Where did you get that? I think it has been established for some time now that Ray Lewis didn't shoot anybody and probably didn't have any direct involvement causing the shooting. Not that he did what was probably the right thing. He waited longer than he should have to tell about the person that was around him in the incident, but I have to give him credit. At least after that he drastically cleaned up his act when given the chance, unlike somebody like Packman Jones who keeps getting into trouble time after time and has done good things around the community.
Michael Vick Indicted
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
Where did you get that? I think it has been established for some time now that Ray Lewis didn't shoot anybody and probably didn't have any direct involvement causing the shooting. Not that he did what was probably the right thing. He waited longer than he should have to tell about the person that was around him in the incident, but I have to give him credit. At least after that he drastically cleaned up his act when given the chance, unlike somebody like Packman Jones who keeps getting into trouble time after time and has done good things around the community.
Iamforever
Banned
nobody said that he was honorable. now, if you have proof of your allegations, please provide. if not, then dont run your lies.
Iamforever
Banned
no, his point is that ray lewis killed a guy. he also brought up dahmer. he didnt walk.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
The Falcons exist only as an entity of the NFL and as such are subject to the rules that the NFL imposes. It was part of their contract with the league when they petitioned for a franchise. No one forced them to agree to anything. There is no monopoly since rival leagues are free to start up and frequently have in the past with varying degrees of success (WFL, USFL, XFL). It is true that the professional sports leagues have been ruled to be exempt from anti-trust laws in certain instances. The fact is, they are free to establish whatever rules of conduct (both on and off the field) that they deem necessary. If an individual player feels wronged by any decisions rendered by the league in this regard, he can certainly feel free to take it to court. This has sometimes happened in the past as exemplified by the Maurice Clarett case in the NFL and the Curt Flood case in baseball, to name a few.
I don't know where you work, McRocket, but the company I work for routinely does pre-employment background checks, credit checks and drug-screening tests on prospective employees. Failure to meet established standards for any and all requirements is grounds for disqualification. It is extremely common these days. The fact of the matter is, for better or worse, personal and private activities can and do affect an individual's job security.
I understand your personal aversion to this as a violation of free will and I'm not saying I personally agree with the way these rules are implemented and enforced....I'm just saying that this is the way things ARE.
We'll see what decision Roger Goodell makes. Recent history would indicate that he will render a harsh judgment. We'll have to wait and see if he uses a different set of values considering Michael Vick's elevated status as an icon of the Falcons.
I'll tell you one thing.....I'm glad he doesn't play for the Texans because I'm not rooting for a guy who routinely mutilates and executes dogs for sport and profit.
OK, I'm done....I feel better now.
:2 cents:
True. But the Oakland Raiders a few years ago took the NFL to court and won the right to move their franchise where ever they wish. As far as I am concerned, the Atlanta Falcons are not owned in any way by the NFL. The Atlanta Falcons are a separate business and can do what they wish with their players. Granted, if they wish to play in the NFL they would probably have to suspend him. But the NFL is owned and run by the owners of the various teams. It is not a separate entity. It does whatever the owners wish. And if the majority of owners decided that Micheal Vick stays on the field, then he stays on the field.
The fact that many league sports are exempt from anti-trust laws is ridiculous to me.
I realize this. A pre-employment check is fine. I do not see how a credit check is any of the employers business - maybe you could explain it to me. And drug screening is non of the employers business either unless it can be proven that a prior problem was detrimental to that persons previous or present employment.
I realize this is not what the reality is. I care not for the reality in this case. I am talking what should be the case.
And this kind of meddling in peoples personal affairs is ridiculous.
And I work for McRocket Inc. BTW. A non-existent company.
The reat of my post is not directed at you Jagger69 individually. Just at people in general.
Once again, I personally care not what Micheal Vick does with his spare time. It is not your nor my business what that is. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with his abilities on a football field.
This continued obsession the masses have with their celebrities/athletes and their personal lives has gotten completely ridiculous.
The law enforcement agencies of governments are THE ONLY agencies for dealing with criminal matters. It is NOT for the people to judge or discriminate against someone based on their legal past unless the law says it is.
If a person has paid his debt to society, then his debt is paid and done. And it is no longer anyone's business what he did. Unless the law decides had he/she is a dangerous offender - in which case that tag is placed upon him/her. Or possibly, if he/she is on parole.
But once their legal slate is clean then that part of their life is behind them and should in no way affect any aspect of his/her business life.
I do not care if Micheal Vick ate his dogs in so far as him playing football is concerned. I do not care if he murdered 10 people and some how got out of jail with a full pardon. If the law states he is free to live his life, so he is. And it is no one's professional business what he does - unless that business can prove in court that he will cost them money because of his past.
It does not mean that people have to like him. But I do not believe people should be allowed to fire or suspend someone for something that has absolutely nothing to do with the employment that you are being fired/suspended from.
Well, then don't post in threads dedicated to him.
The thread is entitled 'Micheal Vick Indicted'. And I am commenting about said indictment and how I think it should or should not affect his career.
Man, if you stopped making posts that are not exactly to do with the thread topic I suspect your post count would be about 1/2 of what it currently is. If not less.
What hurts you the most? That you're argument for Vick is wrong, or my post count?
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Yes....and the commissioner does the owners' bidding. Do you think some owners of other teams might think that this Vick situation might have an affect on how people view the NFL? And, by consequence, affect revenues? As long as the ownership of the Falcons wants to field a team to play in the NFL, they have to abide by the rules....period.
I disagree with this type of personal intrusion as well. I am simply stating that it is indeed a reality.
Good luck in your entrepreneurial endeavor! :glugglug:
Sure he's free to live his life. And the Falcons and the NFL are free to run their businesses as they see fit. Basic human rights don't include a right to behave any way you want to without suffering any societal or professional consequences. It's just the way it is.
That's it....I'm out on this subject until the trial.
Well, I do not believe my arguement about Vick is wrong; though it could well be.
And as for your post count. I was simply making a point. Though whether you actually got it is another matter.
I realize you are thin skinned. Try not to take it so personal. No insult was intended.
Well, I disagree with that.
Surely you realize that if businesses ran things 'as they see fit' that the World would probably be far worse off then it currently is.
If the NFL can prove that for Vick to remain playing will cause a decrease in revenues then I agree he should be suspended.
If they cannot, I disagree.
Simple.
I think they will suspend him. And they will probably do it on moral grounds. Which I think is none of their business.
Many disagree with me. So what else is new?
Thin skinned??? I'm the Apeman. I'm a King Kong man. I'm a Tarzan just looking for a Jane!
I sit corrected.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Looks like the low-life decided to take his medicine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/s...em&ex=1187755200&en=94856887d5458e8d&ei=5087
A year in the joint is not NEAR enough for this scumbag.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/s...em&ex=1187755200&en=94856887d5458e8d&ei=5087
A year in the joint is not NEAR enough for this scumbag.
Similar threads
