Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Vick to be reinstated in week 3


BearBroncos
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Welcome back to their old jobs? I agree. Not welcome back to their professions? I don't think so (unless you're talking about a lawyer who gets disbarred or doctor who loses their license to practice medicine) - they can always re-enter their profession . . . it just becomes an issue as to whether anyone will hire them.

 

Vick went through the same type of castigation when he came back and nobody wanted to sign him. That's the employer's prerogative - I just don't think that they should take away his ability to be signed . . .

 

You just answered your own question. Not everyone is allowed back in to their profession. No one is saying the guy cant make a living. Just do it somewhere else. And if you think the NFL wants him back because they need the glorious Mike Vick to make money you have no idea how many guys are coming up year after year just like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have legal system that punishes people in accordance with the severity of their crimes - this doesn't become an issue in sports much because when someone commits a REALLY serious crime (which is defined by sentencing guidelines, etc.), they go away for a very long time and reinstatement/further success isn't even an option.

 

Do you really believe this? I would love to be this innocent and naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really believe this? I would love to be this innocent and naive.

 

+1

 

Your argument is based on the assumption that our legal system is fair. Vick doing what he did and then being able to go right back to his throne after a few months in prison doesn't really sound like justice to me. It just sounds like more enabling of a evil, soulless person because he is exciting to watch on the football field.

Edited by budlitebrad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just answered your own question. Not everyone is allowed back in to their profession. No one is saying the guy cant make a living. Just do it somewhere else. And if you think the NFL wants him back because they need the glorious Mike Vick to make money you have no idea how many guys are coming up year after year just like him.

 

No I didn't - I said there were exceptions (and please note that the licenses I referenced above aren't automatically terminated if you commit a crime). Unfortunately, you don't need a license to play football, so the exceptions don't even apply here - I was just pointing them out to be fair. The closest thing to a professional athlete is another form of entertainer, like an actor or singer - you think these people should be unable to sell albums/make movies because they commit crimes? They can be blackballed (which Vick was, to an extent) but that's different than saying they can't perform in their profession at all anymore.

 

My point is that Vick shouldn't have to "do it somewhere else" (again I point to the exception where licenses are at issue) - he's trained his whole life to be a football player and, most likely, isn't qualified to do much else. He spent his time in jail, lost his huge contract and endorsements, lost 2 years of playing time in the prime of his life . . . I guess I'm just surprised that this isn't enough for people.

 

You have your opinion, I have mine - no need to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really believe this? I would love to be this innocent and naive.

 

That wasn't a statement of belief - it was a statement of fact based on generalities. I never said anything about whether I agree with our system or whether it's fair. My point is that if a guy is exonerated in the eyes of the law after serving time, why is that not enough? Why continue to pile on the guy when he's paid his dues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

 

Your argument is based on the assumption that our legal system is fair. Vick doing what he did and then being able to go right back to his throne after a few months in prison doesn't really sound like justice to me. It just sounds like more enabling of a evil, soulless person because he is exciting to watch on the football field.

 

My argument is based on the assumption that our legal system is what it is. Are you saying that Vick should've gone to jail for a longer period of time? If that's the argument, fine - but that isn't what we've been talking about here.

 

Do you realize how much money he lost? Have you ever been in prison? The guy's life was completely ruined for 2 years - in his prime. I don't understand how people can sit back and say that justice wasn't served simply because Vick retains earning power after he gets out of prison. I'm also not sure that being a backup QB when he used to be one of the premier starters can be considered a throne either - that's like coming back to your office job but in the mailroom.

 

Look at it like this - Vick is extremely talented physically in the game of football. Some others who go to jail are extremely talented in certain fields (engineering, math, physics, etc.) - are you going to tell them that they're not allowed to earn a living with their talents after they get out of jail? "Sorry - no more engineering for you because we want you to continue to live a crappy life, despite the fact that you already served your time. We simply can't have you succeeding in life because you did a bad thing." Doesn't make much sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

 

And OJ was innocent! God, here I go straying this thread....lol!

 

I would hope that you can see the huge differences between OJ and Vick . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I can. I see how well our criminal system works too!

