NFL boots Peterson for balance of season

Players union launching appeal on behalf of suspended Vikings star

Adrian Peterson's dispute with the NFL reached another level when the league suspended Minnesota's star running back without pay for at least the rest of the season.

As the NFL Players Association initiated an appeal, Peterson remained at the center of an escalating argument between the league and the NFLPA over the player discipline process.

Commissioner Roger Goodell told Peterson on Tuesday he will not be considered for reinstatement before April 15 for his violation of the NFL personal conduct policy.

Peterson pleaded no contest on Nov 4 to misdemeanor reckless assault in Texas for injurying his 4-year-old son with a wooden switch.

The NFLPA quickly called for a neutral arbitrator to handle an appeal and sharply rebuked the league for what it labeled as inconsistency and unfairness in determining the discipline.

The NFL's words were even stronger, with a nearly 1,600-word statement spelling out the conditions for Peterson's return to the field and describing the reasons for the punishment.

The NFL said Peterson would stay on the special exempt list and continue to be paid during the appeal process but the union's attempt to at least temporarily reinstate him failed. The grievance filed against the league last week was overturned on Tuesday by the arbitrator who heard the arguments, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.

The person spoke to Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.

Even if Peterson were to win a shorter suspension with an appeal, the Vikings actually playing him would be an implausible scenario given the heat they have taken and the long time Peterson has been away from the team. The Vikings have six games left and host the Green Bay Packers on Sunday.

The team issued only a brief statement: "We respect the league's decision and will have no further comment at this time."

Fullback Jerome Felton said on Twitter that characterizing his feelings on the NFL's decision as a disagreement would be the "understatement of the year."

In Pittsburgh, Steelers safety Mike Mitchell questioned the system that gives Goodell executive power on player discipline.

"I'm not just trying to bash him or come down on him but I think players would feel better if he wasn't just judge, jury and executioner," Mitchell said.

Peterson has said he intended no harm to his son, only discipline. Peterson was on a special exempt list at the sole discretion of Goodell - essentially paid leave while the case went through the legal system.

The NFLPA said Peterson was told that would count as time served toward a suspension, citing an unidentified NFL executive.

League spokesman Brian McCarthy said the stay on the exempt list was taken into account, citing "aggravating circumstances" for the extended suspension.

Goodell announced on Aug 28 tougher punishment for players involved with domestic violence. That action stemmed from a torrent of criticism for the initial leniency toward Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice following a caught-on-camera knockout punch of the woman who is now his wife.

Rice was later suspended indefinitely and recently had his appeal heard by an arbitrator.

According to the enhanced policy, first offenses of assault, battery or domestic violence bring a six-game suspension.

Goodell's letter to Peterson cited the "aggravating circumstance", pointing to the child's age and the significant physical difference between him and his son.

"Further, the injury inflicted on your son includes the emotional and psychological trauma to a young child who suffers criminal physical abuse at the hands of his father," Goodell wrote.

"Second, the repetitive use of a switch in this instance is the functional equivalent of a weapon, particularly in the hands of someone with the strength of an accomplished professional athlete."

Goodell also came down on Peterson for showing "no meaningful remorse" for hurting the boy and expressed concern that he "may feel free to engage in similar conduct in the future."

\