Vikings Message Board.Com

Texas Vike wrote:Anyone read Souhan's piece speculating that AD will become a Cowboy? That Murray is a "rented mule" about to be a FA that will leave Dallas. I think it's a poorly argued article, but would like to hear other responses here. His only support is AD's now infamous phone call to Jerry Jones when the Vikes let go of Coach Frazier (but had not yet hired Zimmy). AD was really disgruntled, that's all I saw it indicating. I do think his point that corporal punishment is more widely accepted in TX, so AD won't be publicly rejected like he may be in Minny. But that's not likely to be the most important point in where he ends up playing.

So remember this, A.P., you’re not, today, you are not subject to the, to the new Personal Conduct Policy,” Vincent told Peterson during a telephone conversation, according to the transcript of the hearing. A copy of the transcript was obtained by Bloomberg News. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in an e-mail that Vincent would not comment.

The incident, in which Peterson struck his 4-year-old with a tree branch called a switch, occurred in October of last year. The NFL’s new Domestic Violence Policy, which carries stricter punishments, was announced in August.

Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney for Peterson, asked Vincent: “My question is you were telling him he was not subject to the new Personal Conduct Policy; is that right?”

Vincent responded yes. Asked how he knew, Vincent said, “I was just taking that based off when his crime was committed.”

Said Kessler: “Your understanding as the Executive Vice President of the National Football League, in your position, was that the new Personal Conduct Policy would only apply going forward, correct, not the past behavior?”

“Correct,” Vincent testified before arbitrator Harold Henderson, who spent 16 years at the NFL overseeing player and labor relations.

“And that is what you were conveying to Adrian?” asked Kessler.

“Yes,” Vincent said.

denburch wrote:Interesting update - NFL’s Vincent Told Peterson Ban Guided by Old Conduct Policy

.... http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1 ... e-ban.html

Especially this part...

J. Kapp 11 wrote:Man, the NFL has completely screwed the pooch on this case. IMO, you can't say things like this, then renege just because AP doesn't attend a random meeting. As always, I could be wrong. But I hope the NFL takes it in the shorts on this.

Mothman wrote: It's certainly what they deserve.

DKSweets wrote:I know updates would be posted if there was any news to talk about, but it is now "mid-week". Has anybody heard of when the news might be coming out?

I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened around practice time tomorrow, effectively burning this week, too.

DKSweets wrote:I know updates would be posted if there was any news to talk about, but it is now "mid-week". Has anybody heard of when the news might be coming out?

I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened around practice time tomorrow, effectively burning this week, too.

Harold Henderson — the hand-picked arbitrator of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in the Adrian Peterson discipline case — has purportedly been urging the NFL and its union to reach a settlement on Peterson’s league-wide suspension.

But Henderson may be running out of time to avoid rendering a decision, at least pursuant to the terms of the NFL collective bargaining agreement.

Article 46(2)(d) of the NFL collective bargaining agreement states that the named arbitrator in any player discipline case must render a written decision “[a]s soon as practicable following the conclusion of the hearing.”

Although no period of time is used to define the word ”practicable,” a delay of much more than one week seems to go against the spirit of Article 46(2)(d), given the short duration of the task at hand and the relative burdens of an ongoing suspension on the respective parties.

Any further delay in Henderson reaching a written decision in this matter will hurt Adrian Peterson far more than the league. Indeed, during the period in which Henderson is drafting his opinion, Peterson remains precluded from practicing his profession: exactly the result that Goodell and the NFL wishes to maintain.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: I hope AP comes back and lays 200 yards on whatever team he plays, just to throw egg on Goodell's face.

J. Kapp 11 wrote:Tell you what ...

Initially, I was all for suspending Peterson and perhaps even cutting him. I was appalled at what he did to his child.

But the longer this drags out, and given that AP has shown at least some remorse, the more I want him to come back and throw this whole hearing fiasco in the face of Roger Goodell.

How in the world can Ray Rice be eligible to play and Adrian Peterson isn't?

Henderson knows his decision. He knew what it would be last week. He probably knew what it would be BEFORE the hearings. There's no reason to delay except to make Peterson miss as much time as possible, knowing that the NFL f---ed up by telling Adrian he'd get time served.

This is what happens when you have an NFL lackey serving as an "independent arbitrator."

I hope AP comes back and lays 200 yards on whatever team he plays, just to throw egg on Goodell's face.

Mothman wrote: I do too.

I not only hope Peterson gets to play this year and puts 200 yards on whatever team(s) he faces but I hope the Vikes bring him back next year. That might be a pipe dream but as I said in the Bridgewater thread, I feel that way even if the Vikings can't re-negotiate his contract. He's in his prime and he just had almost a full season without the wear and tear of 16 NFL games. He could be fresh and ready to thrive next year in a Vikings offense that, with luck, might have found it's QB. It's too early to tell about the latter but I think it can only help Bridgewater to have a great back in the backfield with him. I know "RBs don't make that kind of money in today's NFL" but the Vikings don't need to pay a superstar QB that money right now so why not pay it to Peterson (if they can't successfully re-negotiate), make more improvements in the offseason and see what they can accomplish? At the very least, it might prove beneficial to the development of their QB of the future.

I just see no reason why it has to be a given that they part with a player who can be such a tremendous asset for them.

frosted wrote:I know one that a lot of people might consider a valid reason. Everyone's going to differ on that point, but I think it's still going to be there. Just playing devil's advocate, of course.

Mothman wrote: Of course... and I understand which is why I phrased my comment as I did. I can easily think of valid reasons why some people would consider it a given but personally, I see no reason it has to be a given. I hope the Vikings at least think twice about it. They can afford the cap hit. They can almost certainly survive any PR hit that might accompany the choice. Heck, keep him, find a way to start 2015 on a winning streak and 99% of fans and sponsors will all be more than happy to jump on the bandwagon, forgive and forget.

Whatever they decide, I hope they make a football-based decision, not a PR-based decision.