Captain Caveman Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 What ever happened to capitalism. If a team wants to employ him knowing that his set of skills is rare and can bring a team a win or two more than why should the NFL not be able to not let that team hire him if he has spent his time in jail for the sins he committed. While one team may be able to justify signing him if it thinks he will help them more than hurt them, the commissioner is supposed to be looking out for the entire league. If Roger Goodell thinks having Michael Vick in the NFL is bad for the NFL, for whatever reason, then he can and should should ban him. If the individual teams don't like his actions, they can try to oust him. Again, I'm not proposing this as punishment for Vick, and I'm not going to get into the argument of whether he deserves more or less punishment than what he's already received. But in the real world (and even NFL players have to live in the real world) it's pretty uncommon for someone who commits a major crime to just be able to go back to their old life. This isn't because people are going out of their way to further punish an individual (usually); it's just a side effect of going to prison.
Lori Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Its is a right to play in the NFL to an extent. The NFL can't say no Asians or Mexicans in the league because they do not deserve the privilege. So to a degree its a privilege but if you pay the dues and have the ability than as long as a team wants you, you have the right to play in the league. Goodell should only have the right to suspend the guys who haven't spent time in jail as a way to penalize players for their actions that did not result in any jail time. The United States justice system punished Vick why should the NFL levy any more punishment on top of jail time and taking away his big contract. Like I said if you want to ban Vick you should ban all the wife beaters and drunk drivers because those scumbags don't deserve the privilege to play in the NFL. Where is the ban Leonard Little petition? Last I checked, ethnicity doesn't violate the conduct policy. Felonies do. And Goodell wasn't in office -- and the current version of the policy didn't yet exist -- when Little re-entered the league.
Captain Caveman Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Its is a right to play in the NFL to an extent. The NFL can't say no Asians or Mexicans in the league because they do not deserve the privilege. So to a degree its a privilege but if you pay the dues and have the ability than as long as a team wants you, you have the right to play in the league. You're really reaching with the Asians / Mexicans analogy. But even so, if the NFL won the right to keep out Maurice Clarett because he was too young, they can sure as hell keep out MV because he's too much of a felon.
billsfan89 Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 You're really reaching with the Asians / Mexicans analogy. But even so, if the NFL won the right to keep out Maurice Clarett because he was too young, they can sure as hell keep out MV because he's too much of a felon. Too much of a felon. He served his time in jail. What ever happened to if you pay your debt to society you can re-enter and make good? If a team wants to hire him than why not let them. As for image why should you let PETA ban a guy from the league. If Vick is willing to do psa's and work with the humane society (which he has committed to do) what more do you want from him? Everyone deserves a second chance once they have payed their dues. Is jail time and the loss of a 100 million dollar contract is not enough of a penance the American Justice system thinks so.
Captain Caveman Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Too much of a felon. He served his time in jail. What ever happened to if you pay your debt to society you can re-enter and make good? If a team wants to hire him than why not let them. As for image why should you let PETA ban a guy from the league. If Vick is willing to do psa's and work with the humane society (which he has committed to do) what more do you want from him? Everyone deserves a second chance once they have payed their dues. Is jail time and the loss of a 100 million dollar contract is not enough of a penance the American Justice system thinks so. Saying that everyone deserves a second chance is fine, but what does that mean? It means they are allowed back into society, and will play by society's rules. In our society, that means that a company can hire them, or refuse to hire them if they feel it will be bad for business. I'm not asking for the guy to be punished further, and I really think too much of this conversation has focused on punishment, which I also feel should be left to the courts. All I'm saying is that if Goodell thinks it will hurt the NFL financially to have him back, then he should not allow him back. It's not about Michael Vick getting punished, or PETA, or anything other than the league making money.
