petersonRoger I. Abrams, a law professor writing for Huffington Post, takes quite a bit of issue with Judge David Doty’s ruling in Federal Court on Thursday that reversed — at least temporarily, until the NFL appealed later in the day — Adrian Peterson’s suspension.

Per his piece:

Here is where Judge Doty went wrong. He overturned the decision based on his own view of what (arbitrator Harold) Henderson should have done. Henderson, Judge Doty said, should have followed the “law of the shop” as Doty saw that law.

Furthermore, Abrams writes:

There are more problems with Judge Doty’s decision. He criticizes Mr. Henderson’s failure to apply the “well-recognized bar against retroactivity.” Where exactly in the collective bargaining agreement is this “well-recognized bar?” Once again, the Judge applies his own personal view, marching down the wrong path.

That said, Abrams concedes that the result of the ruling might be the correct one:

The irony of Judge Doty’s decision is that the outcome he ultimately reached might be correct but for the wrong reasons. The decision by Mr. Henderson was not that of an arbitrator. It was a management decision taken pursuant to the grant of power under the collective bargaining agreement.

But Abrams concludes that the NFL should win its appeal. Long story short: Peterson is right back where he started and figures, at least in the opinion of one legal expert, to stay there.

Older Post

RandBall: Impressive responses from Gophers, Wild make for feel-good Friday

Newer Post

RandBall: Meet the fan who danced shirtless to welcome KG