Lars wrote:
The legal advice Peterson was given from the NFLPA was not to attend the meeting -- given that the agenda and makeup of participants in the meeting was not clear. The NFL would not oblige or reschedule... so there it is. Lots of confusion and room for mistrust. Who knows what the truth is.
Yes, the NFLPA advised him not to attend the meeting, which was not good advice IMO. Here is an ESPN article adding more confusion:
ESPN's Adam Schefter is reporting that suspended Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson declined to appear Friday at a scheduled disciplinary hearing with the NFL despite agreeing to the meeting earlier last week.
"The NFL also charged that Peterson would not give the league an alternative date for the disciplinary hearing in connection to his violation of law in an incident of family violence," Schefter writes. He adds that Peterson and the NFLPA had attempted to reschedule the meeting, but the NFL refused, citing Peterson's own request to resolve his suspension as quickly as possible.
The NFL claimed that Peterson was not forthcoming with trial information that they had requested (according to Peterson's appeal document) -- and therefore were force to review his case without information Peterson was requested to provide. This was interesting...
"Montgomery County (Texas) District Attorney Phil Grant told ESPN that the NFL did ask for Peterson's case file but was turned down.
'The judge sealed the entire courts file despite the fact that neither side requested that. We have not provided anything to the NFL and don't believe we lawfully can,' Grant said."
Yes, the NFLPA advised him not to attend the meeting, which was not good advice IMO. Here is an ESPN article adding more confusion:
ESPN's Adam Schefter is reporting that suspended Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson declined to appear Friday at a scheduled disciplinary hearing with the NFL despite agreeing to the meeting earlier last week.
"The NFL also charged that Peterson would not give the league an alternative date for the disciplinary hearing in connection to his violation of law in an incident of family violence," Schefter writes. He adds that Peterson and the NFLPA had attempted to reschedule the meeting, but the NFL refused, citing Peterson's own request to resolve his suspension as quickly as possible.
Peterson had requested a customary hearing ASAP (with the Commissioner, a player's rep and his attorney present). The NFL insisted on a "pre-hearing" with unidentified experts chosen by the NFL in attendance according to the NFLPA to examine him. Never been done before.
Lars wrote:
Peterson had requested a customary hearing ASAP (with the Commissioner, a player's rep and his attorney present). The NFL insisted on a "pre-hearing" with unidentified experts chosen by the NFL in attendance according to the NFLPA to examine him. Never been done before.
So if something hasn't been done before then it can't be done? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Two days before he called his son, Peterson's own mother came over and said she had noticed a change. Peterson's heart had hardened. But he says that changed when he heard his son's voice.
"I made a mistake," Peterson said. "People have painted this picture because they feel like, 'OK, this has happened and this is what has to take place.' But they don't know the love that my kids have for me. It was a good feeling inside.
"It made me realize that hey, the world can paint you to be this type of person, but ultimately, the child that they are making all these assumptions about – how you treated him and what you've done to him – he loves you unconditionally. He wants to be around you. So, let the world paint you out to be whatever they want."
Purple Reign wrote:
So if something hasn't been done before then it can't be done? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Sure. It's a free country. The commissioner could have challenge Peterson with an arm wrestling match to resolve the situation -- which has also never been done -- but that would have been absurd. I have no idea if the novel pre-hearing Peterson boycotted was really called for or appropriate... The NFL thought so. The NFLPA didn't. I do know this about creative meetings organized about one's job in a politically charged setting: know what you're getting into and who is going to be there. Otherwise, it's a good way to get ambushed and manipulated by someone else's agenda. Not fun. Definitely not safe.
"I won't ever use a switch again," Peterson said. "There's different situations where a child needs to be disciplined as far as timeout, taking their toys away, making them take a nap. There's so many different ways to discipline your kids."
Regardless of his football future, Peterson wanted to make clear his main focus now is on repairing his relationship with his son and trying to make people understand that, contrary to Goodell's remarks in handing down his ban, his remorse is real.
"No one knows how I felt when I turned my child around after spanking him and seeing what I had left on his leg," Peterson said. "No one knows that Dad sat there and apologized to him, hugged him and told him that I didn't mean to do this to you and how sorry I was.
"I love my son. I love my kids, my family. Like I said after I took the misdemeanor plea, I take full responsibility for my actions. I regret the situation. I love my son more than any one of you could even imagine."
The whole article is worth reading. Peterson also talks about playing for the Vikings again and acknowledges some of the challenges involved.
J Kapp on the contract, unless our cap situation gets out of hand, I think he is still worth the gamble in the near term. As you said, he is a once in a generation players with at least a few more years of productivity left in him. I'd rather see him have 2-3 more good years with us vs. somebody else. I do think that his leaving is likely inevitable unless Bridgewater takes a giant leap in the next season or two.
Winning is not a sometime thing it is an all of the time thing - Vince Lombardi
Maybe I'm being a bit picky here, but I find the statement I bolded above a bit condescending. Is he really implying that no other parent can love their children as much as he does? Another example of AP saying stupid things without thinking IMO.
Purple Reign wrote:Maybe I'm being a bit picky here, but I find the statement I bolded above a bit condescending. Is he really implying that no other parent can love their children as much as he does?
Of course not. He's obviously trying to express the depth of his affection for his son. Finding fault with his specific choice of words seems extremely picky when it's the sentiment behind them that's most important.
Mothman wrote:
Of course not. He's obviously trying to express the depth of his affection for his son. Nitpicking his choice of words to find fault with them is extremely picky.
"I take full responsibility, because I spanked my child, and no matter what my intentions were, I end up leaving those marks on his legs," Peterson said. "That's the bottom line.
From the article, it's clear that Peterson has remorse and is taking action to change. I don't know what else is expected of him. He obviously can't take back what he did as much as we (and he) would like that.
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly
So much conflicting info out there. Last ive read, is AD is perfectly happy to move on from MN. Almost like its the Vikings fault somehow that he is in the mess he is in, and he wants to start over somewhere else. But half the stuff I read seems to be just hearsay crap. I like his other comments about remorse. It sounds genuine. I wonder why he didn't phrase his wording like this months ago, and do every single thing the NFL asked, when they asked. I have a hard time forgetting what he did to his kid, but I am going to miss him, if he does end up in another uniform. Maybe as much as I missed Moss.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I have no idea if the novel pre-hearing Peterson boycotted was really called for or appropriate... The NFL thought so. The NFLPA didn't. I do know this about creative meetings organized about one's job in a politically charged setting: know what you're getting into and who is going to be there. Otherwise, it's a good way to get ambushed and manipulated by someone else's agenda. Not fun. Definitely not safe.