billsfan89 Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Saying that everyone deserves a second chance is fine, but what does that mean? It means they are allowed back into society, and will play by society's rules. In our society, that means that a company can hire them, or refuse to hire them if they feel it will be bad for business. I'm not asking for the guy to be punished further, and I really think too much of this conversation has focused on punishment, which I also feel should be left to the courts. All I'm saying is that if Goodell thinks it will hurt the NFL financially to have him back, then he should not allow him back. It's not about Michael Vick getting punished, or PETA, or anything other than the league making money. But if someone has a skill set that is so rare and could make said company money than a company might decide to hire him leave it up to the teams on whither or not Vick has value to the league . Mike Tyson was allowed to box with no public outrage what so ever after he was convicted for raping a women. If vick was an average player no one would want him and he would be out of the league. But because he is a good player teams like the Rams want to take a chance on him. And the NFL lost not a dime due to the Michael Vick situation. The NFL is an unstoppable industry Vick wouldn't hurt the bottom line at all. The image of the NFL is terrible but on Sunday we all tune in to watch so I don't buy the argument that its about the league making money. If Goodell banned Vick it would be to send a message to the other players that he has the hammer and as window dressing that he is cleaning up the image of the league.
billsfan89 Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Last I checked, ethnicity doesn't violate the conduct policy. Felonies do. And Goodell wasn't in office -- and the current version of the policy didn't yet exist -- when Little re-entered the league. So by that logic if Vick did this in 1998 he should be reinstated without question? Little still killed that guy but it wasn't against the rules of the NFL so he should play? I am not saying give Vick an exemption from the rule but just that his time in prison should serve as his suspension and the fact that he is bankrupt is another punishment he has been given.
Lori Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 So by that logic if Vick did this in 1998 he should be reinstated without question? Little still killed that guy but it wasn't against the rules of the NFL so he should play? Where did you get that idea? To clarify my point: if Goodell and his more stringent policy had been in place when Little slaughtered Susan Gutweiler, he may not have found it quite as easy to get back into the league. I am not saying give Vick an exemption from the rule but just that his time in prison should serve as his suspension and the fact that he is bankrupt is another punishment he has been given. That's for Goodell to decide.
Captain Caveman Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 But if someone has a skill set that is so rare and could make said company money than a company might decide to hire him leave it up to the teams on whither or not Vick has value to the league . Mike Tyson was allowed to box with no public outrage what so ever after he was convicted for raping a women. If vick was an average player no one would want him and he would be out of the league. But because he is a good player teams like the Rams want to take a chance on him. And the NFL lost not a dime due to the Michael Vick situation. The NFL is an unstoppable industry Vick wouldn't hurt the bottom line at all. The image of the NFL is terrible but on Sunday we all tune in to watch so I don't buy the argument that its about the league making money. If Goodell banned Vick it would be to send a message to the other players that he has the hammer and as window dressing that he is cleaning up the image of the league. As for the financial incentives / disincentives, you're missing the point. Does one team have the right to sign Vick to make an extra million $, if it costs each other team in the league a quarter of a million $ in lost tv / advertising revenue? And I'm not saying that it would or would not be the case. All I'm saying is that the NFL has people far more qualified than you or I looking at this, and if they decide that it would hurt the league overall, they have every right to keep him out. As for it being about Goodell cleaning up the league, I partially agree, but again, it has to be looked at from a financial perspective. The whole reason the NFL is so worried about cleaning up the league's reputation is to keep the revenue flowing. So far, it hasn't been greatly impacted by player behavior, but that doesn't mean it might not have a negative impact, especially if things continue as is or get worse. If Goodell decides that having Vick in the league is what is best for the league, then he will do that. I don't have a problem with it. But you keep arguing that Goodell doesn't have the right to ban him. You may not like it, but he absolutely does have that right, and it's been granted to him with consent of the owners and players. Get over it.
billsfan89 Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Where did you get that idea? To clarify my point: if Goodell and his more stringent policy had been in place when Little slaughtered Susan Gutweiler, he may not have found it quite as easy to get back into the league. Yeah but you are justifying his being able to play by the fact that Little did what he did (which was just as bad as what Vick did) when the league had no strict conduct policy in effect his actions were not punished because of the time he committed them. So if Vick did his actions in 1998 when there was no conduct policy the NFL would not suspend him after his jail sentence but because of the public out cry they would have found a way but with Little they didn't do much because it wasn't about the morality but about PR.