 

The point is that Vick was found guilty and did time - OJ was not and did not (for various reasons). If OJ had been convicted of what he was charged with, he'd have gone away for life.

 

My comments about the legal system dealt solely with the punishment system if found guilty - I assumed this was obvious. People are unjustly found not guilty all the time - nobody agrees with it, but that also has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having second thoughts about Philly signing Vick. I think by midseason the honeymoon will be over -- the nice relationship he has with McNabb now will be gone, and they will be fighting to be the full-time starting QB. I saw the cheers Vick got every time he touched the ball last week, and I know a lot of Philly fans are very reluctant McNabb backers. They have seen him struggle and especially remember the Super Bowl performance. I can see them all shifting very quickly to passionate Vick fans as soon as he has a good game and/or McNabb starts to struggle. It's going to be a media sh*tstorm too, and could potentially cause the team to implode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that Vick was found guilty and did time - OJ was not and did not (for various reasons). If OJ had been convicted of what he was charged with, he'd have gone away for life.

 

My comments about the legal system dealt solely with the punishment system if found guilty - I assumed this was obvious. People are unjustly found not guilty all the time - nobody agrees with it, but that also has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

So, if they are found guilty, the criminal system worked and they served an appropriate amount of time? That's the conundrum. Most people are excessively charged but can't afford defense attorneys the likes of an OJ or Vick. Most likely, a regular Joe convicted of the same crime would probably still be behind bars with many years to follow. And rightfully so I may add. These guys buy their way out of what they should be charged, which in itself, should be criminal. They should serve as if they were a regular Joe and not be able to buy their way out of the system.

 

I guess I gave up on this thread......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should athletes be treated any differently than anyone else? Do you think doctors, actors, brokers and other highly paid individuals should also lose their livelihood for these kinds of crimes if they do their time? They already lost it for the time they were in the clink . . .

 

Depending upon the nature of the crime and the impact of hiring a convicted individual, where the conviction could affect a company that values its public image and perception of credibility - yes, absolutely the company has every right not to hire the individual. On the converse, are you implying that a company should be forced to employ an individual that they perceive would negatively impact their business simply because "they served their time"?

 

Could you show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that Vick is entitled to employment by the NFL or any of its members? If he is not fit for anything else, as you claim, is that not Vick's fault - especially seeing as how he was given a free education at a major university in exchange for playing football there? Is it the NFL's fault that Vick did not take advantage of the opportunity that he was given?

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having second thoughts about Philly signing Vick. I think by midseason the honeymoon will be over -- the nice relationship he has with McNabb now will be gone, and they will be fighting to be the full-time starting QB. I saw the cheers Vick got every time he touched the ball last week, and I know a lot of Philly fans are very reluctant McNabb backers. They have seen him struggle and especially remember the Super Bowl performance. I can see them all shifting very quickly to passionate Vick fans as soon as he has a good game and/or McNabb starts to struggle. It's going to be a media sh*tstorm too, and could potentially cause the team to implode.

 

I could easily see this happen as well. And if it does, i will laugh my ass off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is based on the assumption that our legal system is what it is. Are you saying that Vick should've gone to jail for a longer period of time? If that's the argument, fine - but that isn't what we've been talking about here.

 

Do you realize how much money he lost? Have you ever been in prison? The guy's life was completely ruined for 2 years - in his prime. I don't understand how people can sit back and say that justice wasn't served simply because Vick retains earning power after he gets out of prison. I'm also not sure that being a backup QB when he used to be one of the premier starters can be considered a throne either - that's like coming back to your office job but in the mailroom.

 

Look at it like this - Vick is extremely talented physically in the game of football. Some others who go to jail are extremely talented in certain fields (engineering, math, physics, etc.) - are you going to tell them that they're not allowed to earn a living with their talents after they get out of jail? "Sorry - no more engineering for you because we want you to continue to live a crappy life, despite the fact that you already served your time. We simply can't have you succeeding in life because you did a bad thing." Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Balzac ... I would venture than anybody that goes to jail for 2 years will have a hard time resuming the career he had prior to his incarceration. Whether it is fair or not, ex-cons are routinely eliminated from employment opportunities simply because they are ex-cons.

