Michael Vick Indicted
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
Been listening to the news about this and its something else.Whoever could enjoy such things is one sick pup.They say Vick was heavily involved even killing dogs who did not perform well.I never cared about the other things he had trouble over but this is just pointless sick stuff.
squallumz
knows petras secret: she farted.
then im referring to the right guy. between the dog fighting, they were talking about several other incidences he was involved in before the dog thing. like i said, fuck him. he should know better.
Iamforever
Banned
squallumz
knows petras secret: she farted.
he should know better. i agree. money and fame. its a bitch. pun intended.
still, id love to have it. at least the money part. nice pun btw.
I would Love to see that.Michael Vick seems to be just an animal anyway.The most disturbing thing is that other Dogs such as Golden Retrievers are used in training exercises to be killed for practice by the tortured pitbulls.--In addition,the fact that the Dogs that don't perform were executed by hanging,drowning,electrocution,or beating..slamming them on the ground.If that were the penalty for lack of performance,then Michael Vick would have been dead a couple of seasons ago.He is a poor excuse for a Quarterback.All hype and no performance.If convicted,I hope He gets a long prison sentance and gets ruined financially also.Abusing animals that cannot defend themselves is the lowest form of Human behavior.....and for Gambling and "Entertainment"....That is sick.I hope all involved get what they deserve,and forgive Me when I say that there is nothing wrong with those involved that a M-16 and a full magazine wouldn't fix.
His skill set just doesn't translate well into the pros. You can't just have a scrambler that doesn't have at least some good throwing ability. Being able to scramble needs to be an extra feature the defense has to worry about not the main one. To be fair to him on that point I think part of the problem was Atlanta. They tried to force a system on him that was unsuited for his abilities and didn't try to maximize his potential until last year. His only decent year was before the team tried to institute a west cost offense for some reason. Then again I have also heard things about Vick having an absolutely abysmal work ethic where he refused to take instruction and learn anything at all so maybe that was his fault also. He was also given a huge contract and was so loved by ownership that the coaches couldn't really do anything about the situation or to him. They just had to put up with substandard play. That's why I think it came out where Mora Jr’s father said in that one interview that he was a "coach killer", which was probably true.
I hope they put that moron into his own "Bad Newz Kennel" or a nice 6ft by 6ft cell
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
The actual indictment is here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717072vick1.html
Looks to me like the Feds have done a pretty thorough job of investigating this. It will be interesting to see what the final outcome (since, after all, he IS innocent until proven guilty) will be with this as far as the NFL is concerned. ...especially in light of the hard-line that Roger Goodell has taken with the likes of Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, etc.
If the indictment is true, this is one of most heinous things that a human being (and I really test the limits of the definition by calling these individuals "human") could perpetrate....absolutely barbaric, brutal and thoroughly disgusting.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717072vick1.html
Looks to me like the Feds have done a pretty thorough job of investigating this. It will be interesting to see what the final outcome (since, after all, he IS innocent until proven guilty) will be with this as far as the NFL is concerned. ...especially in light of the hard-line that Roger Goodell has taken with the likes of Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, etc.
If the indictment is true, this is one of most heinous things that a human being (and I really test the limits of the definition by calling these individuals "human") could perpetrate....absolutely barbaric, brutal and thoroughly disgusting.
I think in the Pacman, Tank Johnson, and Henry cases they either were convicted of something or they broke the rules of the NFL somehow. Pacman was suspended technically for failing to report two arrests to the NFL that he had. I'm sure they could come up with something on Vick if they wanted to though, even if Goodell says it's because he think Vick lied to him when they talked and Vick said he knew nothing about it while evidence seems to indicate that is pretty doubtful.
I don't like dog fighting either. Breading and training an animal like that to be violent and attack other things the way they do can only cause problems for people and make them a danger to everything they are around. Also I have to wonder about a person that gets sadistic pleasure out of watching the pain of something else, there has to be something wrong with them, but I think people go just a tad too far when they say it's the one of the most heinous things they can think of. I have heard a lot of people say that on football messageboard I have read lately. I mean it's not good but I don't look at some murderer, rapist, child molester, drug dealers who sells to school children, or somebody that embezzles peoples life saving away from them and say well at least they weren’t dealing in dog fights.