Lori Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 Yeah but you are justifying his being able to play by the fact that Little did what he did (which was just as bad as what Vick did) when the league had no strict conduct policy in effect so his actions were not punished because of the time he committed them. That logic wouldn't hold up in any court in the country. Fact: a Personal Conduct Policy currently exists. Fact: by committing a felony, Vick violated it. And one more fact, after reading your latest edit: Little WAS suspended for eight games in 1999.
billsfan89 Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 As for the financial incentives / disincentives, you're missing the point. Does one team have the right to sign Vick to make an extra million $, if it costs each other team in the league a quarter of a million $ in lost tv / advertising revenue? And I'm not saying that it would or would not be the case. All I'm saying is that the NFL has people far more qualified than you or I looking at this, and if they decide that it would hurt the league overall, they have every right to keep him out. As for it being about Goodell cleaning up the league, I partially agree, but again, it has to be looked at from a financial perspective. The whole reason the NFL is so worried about cleaning up the league's reputation is to keep the revenue flowing. So far, it hasn't been greatly impacted by player behavior, but that doesn't mean it might not have a negative impact, especially if things continue as is or get worse. If Goodell decides that having Vick in the league is what is best for the league, then he will do that. I don't have a problem with it. But you keep arguing that Goodell doesn't have the right to ban him. You may not like it, but he absolutely does have that right, and it's been granted to him with consent of the owners and players. Get over it. I understand your argument of if it hurts the NFL's business overall he should not be allowed in for purely business reasons. But do you really think that the NFL would not do great business if Vick was allowed back? If Vick did commercials for the humane society and became the spokes person against dog fighting than ( which he has agreed to do a ad campaign with the humane society ) than how much will PETA be able to damage the NFL's business. The NFL won't loose money because of Vick because the NFL is a juggernaut that can't be stopped. We all tune in to see these HGH monsters take the field and kick the crap out of each other. So who cares if a dog fighter ( who spent his time in jail for what he did ) joins the wife beaters, drunk drivers, illegal gun carrying and other scumbags in doing so. The NFL is full of scumbags but we all tune in to watch. There has been so much that could have derailed the NFL as far as PR but it still year after year breaks it own records. Its a multi billion dollar industry ten times over and the Vick situation is one that won't harm it one bit. I just find it a little hypocritical to ban a guy for dog fighting when he payed with prison time and bankruptcy while there are all these other shady characters in the NFL playing without any sniff of public out cry.
billsfan89 Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 That logic wouldn't hold up in any court in the country. Fact: a Personal Conduct Policy currently exists. Fact: by committing a felony, Vick violated it. And one more fact, after reading your latest edit: Little WAS suspended for eight games in 1999. So why couldn't Vick have served his suspension in jail? Why tack on a suspension for a life time or a season after the fact? The fact is who is Rodger Goodell to suspend a guy who payed his debt to society according to the American justice system. Its just not fair to the NFL players that the person you appeal to in the NFL is Rodger Goodell the same person who gave you the suspension in the first place. As for Little he was suspended half a season people are asking for Vick to never play again or be suspended for a whole year. So if they gave Vick 8 games there would still be protests. They gave Little the most they could but if there was a public out cry like there is with Vick they would have given him a ban for a year or a lifetime , I honestly think using the its a privilege not a right theory that Little should have never been allowed to play again.
Lori Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 "The fact is who is Roger Goodell ..."? He's the man in charge. Judge, jury, executioner. And the NFLPA signed off on the deal.
Bill from NYC Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 So why couldn't Vick have served his suspension in jail? Why tack on a suspension for a life time or a season after the fact? The fact is who is Rodger Goodell to suspend a guy who payed his debt to society according to the American justice system. Its just not fair to the NFL players that the person you appeal to in the NFL is Rodger Goodell the same person who gave you the suspension in the first place. I see your point, but that's life in the real world. I have seen cops charged with assault, arrested, found not guilty in court, and still fired for violating some department policy. The NFL really did need to tighten it's policy wrt the off field conduct of players. Even after the "get tough" policy, how many problems have Buffalo Bills players had? Do you see my point? The bottom line is that the owners pay the players a lot of money, and dogs are popular. It really might be bad for business to give Vick another chance. And, I am not talking about right or wrong. I am talking about business.
