Adrian Peterson

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

As much as I disagree with the 49ers keeping Ray McDonald on the field playing, even though he was arrested for beating his pregnant girlfriend -- at least they've been steadfast and haven't waffled.

The Vikings have decided they made a mistake and have put AP on the "Exempt List," which means he's barred from all team activities, ie practices, games, meetings, etc.

I also heard on ESPN radio that Greg Hardy, a player for the Carolina Panthers, was going to be reactivated since AP was reactivated. Greg Hardy has actually been found guilty by a Judge for beating his wife, but some part of the law allows him to also be tried by a jury and that won't happen until early next year.

It's becoming a circus. And while I agree a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty, football is a privilege, not a right.

My 2 pennies: If any player is arrested, they should be off the field until it's resolved. They can attend team meetings, workout and practice with the team, but cannot play in a game until the legal process is over. That would end this dumb waffling going on with the Vikings and Panthers right now.

I know so little about football. Are players paid while off the field on administrative leave to take care of these legal issues?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know so little about football. Are players paid while off the field on administrative leave to take care of these legal issues?

Unless the league suspends them without pay, yes, they continue getting a paycheck. Peterson right now is getting paid over $650,000 per week to not be around the Vikings.

Hardy, Rice and the new guy arrested last night from my hometown AZ Cardinals....all getting paid still.

That'll teach them!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why does only one instance make it NOT Child abuse? If I steal once does that make it not theft?

I understand your point. Perhaps I should have said I'm not ready to call Peterson a child abuser for one time where he obviously got carried away and injured his son. You are correct that, legally speaking, the number of times a crime is comitted doesn't make it any more/less a crime.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Prax, if you keep posting things I agree with, I dunno, I may have to leave.

Don't encourage me

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Husbands used to be able to legally spank their wives. However, today it would be illegal and considered abuse... unless it's consensual. lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3479646.html

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

I understand your point. Perhaps I should have said I'm not ready to call Peterson a child abuser for one time where he obviously got carried away and injured his son. You are correct that, legally speaking, the number of times a crime is comitted doesn't make it any more/less a crime.

Im not ready to call him one either

Here is the problem so far as I see (and I could be wrong), He is justifying it. In fact he makes it sound as if he would do it again

That does not make him an abuser and to be honest I don't believe a spanking is abuse.

However, when you go beyond something like a spank to injury, it's wrong.

Second, a lot of times parents hit out of anger, not out of discipline. They do it to punish.

Punishment is not necessarily discipline. Discipline teaches.

The damage done makes me wonder if he did not do it out of anger

[n david]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im not ready to call him one either

Here is the problem so far as I see (and I could be wrong), He is justifying it. In fact he makes it sound as if he would do it again

That does not make him an abuser and to be honest I don't believe a spanking is abuse.

However, when you go beyond something like a spank to injury, it's wrong.

Second, a lot of times parents hit out of anger, not out of discipline. They do it to punish.

Punishment is not necessarily discipline. Discipline teaches.

The damage done makes me wonder if he did not do it out of anger

IIRC he was remorseful for the injury inflicted this time. I agree with the rest.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know so little about football. Are players paid while off the field on administrative leave to take care of these legal issues?

Originally Posted by n david

Unless the league suspends them without pay, yes, they continue getting a paycheck. Peterson right now is getting paid over $650,000 per week to not be around the Vikings.

Hardy, Rice and the new guy arrested last night from my hometown AZ Cardinals....all getting paid still.

That'll teach them!

It may depend on their contract too

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

IIRC he was remorseful for the injury inflicted this time. I agree with the rest.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic but nearly everyone is remorseful when faced with pending punishment or jail time

[n david]

Watched NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's presser. They announced the presser at 11am for a 3pm start....in a mid-town Manhattan ballroom. Consequently, the room had a TON of empty chairs. Not sure if it was planned this way to avoid a full room, or if people decided not to go. From the views I saw on the NFL network, there were at least 5 to 7 rows of 15 to 20 chairs each which were empty.


Three days ago they promoted a female to head the NFL's public relations department. They also hired three female domestic abuse experts to offer guidance to the NFL. Now Goodell's announce the NFL will be funding the hiring of 25 more phone operators for a national domestic abuse hotline and will be donating funds to another national domestic abuse organization.

He's answering questions from the press now, and evading a couple tough questions.

One question was how he can claim "ignorance isn't an excuse" when suspending the head coach of the Saints a couple years ago, yet Goodell himself claims ignorance with regards to the Ray Rice situation. He claims he didn't know about the elevator video and didn't see it. He claims he wasn't told everything by Ray Rice. He was then asked why he should be allowed to keep his job when the coach was suspended. Goodell responded by saying, "well, I admitted I was wrong." Then proceeded to give the bullet list of things the NFL is doing now.

Another question was about the Ray Rice issue. In a recent television interview, Goodell claimed Rice wasn't clear about what happened in the elevator. After the interview aired, Rice's attorney stated that Rice says that's not true. The question was asking what Rice said which Goodell claimed wasn't clear. He avoided the question by claiming the matter was under appeal and he couldn't talk about it. Then the reporter said, well that's really not being transparent as Goodell promised to be, and what Rice said doesn't affect the appeal. Goodell again said he couldn't answer the question and moved on.

Asked if Goodell still believes no one in the NFL offices saw the video, he said no one saw it. So the law enforcement person who gave the Associated Press the email and voicemail from someone in the NFL offices just made it up I guess.

Goodell was asked why he only gave a 2-game suspension to Rice, and how he could claim the new video contained new information when the police report which Goodell admitted to seeing stated Rice punched his fiance. Goodell blamed the current collective bargaining agreement and said he wasn't able to do anything more. Yeah. So how then was he able to give an indefinite ban right after the new video came out.

Sorry, watching him, hearing him...I just don't believe anything he says about the Ray Rice issue.

A TMZ reporter asked how Goodell could claim the huge NFL security department and legal team tried to get the full video and failed, yet it took TMZ just one phonecall to get it. Goodell just smiled and said he couldn't answer that, but TMZ could. The reporter tried a follow up, but the handlers shut him down and moved to another reporter.

My bovine excrement meter is off the charts. Just cannot believe Goodell.