Vikings Message Board.Com

Purple Reign wrote: That was a pretty brutal article by Powers. But as far as your claim of 'unsubstantiated reports of Peterson's marijuana use', it has been substantiated by Peterson's attorney. This is a quote from an article in last Thursday's Pioneer Press:

Did Peterson admit to the test administrator that he “smoked a little weed?”

“He certainly said that,” Hardin said.

Hardin would not say whether his client passed or failed his drug test.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that article so I stand corrected, although I think the statement is still relatively meaningless without context or evidence. Was he making a wisecrack when he said it? A confession? When did he supposedly smoke weed? What were the results of the drug test?

Mothman wrote: Thanks, I wasn't aware of that article so I stand corrected, although I think the statement is still relatively meaningless without context or evidence. Was he making a wisecrack when he said it? A confession? When did he supposedly smoke weed? What were the results of the drug test?

It's hard to say what the context was, but I don't think even AP would be foolish enough to make a wisecrack about it, but then again he shouldn't have been foolish enough to admit to it either, so who knows. All we know is that he did say it (at least according to his attorney).

Purple Reign wrote:It's hard to say what the context was, but I don't think even AP would be foolish enough to make a wisecrack about it, but then again he shouldn't have been foolish enough to admit to it either, so who knows. All we know is that he did say it (at least according to his attorney).

It seems more likely to me that he would make a wisecrack than admit to violating the terms of his bail to a guy who's about to test him to see if he's in compliance with those terms but who knows? That's really the point. Without evidence, it's just hearsay. Heck, he might have said he smoked marijuana but hadn't done so in a long time. Shorten that to "I smoked marijuana" and bingo, instant headlines.

NFLPA files grievance to get Adrian Peterson reinstated

Posted by Michael David Smith on November 10, 2014, 5:57 PM EST

Adrian Peterson
AP

As Adrian Peterson remains in the limbo of the NFL’s Commissioner’s Exempt List, the players’ union says it’s time to let him resume his career.

The NFL Players Association released a statement Monday afternoon saying it has filed a grievance to get Peterson off the exempt list.

“The NFLPA has filed an expedited, non-injury grievance to remove Adrian Peterson from the Commissioner’s Exempt list based on explicit language in a signed agreement dated September 18, 2014,” the statement says. “We asked the NFL to honor the terms of that agreement last week and as of now, they have failed to respond or comply. It is our obligation to protect all players’ rights, and we will pursue any and all breaches of any contract between a player and his team or the NFL.”

Peterson, who has not played since the Vikings’ first game of the season, pleaded no contest last week to resolve a legal case that began when he was charged with injuring his 4-year-old son while beating him with a switch. The NFL has said it has no schedule for determining whether Peterson will be suspended or when he will be allowed to return to the field.

"There is a segment of the population that is tipsy on cheap beer and drooling nacho cheese dip and wearing "Free AP!" T-shirts. They're belching "due process" during commercial breaks. I certainly respect those people and will leave it at: We politely disagree."

Tom Powers really knows how to be respectful and polite.

DKSweets wrote:"There is a segment of the population that is tipsy on cheap beer and drooling nacho cheese dip and wearing "Free AP!" T-shirts. They're belching "due process" during commercial breaks. I certainly respect those people and will leave it at: We politely disagree."

Tom Powers really knows how to be respectful and polite.

This makes me think of the Randy Newman classic "Rednecks"

Florio with a similar take about what's going down here. Kind of a weird segment of pure speculation but he's saying NFL handling it this way on purpose to deflect criticism and blame when Peterson is reinstated.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-yahoo ... 1-nfl.html

Sounds like they are flinging dung on the wall and seeing what sticks.

The Breeze wrote:Sounds like they are flinging dung on the wall and seeing what sticks.

That's probably the most realistic and likely explanation.

fiestavike wrote: That's probably the most realistic and likely explanation.

Anything for clicks.

The internet is such a crapshoot......

Sid Hartman :

http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins ... 73101.html

The Vikings (4-5) want Peterson back so he can help them on the football field. But obviously they also want to know how well he can play, since he has three years remaining on his contract after this season. He is unlikely to play out his contract, which runs through 2017, and the Vikings could release him after this season with very little effect on their salary cap. If Peterson comes back and plays like he did two years ago, when he was the NFL's MVP, the team would probably keep him for 2015.

Adrian Peterson - RB - Vikings

Adrian Peterson's NFL status will be determined by Saturday, Nov. 22 at the latest.

PFT's Mike Florio points out that under Article 43 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a hearing on an expedited grievance must occur within seven days of the filing (Nov. 17 in this case). The case must then be resolved within five days after the hearing. Of course, things could go faster than that but the NFL appears to be dragging its heels here in an effort to keep Peterson off the field. A source tells ESPN's Ed Werder that the case between the NFLPA and the NFL "could get ugly."
Source: Profootballtalk on NBCSports.com
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... vember-17/

dead_poet wrote:Adrian Peterson - RB - Vikings

Adrian Peterson's NFL status will be determined by Saturday, Nov. 22 at the latest.

PFT's Mike Florio points out that under Article 43 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a hearing on an expedited grievance must occur within seven days of the filing (Nov. 17 in this case). The case must then be resolved within five days after the hearing. Of course, things could go faster than that but the NFL appears to be dragging its heels here in an effort to keep Peterson off the field. A source tells ESPN's Ed Werder that the case between the NFLPA and the NFL "could get ugly."
Source: Profootballtalk on NBCSports.com
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... vember-17/

Did Ed Werder really need a source to tell him that?

Thanks for the info!

It's feeling more and more like the NFL wants to appear hamstrung in this.

There are pundits out there who believe the Vikings are going to cut Adrian Peterson.

Chris Burke of SI.com wrote:It's hard to see how this ends in any way other than the Vikings releasing Peterson.

That just doesn't make any sense to me. The Vikings have paid Adrian Peterson in the neighborhood of $6 million to sit on the sideline. If they were going to cut him, I think they would have done it by now.