Vick Sentenced to 23 Months For Dog Fighting

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I don't think it is a bad decision by Goodell at all. First, he has eliminated the argument that the Commish prevented Michael Vick from resuming his career. With this decision, he has made Vick eligible to play in the league. The decision on if he plays or not depends solely on the teams now. If someone signs him, that is on that team and that owner. If he is a success, Goodell gets some of the credit. If Vick fails, he blew the second chance that the "good hearted" Goodell gave even though he did not deserve it.

Second, I don't think banning Mike Vick is worth the fight with union that will ensue. The only person I am aware that has truly been banned for life was Stanley Wilson and that was spelled out in the drug policy. I think he would save the battles with the players association for the collective bargaining agreement.

Finally, I believe the NFL is big enough and popular enough to deal with any backlash from Vick's return. Yes the team that signs him had better be prepared for all the backlash they are going to get. That is their choice. People are not going to stop going to Falcon games this year because Vick is in the league. People in Minnesota are going to stop buying A.D. jerseys because Vick is in the league. Most advertisers are not pulling their ads league wide because Vick is in the league. The stigma of dogfighting will be on Mike Vick and the team that signs him. No is going to be calling the NFL a "dogfighting" league. If I had to choose one league that could bear the brunt of a Mike Vick return, it is the NFL.

I'm not saying it's a bad decision from a financial standpoint. I have no doubt that there are plenty of people of sufficiently low moral character that don't think murdering dogs is that bad and will start buying Michael Vick jerseys if he starts scoring Touchdowns for their team.

[JPhillips]

So should all felons be barred from their previous career or just athletes? As heinous as his crime was, he should be allowed the opportunity to play agian. Now if no team wants to hire him that's fine, but the league shouldn't bar him from employment.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

right because dui manslaughter is no where near as bad as dog fighting.

No, it isn't. It isn't even fucking close frankly.

One is stupid on it's best or worst day(not sure which phrasing I like better or which one says what I want to say)
The other is psychopathic and evil.

Vick should have been taken out & shot for the betterment of society, two shot minimum just to make sure his worthless carcass is dead.

There's at least some chance, however remote, that Stallworth or Little might learn something, somehow pay back a portion of their debt to society. With Vick, evil incarnate is what it is. It doesn't change because it is incapable of change.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

have no doubt that there are plenty of people of sufficiently low moral character that don't think murdering dogs is that bad and will start buying Michael Vick jerseys if he starts scoring Touchdowns for their team.

I don't get to +1 you very often lately, so I don't want to miss the chance.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So should all felons be barred from their previous career or just athletes? As heinous as his crime was, he should be allowed the opportunity to play agian. Now if no team wants to hire him that's fine, but the league shouldn't bar him from employment.

I don't think that's quite the same. The employers belong to an organization and have given that organization the authority to set employment conditions. That's not quite the same as in most fields. A better analogy would be to licensing boards, and Gooddell would be stripping Vick of his license.

From my perspective, if I got arrested and served out my felony, I certainly couldn't get my job back at my current employer, nor could I get a similar level job at any of my employer's competitors. The only slight chance to resume my "career" would be to get an extremely low level job that would be equivalent to Vick playing in Arena, CFL, UFL, etc.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't think that's quite the same. The employers belong to an organization and have given that organization the authority to set employment conditions. That's not quite the same as in most fields. A better analogy would be to licensing boards, and Gooddell would be stripping Vick of his license.

From my perspective, if I got arrested and served out my felony, I certainly couldn't get my job back at my current employer, nor could I get a similar level job at any of my employer's competitors. The only slight chance to resume my "career" would be to get an extremely low level job that would be equivalent to Vick playing in Arena, CFL, UFL, etc.

