Adrian Peterson has been on the commissioner’s permission list since September, after being accused of harshly disciplining his 4 year old son with a “switch”. Because of these accusations, Adrian Peterson was kept off the field. Initially he had been charged with felony child abuse. Peterson pleaded no contest to the reckless assault, earlier this month. He managed to avoid jail time and was send on probation instead, and received a $ 4000 fine. The NFL declared that Peterson would be removed from the permission list once the scandal clears up and his charges get dropped. On November 17 the NFL held a grievance hearing, which could have put Adrian Peterson back in the game. The arbitrator, Shyam Das was supposed to examine Adrian Peterson’s case and decide whether he will be punished further on under the league’s personal conduct policy.
An official statement from the NFL stated the following: “As Mr. Peterson was advised, the purpose of the meeting would be to review his case, and would include a group of outside experts who could offer broader expertise on the legal, clinical and football issues involved”. Because Adrian Peterson was unable to be present at the hearing, the league said it would not delay it. They said that Peterson wants the problem resolved as soon as possible. The NFLPA declared: “We had been given no meaningful reason why Adrian and the union could not appear and participate”.
The defense attorney, Rusty Hardin said Adrian Peterson’s legal case had been solved. The NFL officials said they had provided alternative dates for last week’s hearings, but they were not accepted. In this case, the review had to be conducted without Adrian Peterson present. “We had hoped that Adrian would take advantage of his opportunity to be heard and present whatever information he believes should be considered before a decision on discipline, counseling and services is made. Because he and the NFLPA elected not to do so, we will have to address this based on the information currently available to us”, the NFL officials stated.
Peterson disputed the claims launched by the league. He said that the review is new and inconsistent with the league’s collective bargaining agreement. The NFLPA had contacted the league on numerous occasions to inquire about the review. It was said that the league did respond, however it failed to answer the important questions about the hearing.