 

I would be willing to bet that had Vick been a top industry executive in some company (not a professional football player) and was convicted of the same crime and did the same time that he would not be walking right back into an executive position upon his release. As a matter of fact I'd bet that he'd have a hard time getting a job, period. Vick is in the unique position of having been in a highly visible profession where his "abilities" were readily known by a large percentage of people, certainly to those that are in a position to employ him after his release. Furthermore, in his profession the people that are in positions of hiring are in the regular habit of gambling on their employees (they do it every year in the draft and in free agency). The NFL has historically been very forgiving of legal transgressions when the transgressor is highly talented (or at least perceived as having a high degree of talent).

 

Is Vick returning to the days before he when to jail where he was a starting QB and was making 10+ million dollars per year, nope. But he isn't having to figure out how to make a living like so many other ex-cons either. Not only is he not having to figure out how to make a living but he is getting compensated at a rate that far surpasses the average American earnings (never mind what other ex-cons are able to make).

 

I think somebody said something along the lines of football might be the only thing he knows how to do and he has the right to make a living doing the only thing he knows how to do. This is ludicrous. He certainly has a right to try out for any football team he wants ... but that doesn't mean that some football team is required to give him a job so he can do what he knows. He has as much "right" to a job in the NFL as I do. The fact that Vick may not have gotten a college education (on somebody else's dime too) with the idea of doing something after football or in case he never made in the NFL is nobody's fault but Vick's.

 

Personally I think that anybody that has the ability to do what he did to another living thing just for the pleasure of it (and while I think dog fighting is bad I'm more appalled by how he disposed of his animals) has some big problems that likely were not resolved by 2 years in jail. Do I believe he is sorry he got caught, certainly. Do I believe he feels remorse for his actions, nope. Do I believe Vick will try to walk the straight and narrow - yes I believe he will try.

 

Having said all that it was certainly the right of the Eagles to give Vick a job. I must admit I lost respect for any organization that welcomes that kind of person into their midst. It doesn't surprise me though ... the NFL has a long history of closing their eyes to the behavior of their players. What surprises me the most though ... he sucked as a QB so I am really surprised than anybody would take all that baggage for a QB that can't read a defense or throw a ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if they are found guilty, the criminal system worked and they served an appropriate amount of time? That's the conundrum. Most people are excessively charged but can't afford defense attorneys the likes of an OJ or Vick. Most likely, a regular Joe convicted of the same crime would probably still be behind bars with many years to follow. And rightfully so I may add. These guys buy their way out of what they should be charged, which in itself, should be criminal. They should serve as if they were a regular Joe and not be able to buy their way out of the system.

 

I guess I gave up on this thread......

 

Most people are excessively charged? What are you basing this on? Anyway, are you aware that Vick's sentence actually exceeded what the prosecutors recommended? The sentences (for him and his co-defendants - who had no money, mind you) were widely viewed as stiff for the charges. Vick did not in any way buy his way out of the system - in fact, he received the stiffest sentence of the 3 who were convicted (i.e., he served longer than the other 2 "regular joes" who he was convicted with).

 

If your whole argument here relates to what prison sentences should be for various crimes under our capital system, that's an entirely different conversation that could go on for days. As I've been saying from outset, we have a system of laws that punish people based on society's perceived gravity of the crime (again - I'm not talking about "the system" here - I'm talking about the black letter law that says what the sentence ranges for certain crimes are). If you're saying that he should've received a stiffer sentence for the crime he was convicted of, that's your opinion (although I'd be curious to know if you've actually looked at what sentencing guidelines are for these and similar types of crimes) - that simply isn't what I've been talking about at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balzac ... I would venture than anybody that goes to jail for 2 years will have a hard time resuming the career he had prior to his incarceration. Whether it is fair or not, ex-cons are routinely eliminated from employment opportunities simply because they are ex-cons.I would be willing to bet that had Vick been a top industry executive in some company (not a professional football player) and was convicted of the same crime and did the same time that he would not be walking right back into an executive position upon his release. As a matter of fact I'd bet that he'd have a hard time getting a job, period.