But that's because people don't want to hire you, which, if that happens to Vick I'm perfectly fine with. You wouldn't be barred from all possibilities of working in your field. I'm not comfortable with the league barring him from the possibility of employment.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Some cultures kill dogs for food

Huge difference between the two.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not saying it's a bad decision from a financial standpoint. I have no doubt that there are plenty of people of sufficiently low moral character that don't think murdering dogs is that bad and will start buying Michael Vick jerseys if he starts scoring Touchdowns for their team.

there's alot of people who would buy Vick jerseys period. There are alot of Clinton Portis' out there who will spend their money to support him against the man.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But that's because people don't want to hire you, which, if that happens to Vick I'm perfectly fine with. You wouldn't be barred from all possibilities of working in your field. I'm not comfortable with the league barring him from the possibility of employment.

But they wouldn't be. He could get work as a football player in any number of leagues that I listed above. The NFL has the right to prevent employment in their league. Vick's prospective employers have agreed to that. My prospective employers have not made any such agreement to an organization. If they did, then that organization would certainly be right to prevent me from working for any of their member companies.

[stevew]

Lawyers can get disbarred. Doctors can lose their ability to practice medicine. Stock traders can get suspended. Teachers can get banned. Priests defrocked.

All of the above are quick examples of people banned from their profession.

Not a stretch to think the NFL could tell Vick to fuck off.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by stevew

Lawyers can get disbarred. Doctors can lose their ability to practice medicine. Stock traders can get suspended. Teachers can get banned. Priests defrocked.

All of the above are quick examples of people banned from their profession.

Not a stretch to think the NFL could tell Vick to fuck off.

This was my initial reaction as well but now I don't think it is a great comparason.

All the professions listed above involve a great deal of trust and to some level have someones well being at stake. These people have to be licensed for very good reasons.

We trust lawyers to defend us, among many other things, doctors to keep us well, stock traders with our money, ad priests and teachers with our kids.

Vick is an entertainer and a ballplayer. It's like an actor who gets in trouble. It's up to the studio if they want them in their film or not.

[larrymcg421]

But the difference between this and a regular employment situation is that the players are not just representing their teams, but also the NFL as a whole.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But the difference between this and a regular employment situation is that the players are not just representing their teams, but also the NFL as a whole.

but realistically how many people will identify him with the bigger picture NFL as opposed to the team he is playing for?

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's not quite the same as in most fields. A better analogy would be to licensing boards, and Gooddell would be stripping Vick of his license.

Good comparison. I'm familiar with pharmacy boards in some states that give discipline to their licensees for any kind felony.

Obviously there's concerns there about drug abuse, but the NFL has concerns about its public image. It's definitely reasonable for them to "revoke someone's license" to play, especially considering there's no shortage of replacement talent.

The Stallworth/Little/Vick comparisons are interesting. It's not killing a person v. killing a dog. It's killing a person by negligent/reckless accident v. intentionally killing dozens (hundreds?) of dogs. I'm still not sure what's worse though, personally. Vick's crimes certainly have more malice, more evil in a way, because he knew exactly what he was doing, where Stallworth and Little were just reckless, and didn't set out to kill anyone.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So should all felons be barred from their previous career or just athletes? As heinous as his crime was, he should be allowed the opportunity to play agian. Now if no team wants to hire him that's fine, but the league shouldn't bar him from employment.

Most are. There aren't a lot of jobs out there for felons. If you were a high profile accountant, there is no chance you'll be hired by another firm. Why should the NFL be any different? Especially when they are catering their product somewhat to young adults and even kids.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No, it isn't. It isn't even fucking close frankly.

One is stupid on it's best or worst day(not sure which phrasing I like better or which one says what I want to say)
The other is psychopathic and evil.

Vick should have been taken out & shot for the betterment of society, two shot minimum just to make sure his worthless carcass is dead.

There's at least some chance, however remote, that Stallworth or Little might learn something, somehow pay back a portion of their debt to society. With Vick, evil incarnate is what it is. It doesn't change because it is incapable of change.

Jon hits it on the head. This isn't about whether a dog's life is more valuable than a human's. It's about the character of the person and their overall moral makeup.

