get boxed into as a high profile organization. I disagree with you that the NFL could have simply ignored that public response and that it would have blown over without lasting damage. Look at what happened; the story finally died down only after Goodell's press conference.

 

 

But I also smell something different from a lot of posts on this topic going back over the past couple months. Some people are just a little too upset about the 'fairness' being shown to Rice and Peterson and that's a little hard to swallow.

[Rob's House]

 

 

It changed the situation by giving the media the ammo to make it a 24x7 news story. And yes that just feeds into the people who don't really understand the situation but want to be 'outraged' by something every day and I agree with you guys that is a crappy reason to motivate policy. But that's our world now; that's what you get boxed into as a high profile organization. I disagree with you that the NFL could have simply ignored that public response and that it would have blown over without lasting damage. Look at what happened; the story finally died down only after Goodell's press conference.

 

 

But I also smell something different from a lot of posts on this topic going back over the past couple months. Some people are just a little too upset about the 'fairness' being shown to Rice and Peterson and that's a little hard to swallow.

 

What do you mean?

[FireChan]

 

 

What do you mean?

 

He means that he thinks too many are upset that they aren't playing and don't care about the victims. It's the "who cares if we torture terrorists" argument, and is fundamentally flawed.

[Rob's House]

He means that he thinks too many are upset that they aren't playing and don't care about the victims. It's the "who cares if we torture terrorists" argument, and is fundamentally flawed.

 

I hope that's not what he means. That's Bird dog territory. Not only does it ignore the real reason people are upset about this ad hoc method of "punishment," it also pretends the victims are somehow served by said "punishment."

[NoSaint]

 

 

He means that he thinks too many are upset that they aren't playing and don't care about the victims. It's the "who cares if we torture terrorists" argument, and is fundamentally flawed.

 

ahh, i thought of the possible "people upset probably beat their wife or child" argument, not the "who cares what we do to bad guys" one.

[Rob's House]

So you're trying to say that I am an abuser because I find that this situation was mangled beyond belief, and that AP should be allowed to play? Did OJ's lawyer kill his wife too?

 

He's not saying that. He's exploring possible interpretations. That's an argument others have advanced.

[FireChan]

He's not saying that. He's exploring possible interpretations. That's an argument others have advanced.

 

Oh whoops.

[KD in CA]

He means that he thinks too many are upset that they aren't playing and don't care about the victims. It's the "who cares if we torture terrorists" argument, and is fundamentally flawed.

 

Not quite, and it's not the torture terrorist argument (though I'd be happy to discuss that on PPP). I'm suggesting there's a 'we don't care who beats their wife, we just want guys on the field' undertone, which in fairness was pretty much the unofficial NFL line on this stuff too, up until they got caught by the Rice video and the Peterson photos. People are hiding behind the 'fairness/inconsistency' argument because they don't like the reality of the fundamental change that's happening on how DV issues will be addressed going forward. I think people are more upset that long suspensions may be the norm going forward than they are about these two specific cases. So yes, Rice and Peterson are not being treated as they would have been in the past, and I for one am happy about it. Someone's got to be the poster child for change, and my heart isn't going to break for guys who put themselves in this position.

 

But I love how far you guys ran with that one!

[FireChan]

 

 

Not quite, and it's not the torture terrorist argument (though I'd be happy to discuss that on PPP). I'm suggesting there's a 'we don't care who beats their wife, we just want guys on the field' undertone, which in fairness was pretty much the unofficial NFL line on this stuff too, up until they got caught by the Rice video and the Peterson photos. People are hiding behind the 'fairness/inconsistency' argument because they don't like the reality of the fundamental change that's happening on how DV issues will be addressed going forward. I think people are more upset that long suspensions may be the norm going forward than they are about these two specific cases. So yes, Rice and Peterson are not being treated as they would have been in the past, and I for one am happy about it. Someone's got to be the poster child for change, and my heart isn't going to break for guys who put themselves in this position.

 

But I love how far you guys ran with that one!