I do not think what a person does off of the field (and out of the stadium or practice field) should have any bearing on whether they are suspended or not.
There is a justice system for dealing with things. And once they have dealt with them, that should be that.
I care not what is in their contracts or rules. Nothing a player does off of the field interests me as a watcher/follower of the game. And quite frankly, I think it is none of any league's business what a player does away from the sport.
And in terms of the leagues trying to create role models? Give me a break. Any one that thinks that the average athlete is someone to look up to is ignorant in the extremis.
Do I like dog fighting? No. I think it's disgusting. And anyone involved in it to the extent that Vick may have been is obviously a mentally screwed up (at least temporarily) human being. And I certainly would not want a guy like that living near me - especially if I had children.
But as far as him playing for the Falcons is concerned? I care not in the slightest. The two are totally unrelated. Unless they start using dogs for kickoffs of something.
There is a justice system for dealing with things. And once they have dealt with them, that should be that.
I care not what is in their contracts or rules. Nothing a player does off of the field interests me as a watcher/follower of the game. And quite frankly, I think it is none of any league's business what a player does away from the sport.
And in terms of the leagues trying to create role models? Give me a break. Any one that thinks that the average athlete is someone to look up to is ignorant in the extremis.
Do I like dog fighting? No. I think it's disgusting. And anyone involved in it to the extent that Vick may have been is obviously a mentally screwed up (at least temporarily) human being. And I certainly would not want a guy like that living near me - especially if I had children.
But as far as him playing for the Falcons is concerned? I care not in the slightest. The two are totally unrelated. Unless they start using dogs for kickoffs of something.
Iamforever
Banned
everything a player does off the field should have bearing whether they are suspended. the league doesnt want thug criminals. i for one agree with goodell so far. if the players dont like it, they can move on or clean up their act.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I agree 100%. Businesses have a right to be concerned about the moral (at least from a legal standpoint) makeup of their employees and to make a determination as to whether or not they want to have them on the payroll as a result. No one has an inherent right to be employed....you need to earn it and deserve it.
I disagree with both of you.
To deny someone employment because of things that have absolutely nothing to do with that employment is none of the employer's business. Also, a league like the NFL is not Vick's employer. The Atlanta Falcons are. The league is only an organization that the Falcons belong to.
Now if the owner(s) of the Atlanta Falcons can prove in a court or law that Micheal Vick's dealings with the law will cost them a noticeable amount of money more then Vick brings to the club; then I can understand if the Falcons wish to terminate their dealings with Vick - and thusly get out of their contractual obligation to him. But then Vick should be able to go to any other team and work for them if they choose to hire him.
I personally believe that the NFL should have zero say in suspending a player outside of on field play/behaviour.
Also, I believe that the NFL violates anti-trust laws (though it probably does not somehow), as it imposes a monopoly on professional outdoor football in the United States. Thusly, I do not think it should be able to decide whom it's teams may or may not employ. Providing that player is not jeopardizing the revenues of other teams in a provable manner.
I believe the only person that should decide whether Micheal Vick is eligible to play is the owner(s) of the Atlanta Falcons - not the NFL.
And even if legally this does not hold up means little to me as this is how I feel it should be.
And in terms of the NFL employing thugs? Why not? I do not care much if they employee all ex-cons. If they have paid their debt to society in the eyes of the law then they should not be denied employment unless that employer can provide a factual reason why that employment would hurt their teams' income.
And if the player performs well and helps the team win; that would be extremely difficult to prove - in my opinion.
To deny someone employment because of things that have absolutely nothing to do with that employment is none of the employer's business. Also, a league like the NFL is not Vick's employer. The Atlanta Falcons are. The league is only an organization that the Falcons belong to.
Now if the owner(s) of the Atlanta Falcons can prove in a court or law that Micheal Vick's dealings with the law will cost them a noticeable amount of money more then Vick brings to the club; then I can understand if the Falcons wish to terminate their dealings with Vick - and thusly get out of their contractual obligation to him. But then Vick should be able to go to any other team and work for them if they choose to hire him.
I personally believe that the NFL should have zero say in suspending a player outside of on field play/behaviour.
