• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NFL suspends Adrian Peterson without pay for at least rest of regular season

T

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
104,071
Reaction score
84,041
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Woah. Justice was actually served up in the case of the NFL. Go figure. You can't beat your kid and get away with it. Good.

Saying Adrian Peterson has "shown no meaningful remorse" for injuring his young son, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended the Minnesota Vikings star without pay for at least the remainder of the 2014 season Tuesday morning for violating the league's personal conduct policy.

The NFL Players Association quickly announced it will appeal the decision and demand a neutral arbitrator — not Goodell — to hear the appeal, accusing an unnamed league executive of telling Peterson his time on the exempt list would be considered time served.

If the suspension stands, the soonest Peterson would be considered for reinstatement is April 15, 2015, Goodell said in a letter notifying the 2012 NFL MVP of the decision and laying out the basics of a counseling and treatment program, including a mandatory meeting by Dec. 1 with a league-appointed psychiatrist.


More here:

NFL suspends Adrian Peterson without pay for at least rest of regular season
 
Thread #3. :mrgreen:
 
What does beating your kid have to do with running a football? Sorry, but I still don't get what his job has to do with how he treats kids.
 
Henrin said:
What does beating your kid have to do with running a football? Sorry, but I still don't get what his job has to do with how he treats kids.
Click to expand...

He represents the NFL, an organization with rights to its image. The NFL can and does act so as to protect that image and its revenue.
 
Further, this isn't just about "how he treats his kids" (as if he was within legal bounds), it's about how he breaks the law and harms society.
 
ecofarm said:
He represents the NFL, an organization with rights to its image. The NFL can and does act so as to protect that image and its revenue.
Click to expand...

Your so called answer doesn't have a thing to do with my question. How is it reasonable to demand the NFL act on one of their employees when the crime committed has nothing to do with the individuals job? Sorry, but how exactly is demanding the NFL act on Peterson not just emotional drivel?

The fact that the NFL was driven to act because of image and revenue concerns only tells me that their consumer base is a bunch of emotional dip****s.
 
Henrin said:
Your so called answer doesn't have a thing to do with my question. How is it reasonable to demand the NFL act on one of their employees when the crime committed has nothing to do with the individuals job? Sorry, but how exactly is demanding the NFL act on Peterson not just emotional drivel?
Click to expand...


Want the question answered? Nothing; beating children does not affect ones ability to play football.

Now, let's note: your question is stupid. The impact of abuse on NFL performance has nothing to do with why he is being suspended.

See, your underlying assumption is that since it doesn't affect his performance, it should not be considered by the NFL and, as noted, that's ****ing stupid.
 
Henrin said:
Your so called answer doesn't have a thing to do with my question. How is it reasonable to demand the NFL act on one of their employees when the crime committed has nothing to do with the individuals job? Sorry, but how exactly is demanding the NFL act on Peterson not just emotional drivel?

The fact that the NFL was driven to act because of image and revenue concerns only tells me that their consumer base is a bunch of emotional dip****s.
Click to expand...

If the CFO of a tech company was charged with possession of kiddie porn, would you expect them to retain him? That has nothing to do with his job.
 
ecofarm said:
Want the question answered? Nothing; beating children does not affect ones ability to play football.

Now, let's note: your question is stupid. The impact of abuse on NFL performance has nothing to do with why he is being suspended.

See, your underlying assumption is that since it doesn't affect his performance, it should not be considered by the NFL and, as noted, that's ****ing stupid.
Click to expand...

Why is it ****ing stupid? If a man built houses for a living and spent most of his time driving nails does it matter at all that he is an abusive asshole to his children? It would make sense to fire someone that works with children if they are found to be abusive to their own children, but otherwise, it makes no sense.
 
Henrin said:
Why is it ****ing stupid?
Click to expand...

Because his performance has nothing to do with his suspension. Pretending it does is too stupid to believe.
 
Henrin said:
Why is it ****ing stupid? If a man built houses for a living and spent most of his time driving nails does it matter at all that he is an abusive asshole to his children? It would make sense to fire someone that works with children if they are found to be abusive to their own children, but otherwise, it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Peterson agreed and then broke this: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2014 Personal Conduct Policy.pdf

All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity
of and public confidence in the National Football League.” This requirement applies to
players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials and all others privileged to
work in the National Football League.

For many years, it has been well understood that rules promoting lawful, ethical, and
responsible conduct serve the interests of the League, its players, and fans. Illegal or
irresponsible conduct does more than simply tarnish the offender. It puts innocent people at
risk, sullies the reputation of others involved in the game, and undermines public
respect and support for the NFL.