 

Same way Vick was elminated from consideration by many NFL teams, yes? Anyway, Vick didn't walk back into an "executive position" - he's a backup quarterback with a firmly entrenched #1 in front of him. That's about 20 rungs lower on the totem pole than where he was when he left (being one of the most celebrated starting QBs in the game)

 

Vick is in the unique position of having been in a highly visible profession where his "abilities" were readily known by a large percentage of people, certainly to those that are in a position to employ him after his release. Furthermore, in his profession the people that are in positions of hiring are in the regular habit of gambling on their employees (they do it every year in the draft and in free agency). The NFL has historically been very forgiving of legal transgressions when the transgressor is highly talented (or at least perceived as having a high degree of talent).

 

Agreed - it is what it is. I see no reason to punish Vick because of this.

 

Is Vick returning to the days before he when to jail where he was a starting QB and was making 10+ million dollars per year, nope. But he isn't having to figure out how to make a living like so many other ex-cons either. Not only is he not having to figure out how to make a living but he is getting compensated at a rate that far surpasses the average American earnings (never mind what other ex-cons are able to make).

 

So? It's not his fault that he's able to make far more money than the average american with his talents. He was on a higher economic level when he went in, so it only makes sense that he's on a higher one when he comes out. If another criminal is an excellent mechanic who owns his own shop and makes a good living when he goes in, are you going to say to him that he can't try to do what he was doing before when he gets out?

 

I think somebody said something along the lines of football might be the only thing he knows how to do and he has the right to make a living doing the only thing he knows how to do. This is ludicrous.

 

Not at all what I said. I said he should have the ability to do it - i.e., he can do it if someone else gives him the opportunity. I never said that he has the right to anything or that someone else has to give him the opportunity - simply that it's not fair to prevent people from giving him that chance if they want to.

 

He certainly has a right to try out for any football team he wants ... but that doesn't mean that some football team is required to give him a job so he can do what he knows. He has as much "right" to a job in the NFL as I do. The fact that Vick may not have gotten a college education (on somebody else's dime too) with the idea of doing something after football or in case he never made in the NFL is nobody's fault but Vick's.

I agree with all of this.

 

Personally I think that anybody that has the ability to do what he did to another living thing just for the pleasure of it (and while I think dog fighting is bad I'm more appalled by how he disposed of his animals) has some big problems that likely were not resolved by 2 years in jail. Do I believe he is sorry he got caught, certainly. Do I believe he feels remorse for his actions, nope. Do I believe Vick will try to walk the straight and narrow - yes I believe he will try.

 

Having said all that it was certainly the right of the Eagles to give Vick a job. I must admit I lost respect for any organization that welcomes that kind of person into their midst. It doesn't surprise me though ... the NFL has a long history of closing their eyes to the behavior of their players. What surprises me the most though ... he sucked as a QB so I am really surprised than anybody would take all that baggage for a QB that can't read a defense or throw a ball.

 

Can't say I disagree with any of this either - I just never got into it because it wasn't my point

Edited by Balzac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending upon the nature of the crime and the impact of hiring a convicted individual, where the conviction could affect a company that values its public image and perception of credibility - yes, absolutely the company has every right not to hire the individual. On the converse, are you implying that a company should be forced to employ an individual that they perceive would negatively impact their business simply because "they served their time"?

 

Uhm - no. I never said anything like that. Saying (i) that someone shouldn't be barred from doing something and (ii) that they have the right to do that thing are completely different.

 

Could you show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that Vick is entitled to employment by the NFL or any of its members? If he is not fit for anything else, as you claim, is that not Vick's fault - especially seeing as how he was given a free education at a major university in exchange for playing football there? Is it the NFL's fault that Vick did not take advantage of the opportunity that he was given?

 

Not sure where you got the idea that I said he has a right to anything or that clubs should be forced to give him a job, but you're kinda arguing with yourself here (because you put words in my mouth and then attacked them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people are excessively charged? What are you basing this on? Anyway, are you aware that Vick's sentence actually exceeded what the prosecutors recommended? The sentences (for him and his co-defendants - who had no money, mind you) were widely viewed as stiff for the charges. Vick did not in any way buy his way out of the system - in fact, he received the stiffest sentence of the 3 who were convicted (i.e., he served longer than the other 2 "regular joes" who he was convicted with).

