HowboutthemCowboys Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 He got out of the clink today. Hey Rog, if you let the Super Bowl be played in London your ass is grass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I think what many are forgetting is the GAMBLING aspect of what he did...that is HUGH and note that it is crimeS not a single crime Exactly. Crimes, plural. And let's not forget that the NFL is what it is because of image. He ran a dogfighting ring or did so essentially because he housed it and took part. Dog fighting and gambling rings are both illegal. He tortured and killed dogs with his own hands in various disturbing ways. He lied to Goodell and authorities after it came out. I could care less about him or whether he is reinstated but lets not diminish the extent to which he displayed himself as a despicable human being simply because "they were just dogs". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Goodell Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 Exactly. Crimes, plural. And let's not forget that the NFL is what it is because of image. He ran a dogfighting ring or did so essentially because he housed it and took part. Dog fighting and gambling rings are both illegal. He tortured and killed dogs with his own hands in various disturbing ways. He lied to Goodell and authorities after it came out. I could care less about him or whether he is reinstated but lets not diminish the extent to which he displayed himself as a despicable human being simply because "they were just dogs". That pi$$ed me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suture Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 On another note, good job keeping all the repeat offenders out of the NFL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wpob Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 On another note, good job keeping all the repeat offenders out of the NFL! I believe that Vick has more than served his time for his crime. He has lost 2 years of his life in jail and probably over the course of his career $250 million dollars. I am sure he will be working with PETA to do ad work against dog fighting and will donate money toawrds their cause. That is enough for me. People have done worse in LIFE and gotten less (Leonard Little for one). Now, the fact that he LIED to Godall will probably mean he is going to get suspended (partial or whole season) and if that is the case, then I am fine with that. Regardless, with one of my late round picks in my dynasty league, I will be taking Vick. Either this year or next, he will be back in the league and I think, if he is in the right situation, he will be a awesome FLEX player. Everyone can have theor opinion on Vick, but in the Court of Law, he has/will have served his time and is/will be a free man. He should be able to go about his life in a legal manner. In the NFL's eyes, if he is deemed OK to play, then he should play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) Everyone can have theor opinion on Vick, but in the Court of Law, he has/will have served his time and is/will be a free man. He should be able to go about his life in a legal manner. In the NFL's eyes, if he is deemed OK to play, then he should play. And every man currently not incarcerated has an inalienable right to play in the NFL, correct? I see part of your agrument, but the "he's a free man who's served his time" argument has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he'll ever wear a NFL uniform again. He may have served his time (or at least most of it, since the original sentence was 23 months) but he still has a hugh problem with playing in the NFL: The NFL doesn't have to let him play if they so choose. They can choose to exclude him - that's their right as a private business as long as they don't violate Federal law in doing so (ie - discrimination in regard to several criteria). Let's not forget that the NFL is big business - really big business - and it is acutely aware of its public image. Vick committed numerous despicable acts that are perceived by the public as being aprticularly heinous. Is what Vick did as bad as what Little did? No, but there is a large difference between the two actions that only the most obtuse among us would willingly overlook. There is absolutely no evidence that Little went out drinking and then drove with the predetermined intention of killing someone. What he did was horrible, no doubt, but perception of the crime in many peoples' eyes is kind of a "there but for the grace of God go I" type of thinking. He made a terrible mistake in judgment and it cost someone their life. It's terrible, no question. But it doesn't make him some kind of monster. Vick on the other hand took dogs - which the public generally have a very good perception of - and pitted them against each other in battles to the death, executed them, tortured them, allowed them to be raped, and used family pets as training tools for them. He also put up the money for the dog fighting ring. He did this for his own pleasure and for the pleasure of those surrounding him. His intentions were clear, his motivations were clear, and his actions were clear. It shows a person who is seriously disturbed and most probably has at a minimum sociopathic tendancies. Even though his actions did not rise to the level of taking the life of another human being, the perception of his motivation, his intent, and what he derives pleasure from comes into very strict and severe scrutiny. Having Vick play again in the NFL is a PR nightmare for which no amount of money or good will gestures will completely outweigh. That's detrimental to the league's business. The only way he would get reinstated is if the league determines that the damage done to it through the terrible PR can somehow be mitigated significantly and that there is some way of putting some kind of positive spin on the situation as a whole, and then also whether Vick brings enough to the table to make the decision profitable as well, because thre are almost certain to be some financial ramifications to his playing again. Vick may be out of jail, but make no mistake, he's not out of the woods in regard to playing again, and he has absolutely no "right" to ever play in the NFL again. Edited May 21, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wpob Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 And every man currently not incarcerated has an inalienable right to play in the NFL, correct? I see part of your agrument, but the "he's a free man who's served his time" argument has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he'll ever wear a NFL uniform again. He may have served his time (or at least most of it, since the original sentence was 23 months) but he still has a hugh problem with playing in the NFL: The NFL doesn't have to let him play if they so choose. They can choose to exclude him - that's their right as a private business as long as they don't violate Federal law in doing so (ie - discrimination in regard to several criteria). Let's not forget that the