 

I said the "torture terrorists" argument was flawed, not that I don't believe there's any merit behind it. I'm game to discuss it on PPP.

 

I don't believe the Rice case and the Peterson case are equal. To me, the Rice case was much more repugnant. Although it's just my opinion, I don't think AP had any malicious intent. I'll admit that I'm allowing that conjecture to contribute to my own beliefs toward the NFL.

 

Still, I don't believe the NFL should act as though they are the morally authority. The judicial system gave AP community service and a fine. Who is the NFL to believe they need to punish him further? He's already missed 3/4's of the season. I assure you, I don't really care if AP is on the field or not.

 

Even more alarming is the focus by the court of public opinion on the NFL. If you really cared about DV, why would you focus on the organization that only employees a minuscule population of offenders? If you think these guys are getting off too easy, wouldn't it make sense to voice disapproval towards the courts and not the NFL? That's why I believe the "outrage" crowd is full of it. They are pretending to care about domestic violence as an issue, when in reality, they are focused on the NFL.

[BigBuff423]

The UCMJ is a perfect example of a well-documented set of rules that allows the governing body to enforce penalties, whether or not penalties from a court of law have been enforced.

 

Something like that is EXACTLY what is needed in every professional sports league and it must be created by both the league and the players' union/association in order to avoid lengthy appeals, etc.

 

And yes, I am a proud Navy veteran.

 

And I don't disagree at all....but isn't it damn near tragic that such a wide, sweeping code of conduct is necessary for FUTURE punishment of drug use, domestic violence and child abuse?? It's amazing that the NFL should even need to consider graduated sanctions or punishments for things involving violence toward family members - especially children....

 

And, thank you for your service.

[KD in CA]

I said the "torture terrorists" argument was flawed, not that I don't believe there's any merit behind it. I'm game to discuss it on PPP.

 

I don't believe the Rice case and the Peterson case are equal. To me, the Rice case was much more repugnant. Although it's just my opinion, I don't think AP had any malicious intent. I'll admit that I'm allowing that conjecture to contribute to my own beliefs toward the NFL.

 

Still, I don't believe the NFL should act as though they are the morally authority. The judicial system gave AP community service and a fine. Who is the NFL to believe they need to punish him further? He's already missed 3/4's of the season. I assure you, I don't really care if AP is on the field or not.

 

Even more alarming is the focus by the court of public opinion on the NFL. If you really cared about DV, why would you focus on the organization that only employees a minuscule population of offenders? If you think these guys are getting off too easy, wouldn't it make sense to voice disapproval towards the courts and not the NFL? That's why I believe the "outrage" crowd is full of it. They are pretending to care about domestic violence as an issue, when in reality, they are focused on the NFL.

 

I can respect the argument that one feels Peterson has been punished enough, but employers have the right to hold employees accountable based on their own standards, apart from the legal system. The NFL isn't infringing on anyone's rights.

 

I agree that many are using these cases as an example to NFL-bash or Goodell-bash (we've seen that all over this board). I happen to think there is benefit to the NFL making DV a much less acceptable crime, even if they had to have their feet held to the fire to make it happen. If Rice and Peterson are collateral damage by virtual of not being grandfathered into the old 'slap on the wrist' rules, so be it. And yes, it would be nice if we held society at large to that standard, but a high profile organization like the NFL is a good place to start.

[Mango]

 

 

I said the "torture terrorists" argument was flawed, not that I don't believe there's any merit behind it. I'm game to discuss it on PPP.

 

I don't believe the Rice case and the Peterson case are equal. To me, the Rice case was much more repugnant. Although it's just my opinion, I don't think AP had any malicious intent. I'll admit that I'm allowing that conjecture to contribute to my own beliefs toward the NFL.

 

Still, I don't believe the NFL should act as though they are the morally authority. The judicial system gave AP community service and a fine. Who is the NFL to believe they need to punish him further? He's already missed 3/4's of the season. I assure you, I don't really care if AP is on the field or not.