Stallworth could very likely be a piece of shit. You could probably make a case that he doesn't belong in the NFL any longer. But I wouldn't say he's a sociopath. I don't think he received joy in killing that person. He was careless and made a horrible decision.

Vick on the other hand is a different breed. To be able to do what he did, it takes a mentally disturbed individual. I don't think you can change that by reading a Bible and giving speeches to kids. I think he's a sociopath who cares for only himself. As a fan of the league, I don't want that piece of shit in it. And if I was a fan of the team that signed him, I'd be very vocal with my displeasure.

[albionmoonlight]

Goddell could have told Vick he was banned for life. No one put a gun to his head and made him re-instate Vick.

I imagine that he thinks that the NFL is a more valuable organization with Vick in it than out of it. A lot of people say that bad publicity is better than no publicity. Add in the fact that now he does not have to bother fighting off a lawsuit from the union (one which the NFL would have one but would have still been an expense and distraction), and I figure he did what his people told him was the smart business play.

The NFL exists to make money for its owners. It has no other purpose in life, despite all those United Way commercials that tell us otherwise.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

I agree with the stuff being said about Vick in this thread by and large. I am not defending him as a person. I just think that we have to accept the sad fact that he still provides value to the league. This isn't about what he does and does not deserve. It is about money. And, using that measure, he gets the better of us here.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No, it isn't. It isn't even fucking close frankly.

One is stupid on it's best or worst day(not sure which phrasing I like better or which one says what I want to say)
The other is psychopathic and evil.

Vick should have been taken out & shot for the betterment of society, two shot minimum just to make sure his worthless carcass is dead.

There's at least some chance, however remote, that Stallworth or Little might learn something, somehow pay back a portion of their debt to society. With Vick, evil incarnate is what it is. It doesn't change because it is incapable of change.

yet again, i agree with Jon.

[Passacaglia]

Since when do we expect the NFL to be our moral compass? I thought it was just a bunch of guys who play football.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Since when do we expect the NFL to be our moral compass? I thought it was just a bunch of guys who play football.

Image is still very important in sports. The NBA took a big hit years ago when they had a lot of players getting into trouble and looking like thugs on the bench. It effects advertising dollars, ticket sales, and merchandise sales.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:

I agree with the stuff being said about Vick in this thread by and large. I am not defending him as a person. I just think that we have to accept the sad fact that he still provides value to the league. This isn't about what he does and does not deserve. It is about money. And, using that measure, he gets the better of us here.

I just don't see his value. It puts pressure on the NFL's advertisers and creates a negative image for them to have him on the field.

He isn't a great player. He's a quarterback in an accurate passing league that isn't accurate. His running style doesn't work anymore as the speed of defenses has gotten better. While the media has built up Vick to be some superstar who was in trouble, the truth is that Mike Vick was an overated, shitty quarterback who had one great playoff game. He's Rex Grossman with speed.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I have trouble believing that Michael Vick's return could have a serious impact on the image of the NFL. He's one player, and he'll only be on one team. Would that one team take a hit? Yeah, I guess so. It would only be temporary, though, and nothing else would significantly change. Beer companies will still spend a ton of money to advertise on Sundays, networks will still bid billions of dollars when the next TV contract comes around, and people will still run their fantasy football leagues. I'm not saying the NFL is untouchable, but it would take a hell of a lot more than this to have a huge impact. I can't even see where advertisers would suffer just because they'd advertise with the NFL. This isn't exactly like sponsors dropping out because of naked butts on NYPD Blue.

Very few people are going to ditch the NFL over this, I would think. Yes, people will be angry or upset over Michael Vick coming back, but what else are pro football fans going to do? Run out to buy Louisville Fire jerseys and start following AF2? I admit that I could be totally wrong about this, but unless Michael Vick actually uses his status as an NFL player to push an agenda that the majority finds objectionable, I think that the league itself will be fine.

Edit to add: ...unless the Arena Football League comes back, and then you can see a real quarterback like Aaron Garcia in action.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What Happened To Michael Vick's Fighting Dogs After The Rescue