NFL is big business - really big business - and it is acutely aware of its public image. Vick committed numerous despicable acts that are perceived by the public as being aprticularly heinous. Is what Vick did as bad as what Little did? No, but there is a large difference between the two actions that only the most obtuse among us would willingly overlook. There is absolutely no evidence that Little went out drinking and then drove with the predetermined intention of killing someone. What he did was horrible, no doubt, but perception of the crime in many peoples' eyes is kind of a "there but for the grace of God go I" type of thinking. He made a terrible mistake in judgment and it cost someone their life. It's terrible, no question. But it doesn't make him some kind of monster. Vick on the other hand took dogs - which the public generally have a very good perception of - and pitted them against each other in battles to the death, executed them, tortured them, allowed them to be raped, and used family pets as training tools for them. He also put up the money for the dog fighting ring. He did this for his own pleasure and for the pleasure of those surrounding him. His intentions were clear, his motivations were clear, and his actions were clear. It shows a person who is seriously disturbed and most probably has at a minimum sociopathic tendancies. Even though his actions did not rise to the level of taking the life of another human being, the perception of his motivation, his intent, and what he derives pleasure from comes into very strict and severe scrutiny. Having Vick play again in the NFL is a PR nightmare for which no amount of money or good will gestures will completely outweigh. That's detrimental to the league's business. The only way he would get reinstated is if the league determines that the damage done to it through the terrible PR can somehow be mitigated significantly and that there is some way of putting some kind of positive spin on the situation as a whole, and then also whether Vick brings enough to the table to make the decision profitable as well, because thre are almost certain to be some financial ramifications to his playing again. Vick may be out of jail, but make no mistake, he's not out of the woods in regard to playing again, and he has absolutely no "right" to ever play in the NFL again. I should have added "be able" to play in the NFL. I believe he has the right to be able to play in the NFL, but the NFL does, as you said, have the right not to WANT him. I do not think Godell can BAN him for life, but the owners can choose not to sign him. That is their right and I would not have a problem with that. if a team does not want to take a chance on him, so be it. But, I do believe that some team in the NFL will take a chance on him. And once that first team does, as long as he keeps his nose clean, Vick will be a NFL option for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I do not think Godell can BAN him for life Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I do not think Godell can BAN him for life, Actually the NFL commish has the right to give a lifetime suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Goodell Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 Every man has his price though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wpob Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Why? I am not up on the NFL legal documents, so I guess they COULD, legally. I don't think they will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 All these they's flying around when it comes down to Vick talking to one guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suture Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I wasn't referring to Vick, I was talking about repeat offenders. Yeah, he got busted for pot also, but I'm talking about all the Tank Johnsons, or the Bengals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I don't know if the league should allow Michael Vick to come back or not. I don't have a dog in this fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 But now he has become the biggest distraction to the league because of that same popularity he once had. Not true. Favre is the single biggest distraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Not true. Favre is the single biggest distraction. Not the same. Vick has the negative implications. Favre just won't go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 There is precedent there Paul Hornung and Alex Karras had indefinite suspensions for gambling in 1963 and were reinstated a year later. I looked those up. Both bet on NFL games. Not the same and does anyone believe that gambling will be Vick's biggest factor in getting re-instated anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belushi Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Regardless, with one of my late round picks in my dynasty league, I will be taking Vick. Why? He wasn't very good when he was playing. Now he's two years out of playing at a professional level. If a team takes it he'll have more of an impact on the news reporters than he will on the football field. Grossly overrated player. He could run really well with lots of space around him, but no way can he play RB. And he stank as a QB. WR maybe? There's lots of fast WR's out there. I don't see a place for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 (edited) Leonard Little. I'm hardly defending that POS, but manslaughter does not = murderer (intent vs not, pre-meditated etc etc). And again yeah you can toss him and Ray Lewis (etc) off a cliff and the world would obviously be a better place. But back to the other POS...... Beer, Do you think that when people serve out their punishments that they should still be punished? When do you feel they should stop getting punished?Depends on the specifics. In this case, yeah. Do you think justice is always served in the courts? I think Vick is a toolHe blew by "tool" a long long time ago. Even calling him a POS insults POSs everywhere. You might want to review the specifics of his crimes. And "they're just animals" is IMO an extremely weak excuse. There are fair # of people on this Earth who, given a choice between saving their lives or an animal's, I would happily choose the animal. Vick is but one. (I mean him as the so-called person in that scenario, not the animal FYI) Oh... and I believe Little has gotten a DUI since his vehicular manslaughter.So? You imply above that If the courts say he's good to go, he's good to go. Hey Larry, have another drink! Agree to disagree I guess. Edited May 24, 2009 by BeeR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Hey Rog, if you let the Super Bowl be played in London your ass is grass! you can get passports at CVS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 And "they're just animals" is IMO an extremely weak excuse. Hunters, people who don't worship animals, and regular people say the same thing. They are just another thing for the white man to enslave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.