The_Philster Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 So why couldn't Vick have served his suspension in jail? Why tack on a suspension for a life time or a season after the fact? The fact is who is Rodger Goodell to suspend a guy who payed his debt to society according to the American justice system. Its just not fair to the NFL players that the person you appeal to in the NFL is Rodger Goodell the same person who gave you the suspension in the first place. As for Little he was suspended half a season people are asking for Vick to never play again or be suspended for a whole year. So if they gave Vick 8 games there would still be protests. They gave Little the most they could but if there was a public out cry like there is with Vick they would have given him a ban for a year or a lifetime , I honestly think using the its a privilege not a right theory that Little should have never been allowed to play again. While it doesn't excuse what Little did or what Stallworth did, DWI resulting in manslaughter is an accident..it's the result of some serious ignorance, yes, but still not intentional. Vick knowingly and willfully broke the law for a period of 6 years. He knew he was breaking the law, lied about it, and got a slap on the wrist for it because he plea-bargained his way out of a real sentence. Honestly, I think his celebrity is a big part of why he got off so easily. If the prosecutor hadn't been afraid to do his job, Vick would still be in prison
billsfan89 Posted June 1, 2009 Posted June 1, 2009 "The fact is who is Roger Goodell ..."?He's the man in charge. Judge, jury, executioner. And the NFLPA signed off on the deal. I am not arguing the NFL's ability to suspend Vick but more so the morality of a league saying a man can't earn his lively hood even though a team wants to give him a contract simply because they can. If morality was the issue than Leonard Little and all the guys who beat their wives shouldn't be allowed in either. Its not the business side either because as I pointed out in my earlier post the NFL is a juggernaut who won't loose money no matter what happens. The only reason he will suspend Vick is because he wants to show the other players that he has the hammer. So is that really a good reason to keep a guy form making his lively hood after he has paid so much in terms of jail time and money?
billsfan89 Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 While it doesn't excuse what Little did or what Stallworth did, DWI resulting in manslaughter is an accident..it's the result of some serious ignorance, yes, but still not intentional. Vick knowingly and willfully broke the law for a period of 6 years. He knew he was breaking the law, lied about it, and got a slap on the wrist for it because he plea-bargained his way out of a real sentence. Honestly, I think his celebrity is a big part of why he got off so easily. If the prosecutor hadn't been afraid to do his job, Vick would still be in prison Its not like he served a few months in jail. He served almost two years in jail and is still under house arrest. I think that every time you get into a car drunk you are doing something you know will put your life and the life of others in danger. Its just as bad even though the intent isn't there. As for your celebrity argument I don't know how much it influenced either way. Some said that they went after Vick as a way to send a message about the prosecution of dog fighting. Others said the same thing you said so who knows which way it went. Its not the intent its the result. Little's actions ended up killing a man even though that wasn't the intent he still knew it was a very realistic possibility of his actions. On top of Vick losing his rep and the jail time he is bankrupt. I think he has gotten punished pretty hard for what he did At least thats what I think.
The_Philster Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 I am not arguing the NFL's ability to suspend Vick but more so the morality of a league saying a man can't earn his lively hood even though a team wants to give him a contract simply because they can. If morality was the issue than Leonard Little and all the guys who beat their wives shouldn't be allowed in either. Its not the business side either because as I pointed out in my earlier post the NFL is a juggernaut who won't loose money no matter what happens. The only reason he will suspend Vick is because he wants to show the other players that he has the hammer. So is that really a good reason to keep a guy form making his lively hood after he has paid so much in terms of jail time and money? He only got a third of a prison sentence if it had been 1 dog...he was responsible for torturing and killing hundreds of dogs..they seized 70 dogs that had been brutalized when they busted him. He got nothing more than a slap on the wrist as far as jail time. And as far as money, considering all the money he made off of his organized criminal activities, it's kinda hard to justify feeling bad for him. Now THIS is a sentence more appropriate http://www.itchmo.com/man-receives-102-yea...ed-charges-3856
Bill from NYC Posted June 2, 2009 Posted June 2, 2009 The only reason he will suspend Vick is because he wants to show the other players that he has the hammer. So is that really a good reason to keep a guy form making his lively hood after he has paid so much in terms of jail time and money? I strongly disagree. People are freaking nuts about dogs. I know a well educated, seemingly sane woman who, along with others, will travel around and search through woods for a lost greyhound. I'm not making this schitt up. My wife would never, ever attend a game if Michael Vick was playing, and I'm sure there are millions who would agree with her.
Recommended Posts