 

Excessively charged? How exactly does that happen? You mean the charges exceeded the scope of the law? Or do you mean in your opinion that the courts were too mean to him? I'd bet you'd find a lot of people who would disagree based upon his actions.

 

If your whole argument here relates to what prison sentences should be for various crimes under our capital system, that's an entirely different conversation that could go on for days. As I've been saying from outset, we have a system of laws that punish people based on society's perceived gravity of the crime (again - I'm not talking about "the system" here - I'm talking about the black letter law that says what the sentence ranges for certain crimes are). If you're saying that he should've received a stiffer sentence for the crime he was convicted of, that's your opinion (although I'd be curious to know if you've actually looked at what sentencing guidelines are for these and similar types of crimes) - that simply isn't what I've been talking about at all.

 

My whole argument, which apparently you missed, was that private businesses have the right to run themselves as they see fit and to hire whomever they choose, as long as they are complying with labor laws. If no NFL team would want to hire Vick for any reason other than one which would violate federal or State laws, that is their prerogative. Who are you to say otherwise?

 

If Vick were so concerned about his career as an NFL player, why would he choose to bankroll and participate in anything like a dogfighting ring? He made a bad choice, and now you think he would be exceedingly punished if the NFL didn't hire him back? What is your justice? That the NFL would be penalized by being forced to employ Vick if they had chosen not to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm - no. I never said anything like that. Saying (i) that someone shouldn't be barred from doing something and (ii) that they have the right to do that thing are completely different.

 

Please explain to me how not being barred and making employment by a specific entity a right are different. They both remove the choice from the employer as to making decisions on hiring of people. You are playing at semantics, but the end result is identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same way Vick was elminated from consideration by many NFL teams, yes? Anyway, Vick didn't walk back into an "executive position" - he's a backup quarterback with a firmly entrenched #1 in front of him. That's about 20 rungs lower on the totem pole than where he was when he left (being one of the most celebrated starting QBs in the game)

 

I believe he is making quite a bit more than the league minimum is he not and think that still puts him into an executive position ... more along the lines of middle management rather than top executive. Either way much more than any normal ex-con can expect.

 

 

So? It's not his fault that he's able to make far more money than the average american with his talents. He was on a higher economic level when he went in, so it only makes sense that he's on a higher one when he comes out. If another criminal is an excellent mechanic who owns his own shop and makes a good living when he goes in, are you going to say to him that he can't try to do what he was doing before when he gets out?

 

No ... it doesn't "make sense that he is on a higher economic scale" when he comes out. When you go to prison this dramatically changes EVERYTHING in your life ... you don't get to pick up where you left off when you get out. I never said Vick doesn't have a right to try to find a job in football, in fact I said quite the opposite. However, just because he has the right to try to find a job in football doesn't mean that NFL teams are required to even give him a try out let alone hire him. What I said was that I was disappointed that there was an NFL team that was willing to hire a player with his lack of moral character especially given his poor qualities as a QB - but I did not dispute the right of the Eagles to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excessively charged? How exactly does that happen? You mean the charges exceeded the scope of the law? Or do you mean in your opinion that the courts were too mean to him? I'd bet you'd find a lot of people who would disagree based upon his actions.

 

not following you here at all

 

 

 

My whole argument, which apparently you missed, was that private businesses have the right to run themselves as they see fit and to hire whomever they choose, as long as they are complying with labor laws. If no NFL team would want to hire Vick for any reason other than one which would violate federal or State laws, that is their prerogative. Who are you to say otherwise?

 

Again - I never said otherwise, so I'm not sure who you've been arguing against. If you care to point out where I did, be my guest.

 

If Vick were so concerned about his career as an NFL player, why would he choose to bankroll and participate in anything like a dogfighting ring? He made a bad choice, and now you think he would be exceedingly punished if the NFL didn't hire him back? What is your justice? That the NFL would be penalized by being forced to employ Vick if they had chosen not to do so?

 

Listen - the NFL can do whatever it likes. I understand that and have no issue with it. My issue was with people saying that Vick shouldn't be allowed to play in the NFL (i.e., that the NFL and/or its teams shouldn't be allowed to offer him employment). If you can't see the difference between these two concepts, I apologize. I'm not going to explain my points and where I'm coming from all over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information