There was a lot of debate about whether a given jet has certain penalties on wet runways, whether with spoilers, reversers or whatever.
I don't see the point of such debate, unless the Captain used less than conservative judgement (ignored major penalties in the MEL) when he/she accepted the aircraft for the flight, given awareness of the very short runway, the status of thrust reversers, autospoilers, anti-skid etc, or should he have delayed the approach, possibly finding a nearby alternate airport (within fuel range) with a longer runway? When the landing gear are extended on many planes, an antiskid light is sometimes displayed, telling you that you need to go fairly easy on the brakes. No sweat with a long runway if you land in the touchdown zone.
About two winters ago, I told Dispatch that we would only operate with part of the flight release 'tanker fuel' (for cost) to an airport in the 'remote Midwest' with short runways (less than 8,000'). There were scattered patches of melting snow.
National Public Radio (US) today stated that the flying pilot tried to attempt a takeoff just after the landing. The press might have received totally inaccurate information. Few members of the press have a Private Pilot's license, and not many understand the factors involved with any takeoff or landing.