Also, I believe that the NFL violates anti-trust laws (though it probably does not somehow), as it imposes a monopoly on professional outdoor football in the United States. Thusly, I do not think it should be able to decide whom it's teams may or may not employ. Providing that player is not jeopardizing the revenues of other teams in a provable manner.
I believe the only person that should decide whether Micheal Vick is eligible to play is the owner(s) of the Atlanta Falcons - not the NFL.
And even if legally this does not hold up means little to me as this is how I feel it should be.
And in terms of the NFL employing thugs? Why not? I do not care much if they employee all ex-cons. If they have paid their debt to society in the eyes of the law then they should not be denied employment unless that employer can provide a factual reason why that employment would hurt their teams' income.
And if the player performs well and helps the team win; that would be extremely difficult to prove - in my opinion.
Iamforever
Banned
the nfl is taking a lax approach with vick. if michael vick were ceo of a fortune 500 company, he would probably be suspended already until its cleared up.
It definately seems like a double standard here. NFL suspends Pacman Jones without question, but all of the sudden Michael Vick gets to play until further notice. Guess it really is all about the money makers. :2 cents:
Actually I think all major sports in the country have certain special anti-trust exemptions because of the nature of their business. Because of the nature of athletic competition it can't be treated like a normal business and hold up over time without them. That is why not any team can't move to any place it wants, otherwise there would be five or each type of sports team in New York and none in places like Kansas City or Milwaukee, and it also allows them to have things like a salary cap and extensive revenue sharing, a draft, how contracts can be done and when, and rules about who can be hired in the first place, even though each team is technically a separate business. In athletics that is only true in the most technical of aspects. All the teams in a major league like this also agree to form the league and make it have certain powers over the whole. In case your wondering the NFL probably does have the legal authority to suspend any player in a situation like this if they want. It isn't a court of law where it has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as long as they think the evidence points one way, and even most other businesses could probably terminate employment anyhow if you did something outside of work in a similar situation without having to wait for a legal verdict if they wanted to.
Second the NFL has a very good reason to protect it's image with all the money and good will it has invested in it with everything from the public, advertisers, to the television networks. It's not like the bad behavior of an individual will only affect the team he plays for. When somebody does something wrong to such a degree the ENTIRE league is affected by it and has a chance to be looked down upon. That's part of the reason a commissioner’s office exist in the first place to handle issues like this. Every time a player does something wrong it is all over the news. I doubt Vick could ever make as much money for the league as he will undoubtedly hurt it now, and the NFL doesn't have to prove that anyhow. Plus what are you saying? That a league should never require it's members to act according to a personal conduct standard no matter how bad it makes them look, that ethics mean absolutely nothing as long as profit somehow comes out slightly ahead despite what the person does.
Not only that I can think of some very good reason besides ethics why the NFL would want to curtail some behavior off the field. Would you let any player gamble on anything he wanted if he was in your league? If you found out he bet against his own team would you just consider that an off the field incident and let him do it? I can also see a situation where a player is dealing with shady characters and opens the door to give them access to other players and people within the league, which brings in even more bad publicity and allows them to have influence on the people in it. I think a group like the NFL has a very significant interest in stopping things like that from happening. Maybe the next time a team in the league wants to ask the public for funding for a new stadium I don't think having a bunch of thugs on your team is going to inspire the public to want to help you. If a sports league wants to ask lawmakers for something I don't think it would be any different either. All that doesn’t even take into account that more and more congress is willing to drag sports leagues in front of it to answer questions about its players conduct. (Example: baseball with its steroid problem)
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Michael Vick sucks anyway, who cares? I'd have more fun watching him get hit with golf balls than watching him try to throw a shitty pass.
Mike Vick is indeed a spoiled rich kid...raising fighting dogs, I really don't care...Hell, Ray Lewis shot a man to death the day after the Super Bowl several years back and he's still playing..There is no such thing as equal justice in this country, Let's ask O.J and get his opinion did'nt he have a bank of high priced laywers... and also, Jeffery Dahamer's mom said..."Hey, my boy was just hungry"
Iamforever
Banned
ray lewis did not shoot anybody that night.
Similar threads