 

Even more alarming is the focus by the court of public opinion on the NFL. If you really cared about DV, why would you focus on the organization that only employees a minuscule population of offenders? If you think these guys are getting off too easy, wouldn't it make sense to voice disapproval towards the courts and not the NFL? That's why I believe the "outrage" crowd is full of it. They are pretending to care about domestic violence as an issue, when in reality, they are focused on the NFL.

 

The court punishment was an absolute joke. I've seen guys get more than that in court for a DUI. It was absurd and a very liberal use of the term punishment.

 

In regards to the who is the NFL, you're correct the U.S. judicial system is the only place in life that has any consequences for your actions....put John Smith at the top of his resume and have him go find other employment. Then let's see if this guy is a hirable employee. Again other than imprisonment the courts can't rule, "don't go to work for the rest of the year". This line of thought is so flawed and nonsensical to me. When you do crappy things sometimes you go to court, and sometimes it costs you your job. Welcome to life.

[FireChan]

 

 

The court punishment was an absolute joke. I've seen guys get more than that in court for a DUI. It was absurd and a very liberal use of the term punishment.

 

In regards to the who is the NFL, you're correct the U.S. judicial system is the only place in life that has any consequences for your actions....put John Smith at the top of his resume and have him go find other employment. Then let's see if this guy is a hirable employee. Again other than imprisonment the courts can't rule, "don't go to work for the rest of the year". This line of thought is so flawed and nonsensical to me. When you do crappy things sometimes you go to court, and sometimes it costs you your job. Welcome to life.

 

Bold move ignoring my response to you and repeating exactly what you said earlier. Let's see if it works out them.

 

"That's the way it is," is not sufficient justification. That's what slave owners said.

Edited November 21, 2014 by FireChan

[Rob's House]

 

 

Not quite, and it's not the torture terrorist argument (though I'd be happy to discuss that on PPP). I'm suggesting there's a 'we don't care who beats their wife, we just want guys on the field' undertone, which in fairness was pretty much the unofficial NFL line on this stuff too, up until they got caught by the Rice video and the Peterson photos. People are hiding behind the 'fairness/inconsistency' argument because they don't like the reality of the fundamental change that's happening on how DV issues will be addressed going forward. I think people are more upset that long suspensions may be the norm going forward than they are about these two specific cases. So yes, Rice and Peterson are not being treated as they would have been in the past, and I for one am happy about it. Someone's got to be the poster child for change, and my heart isn't going to break for guys who put themselves in this position.

 

But I love how far you guys ran with that one!

 

You don't get it. I mean, you really don't get it. That's kind of sad because it's been explained many times in great detail. But stick to your simple narrative if it makes you feel good.

 

 

 

The court punishment was an absolute joke. I've seen guys get more than that in court for a DUI. It was absurd and a very liberal use of the term punishment.

 

In regards to the who is the NFL, you're correct the U.S. judicial system is the only place in life that has any consequences for your actions....put John Smith at the top of his resume and have him go find other employment. Then let's see if this guy is a hirable employee. Again other than imprisonment the courts can't rule, "don't go to work for the rest of the year". This line of thought is so flawed and nonsensical to me. When you do crappy things sometimes you go to court, and sometimes it costs you your job. Welcome to life.

 

You lack the depth to see beneath the surface of the issue. This is not about crime & punishment. It's about a cultural move by which we as a society see fit to exact "punishment" for unpopular conduct by any means necessary. If you think any of this is about child abuse or DV you're sadly mistaken.

 

Edited November 21, 2014 by Rob's House

[papazoid]

Commissioner Roger Goodell will not handle the appeal of Adrian Peterson’s rest-of-season suspension. Jay Glazer of FOX Sports reports that Goodell has delegated the appeal to Harold Henderson, a former NFL executive who routinely resolves appeals under the league’s substance-abuse, PED, and personal conduct policies.

 

Most recently, Henderson handled the appeal of Browns receiver Josh Gordon’s full-season suspension, upholding the banishment before a revised substance-abuse policy reduced the penalty to 10 games

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/21/goodell-delegates-peterson-appeal-to-harold-henderson/