Standard of Conduct:
While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons
who engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for
persons employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid
being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club,
you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is
responsible, promotes the values upon which the League is based, and is lawful.
Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental
and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a
crime.

Discipline may be imposed in any of the following circumstances:

 Criminal offenses including, but not limited to, those involving: the use or
threat of violence; domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse; theft
and other property crimes; sex offenses; obstruction or resisting arrest;
disorderly conduct; fraud; racketeering; and money laundering;;
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
Because his performance has nothing to do with his suspension. Pretending it does is too stupid to believe.
Click to expand...

So what is it exactly? That he broke some conduct agreement? I think we both know why that agreement exists and it's not because of rational concerns, but because idiots can't separate issues, which leaves the NFL in need of protecting their profits and image.
 
Henrin said:
So what is it exactly? That he broke some conduct agreement? I think we both know why that agreement exists and it's not because of rational concerns, but because idiots can't separate issues, which leaves the NFL in need of protecting their profits and image.
Click to expand...

Why can't you accept the consequences of child abuse?
 
ecofarm said:
Why can't you accept the consequences of child abuse?
Click to expand...

What we are talking about is a consequence of a conduct agreement influenced by people that can't separate issues properly. Why would anyone in their right mind suspend a hall of fame running back for child abuse? Well, emotional idiot consumers is pretty much the only reason. Other than that, no one in their right mind would care enough.

So yeah, the NFL heard the idiots and made their players sign an agreement that has nothing to do with their job. GG.
 
Henrin said:
What we are talking about is a consequence of a conduct agreement influenced by people that can't separate issues properly.
Click to expand...

No, I think you are separating issues in an unhealthy manner. Peterson's behavior is a direct reflection upon the NFL. The vast majority of people are not okay letting child abuse slide and continuing to support such a player or team. The NFL has enacted policy to address such.

Just because you are fine with an unrepentant child abuser playing for your team does not mean that's normal. Your opinion is whacked out. You should understand that everyone else cares about the behavior of players on their team and the NFL. This goes for fans and employees of the NFL.

No one wants to cheer for or work with such a disgusting and vile creature.

Freedom of association. Why do you support racist business policy under the guise of FoA, but you ignore it for real issues? You claim being black should be grounds for denial of employment and service, but being a child abuser should not be grounds for denial of employment? I'd really like to see you rectify that. Please, explain to us why being black is grounds to deny employment but being a child abuser is not.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
No, I think you are separating issues in an unhealthy manner. Peterson's behavior is a direct reflection upon the NFL.
Click to expand...

No, his behavior has nothing to do with the NFL.

The vast majority of people are not okay letting child abuse slide and continuing to support such a player or team. The NFL has enacted policy to address such.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know.

Just because you are fine with an unrepentant child abuser playing for your team does not mean that's normal. Your opinion is whacked out. You should understand that everyone else cares about the behavior of players on their team and the NFL. This goes for fans and employees of the NFL.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Players want to win games and not waste their time and primes on losing seasons. If a QB has a good running back behind him and good receivers his numbers will improve and his team will win more games. If however he is an emotional dip**** that doesn't like meanies then I suppose he will demand his star running back be suspended and do worse because of it. That is what is called a stupid ass being emotional.

Freedom of association. Why do you support racist business policy under the guise of FoA, but you ignore it for real issues?
Click to expand...

I never said the NFL did anything wrong. What I said is that they were motivated to act because people like you are completely incapable of separating your emotion from the issue. If the consumer base of the NFL wasn't emotional dimbulbs more than likely Peterson would still be running every Sunday. Hell, maybe the Vikings would get a few more wins because of it too.
 
ecofarm said:
Why can't you accept the consequences of child abuse?
Click to expand...

Has he been convicted? Usually the consequences for crimes are given during sentencing.
 
Ikari said:
Has he been convicted? Usually the consequences for crimes are given during sentencing.
Click to expand...

He violated his contract with the NFL. Courts don't matter.
 
Henrin said:
So why is his actions in his private life reflective of the NFL?
Click to expand...

If you could understand that, it would have happened a long time ago.
 
ecofarm said:
If you could understand that, it would have happened a long time ago.
Click to expand...

What someone does in their free time is NOT reflective of their employer.
 
ecofarm said:
No one agrees with you.
Click to expand...

So what? If someone smokes pot in their free time is that reflective of their employer, ecofarm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom