The HNGN Sports writers weigh in on what action the NFL should take against Minnesota Vikings star Adrian Peterson in the wake of his felony child abuse indictment.
Jordan:
Any NFL player indicted for a felony should be suspended with pay. Suspended because there's probable cause to believe he committed a felony, and with pay because he's innocent until proven guilty. Peterson fits into this category. Right now, he's on the exempt list and is getting paid his full salary - I agree with the idea, but make it official: he's suspended with pay.
My problem with Peterson's current status in the league is the NFL, to my knowledge, has no standard procedure at the moment for how to handle a player who has been charged with a felony and is out on bail while awaiting trial. As of now, the NFL is arbitrarily playing each case by ear. If a team wants to cut a player charged with a crime, that's their right. But if the team doesn't, then the NFL needs an objective standard by which to treat players charged with a felony and out on bail, not Goodell's - or a panel's - "case-by-case" judgment.
Suspension with pay works, but make it the official standard and put it in the rulebook.
Brandon:
Adrian Peterson should be suspended only if he is found guilty by a jury of his peers. If he is found not guilty, than what right does the NFL have to act when the legal system did not? Do all of us agree with his parenting methods? Absolutely not. Regardless of intent, I think what Peterson did was wrong. But the NFL is a football organization, not the moral police. It's hard for me to accept its judgments when there have been zero legal outcomes decided. If Peterson is found guilty, then the league should throw the book at him. But if not, then the only responsible decision is to allow him back into football and hopefully offer him some guidance in more appropriate ways to discipline his children.
Calvin:
Man, AP sure went from the brightest star in the NFL to being the dimmest bulb in the bunch pretty quick. After allegations surfaced that he abused one of his (many) kids, a whole array of other stuff came out about orgies and misappropriated charity funds and smoking the reefer. For his part, Peterson has denied pretty much everything, and the reports that he's supposed to be arrested are apparently untrue.
But still, wow AP - just wow.
Does he deserve to be suspended? He hit his kid, he drew blood. He's a giant football playing dude with way more strength - and probably more aggression - than the average person. What he did was not OK. He should be suspended - undoubtedly.
Will he be? With all the bad press that the league is getting these days, the answer could not possibly be a more resounding "yes."
Thomas:
Yes, I think Adrian Peterson should be suspended. Although I wholeheartedly agree with "innocent until proven guilty", there have been far too many incidents in the NFL as of late for the league to allow alleged lawbreakers to keep playing in games. I know the NFL isn't the law, but they reach tens of millions Americans throughout the year and it just sets bad example and sends the wrong message if they have guys like Ray Rice, Greg Hardy and now Adrian Peterson participating in games.
I think the owners and Goodell are on the right track with hiring an independent panel to determine the status of such players who are involved in criminal activity and whether or not they should be able to play/collect their paychecks. With that being said, the league should have had such policies in place before all of this happened, because now they're dealing with incessant backlash. But all in all, Adrian Peterson is an alleged child abuser and is facing felony charges, and if they NFL were to play him, they would be indirectly condoning that behavior.
