Vikings GM Rick Spielman yesterday acknowledged that the images of the wounds RB Adrian Peterson "inflicted on his 4-year-old son with a switch were 'disturbing,'" but he said that the organization’s top decision makers "thought it was best to let the legal system run its course" before determined the Peterson's ultimate fate with the team, according to Matt Vensel of the Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE. The Vikings on Friday deactivated Peterson for the team's game Sunday against the Patriots, but yesterday "reinstated" him. Spielman said that the Vikings "did not have all the information involving Peterson’s case on Friday." Vensel reports the team "gathered enough evidence in their own investigation over the weekend, including multiple conversations with Peterson, to feel comfortable reinstating him." Spielman and Vikings coach Mike Zimmer at a news conference yesterday were tasked with answering "a barrage of questions local and national reporters shouted over each other." Asked if Peterson was being given a benefit of the doubt that former Vikings with legal issues did not receive, Spielman insisted that the decision to reinstate Peterson "had nothing to do with him being one of the best running backs in the NFL" (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 9/16). Spielman said that the Vikings "were in contact with Peterson and his attorneys throughout the weekend, adding that the club has 'seen everything that's in the file.'" In St. Paul, Brian Murphy reports the NFL is "investigating Peterson under the Personal Conduct Policy, but it is uncertain whether he faces discipline under tougher domestic violence sanctions the league adopted last month." NFL VP/Communications Brian McCarthy yesterday said that Peterson's case is being reviewed by Senior Advisor Lisa Friel, "one of three women hired this week to advise the league on domestic violence and sexual assault cases" (ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS, 9/16).
CHANGE OF HEART: In Minneapolis, Jim Souhan writes the Vikings' announcement that Peterson would play this week "established that winning trumps those hollow words they’ve spit at us over the years about character." Team co-Owners Zygi and Mark Wilf yesterday "shredded the code of conduct and spliced it into a pompom with which to cheer a man who admits he beat his son bloody." Additionally, they "couldn’t even muster up the fortitude to stand at a lectern and explain their decision," leaving that task for Spielman and Zimmer (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 9/16). In St. Paul, Tom Powers in a front-page piece writes the "double standard being applied here is mind-boggling" considering the team's past treatment of players accused of domestic violence. But none of those players "had the athletic ability of an Adrian Peterson, a true NFL star who affects profit margins via his ability to help win football games." Powers: "Just a few days ago I wrote glowingly of the Wilfs' decision to keep Peterson out of Sunday's game. It appeared to be an honest attempt on their part to do the right thing. ... I spoke too soon" (ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS, 9/16). ESPN’s Louis Riddick: “We know that good players get a lot longer leash than players who aren't. We know this, and people know this. When you start saying the stuff about letting the legal process play itself out, it just starts to sound more and more disingenuous” ("NFL Insiders," ESPN, 9/15). In N.Y., Mike Lupica writes the Vikings "look as phony here" as the Panthers did "finally deciding to sit down" DE Greg Hardy. Execs around the NFL "hide behind" due process "the way they do that ridiculous 'shield' we’re always hearing about, and a Personal Conduct Policy that lately has been folded into a party hat." This "isn’t about justice with these people, it is how things look and somehow, even now, protecting their brand" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 9/16). ESPN's Bomani Jones said Peterson was benched "because he was too hot." Jones: "It wasn't a moralistic stance" ("Highly Questionable," ESPN2, 9/15).
WIN AT ALL COSTS? A STAR TRIBUNE editorial states the Vikings "could have made an important statement about acceptable behavior," but instead the team did what most close observers of the NFL "likely expected, revealing once again where its priorities lie." By reinstating Peterson, the Wilfs and Spielman are "telling us that winning matters more than any corporate code of conduct or community leadership role the team might hope to play" (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 9/16). ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert wrote under the header, "In Case Of Adrian Peterson, Winning Trumps All For Vikings." His reinstatement is "a blatant and obvious play to wring one more year out of an aging superstar before bidding him farewell under the guise of salary cap management and the occasion of his 30th birthday" (ESPN.com, 9/15). ESPN's Jackie MacMullan asked, "What has changed about your star running back between Friday and today, other than that you got smacked around by the New England Patriots?" ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 9/15). ESPN's Michael Smith: "I wonder how much this decision had to with their performance against the Patriots" ("Numbers Never Lie," ESPN2, 9/15).
WHERE WERE THE WILFS? ESPN's Mike Greenberg called yesterday's press conference "one of the worst jobs I’ve seen in my entire life by a significant organization." Having Spielman "standing up there as ill-equipped to answer questions as he was, was an embarrassment to the entire National Football League." ESPN's Mike Golic: "These are not football topics anymore and these aren’t to be answered by the head coach or GM. These are situations where the owners needed to step up and should have been saying something” ("Mike & Mike," ESPN Radio, 9/16). ESPN’s Adam Schefter said the Wilfs are the people "making this decision, and they're not having to stand there to explain why they're allowing somebody facing the charges that Adrian Peterson is to play football right now” ("NFL Insiders," ESPN, 9/15).
COMMISH'S CALL: In N.Y., Gary Myers writes if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is "going to redeem himself for initially going soft on Ray Rice," it has to be done "right now by sitting down" Peterson. The former NFL MVP "deserves his day in court to determine whether he’s going to jail for hitting his 4-year old son," but Goodell "does not have to wait." He "has the right as commissioner to suspend him now." Goodell must suspend Peterson "now for conduct detrimental to the NFL" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 9/16). In Phoenix, Bob Young writes Goodell "has to suspend" Peterson, and it "shouldn't matter whether" the league's recently released domestic violence policy applies. A suspension is "the only way for the NFL to avoid embarrassment when the Vikings take the field Sunday" (ARIZONA REPUBLIC, 9/16).
LOSE-LOSE SITUATION: In DC, Mark Maske writes in these "highly charged times in the NFL," teams are "left to weigh the sometimes-opposing forces of an accused player’s right to due process and presumption of innocence versus the club’s interest in protecting its image and perhaps taking a stand for what it believes is right." Tulane Univ. Dir of Sports Law Gabriel Feldman said, "The league and the team are going to be criticized if they’re perceived as acting too swiftly, and they’re going to be criticized if they’re perceived as not acting quickly enough. In some ways, it’s a no-win situation" (WASHINGTONPOST.com, 9/15). Denver Post columnist Woody Paige said NFL teams are "confused" and "don't know quite what to do" in handling these cases. Paige: "The climate has changed in the NFL from a year ago. ... Teams are overreaching. They're saying, 'We've got to do something. We don’t want the fan backlash. We don’t want the media backlash'" ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 9/15).
