Vick suspended for 4 games.

[TheChimp]

Goodell probably had a few dogs, himself. In fact, Vick probably could have personally ruined the future of the NFL if he'd have named all the players, coaches, and their family members who were involved in these atrocities. Goodell's probably shaking just to hand him THESE four games.

[billsfreak]

He and Lynch get the same league punishment?

 

That's just bull sh--.

Lynch didn't get 4 games, even though it was his second offense. Chances are under appeal his will be reduced to 2 games. 4 games suspension will give Vick another month to hang out in strip clubs with Allen Iverson, maybe they can take Lynch with them, he as a few weeks of free time on his hands.

[billsfreak]

Counts, but it doesn't mean anything. Four games is a joke.

Vick's offense was pretty serious but it is also the longest suspension I can remember for a first offense. Sounds pretty fair to me. Like someone else said, Lynch is getting off easy, but it is still enough that it is probably going to cost the Bills a playoff spot.

[The Dean]

Well, like I said in the post right above, IMO, Goodell is saying that 36 games away from the field is the right amount for that crime, not 64 games.

 

 

Wouldn't the typical procedure for a long suspension involve an evaluation of your behavior over the time of your suspension? You know, like with Pacman. Make sure you stay out of trouble, don't get involved with dogs, or other cruel hobbies, or ventures that involve illegal gambling...that sort of thing. With Vick in a fight for his freedom, and then jail for the entire suspension, he has yet to prove he has mended his ways. Is another year too much to ask, so the league can monitor his rehabilitation?

[The Dean]

Vick's offense was pretty serious but it is also the longest suspension I can remember for a first offense. Sounds pretty fair to me. Like someone else said, Lynch is getting off easy, but it is still enough that it is probably going to cost the Bills a playoff spot.

 

 

First offense? You call the funding/running of a professional dog fighting operation ONE offense?

 

As my friend Bugs would say, "Ha ha, it is to laugh."

[Cugalabanza]

Counts, but it doesn't mean anything. Four games is a joke.

It is a joke. I'm really surprised by this. I think the NFL looks pretty stupid on this one. Should be interesting watching this circus play out. I can't imagine too many teams willing to take on all the drama that will come with this walking piece of garbage. And frankly I don't see much upside either. It will have to be quite a bargain.

 

I don't claim that my view is representative of anyone else's, but I will say that I personally would not root for a Bills team with Vick on the roster.

[VOR]

Vick's offense was pretty serious but it is also the longest suspension I can remember for a first offense. Sounds pretty fair to me. Like someone else said, Lynch is getting off easy, but it is still enough that it is probably going to cost the Bills a playoff spot.

You must have missed the indefinite suspension Goodell gave to Stallworth, for his first-time offense. And Lynch's traffic ticket isn't an offense.

 

And I had a feeling Goodell was going to feel some sort of political pressure to give him just a slap on the wrist.

[Steely Dan]

You guys realize that Vick's operation would no doubt have been responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of animals; not just the dogs in the matches, but people's small pets that wander too far from the front yard, and all the ones advertised "Free To Good Homes" in the papers, many, MANY of those go to dogfighting pits, to be used for "practice", basically to get the fighting dogs used to the act of viciously tearing an animal to pieces.

 

Vick, in my opinion, should have been publicly hanged and the message sent to anyone else engaging in such atrocities against sentient creatures that they're next.

 

I hope he dies on the field.

 

I think you're being to harsh but I agree with most of what you said.

 

The union should petition the Commissioner for a longer sentence. JMO

 

If no team decides to sign him I'll bet his lawyer will charge collusion and sue.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure Cleveland won't sign him.

[Kelly the Dog]

So, if Vick didn't do any jail time, but decided to take a year off and tour Europe, does that still count as suspension?

 

The league has repeatedly said they don't have to comment on any possible suspension for Vick because he's in jail and it's a mute point. If the jail time was part of his suspension, why didn't they say he's currently serving a 2 year suspension? Fact is, Goodell dodged the issue for 2+ years and now hands down a "slap on the wrist" punishment.

 

1] That's not a realistic real world argument in your first example.

 

2] Goodell has to deal with facts, real world scenarios, fairness and perception.

 

It's a tall order in this case, but IMO the facts of what he did and what punishment he already served, the real world scenario of him spending two years in jail and off the NFL field, the fairness of whether two years or fours years better fits the crime, and perception of what the league stands for (which takes a little hit as evidenced by this thread) leads me to believe he did the right thing.

 

Four years away ends the guy's career. It's legitimate, I suppose, to say that is what he deserves. To me, two plus years fits the crime better. That's the real world scenario. The number of games the league officially suspends him for is a less accurate number than the amount of games he is away from the league.

[Steely Dan]

Goodell probably had a few dogs, himself. In fact, Vick probably could have personally ruined the future of the NFL if he'd have named all the players, coaches, and their family members who were involved in these atrocities. Goodell's probably shaking just to hand him THESE four games.

 

That's a very interesting thought.

 

It is a joke. I'm really surprised by this. I think the NFL looks pretty stupid on this one. Should be interesting watching this circus play out. I can't imagine too many teams willing to take on all the drama that will come with this walking piece of garbage. And frankly I don't see much upside either. It will have to be quite a bargain.

 

I don't claim that my view is representative of anyone else's, but I will say that I personally would not root for a Bills team with Vick on the roster.

 

Every single sports network is probably going to send Goodell a Mercedes. This time of year things are slow for them. This will light up the airwaves.

[Kelly the Dog]

Wouldn't the typical procedure for a long suspension involve an evaluation of your behavior over the time of your suspension? You know, like with Pacman. Make sure you stay out of trouble, don't get involved with dogs, or other cruel hobbies, or ventures that involve illegal gambling...that sort of thing. With Vick in a fight for his freedom, and then jail for the entire suspension, he has yet to prove he has mended his ways. Is another year too much to ask, so the league can monitor his rehabilitation?

I havent read much but I thought I read that Vick was pretty much the model inmate when he was there. I'm sure the reports of how he acted while in jail entered the decision making process.

 

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer as to whether two years or three years better fits the crime. I think two plus is probably right. I wouldn't argue at all with someone who thought three years was probably right. Four seems too much for me.

 

There is also a rehabilitation factor in here. I know the league has discussed this kind of stuff and it probably played a part in the decision as well. i remember reading an article or two about it awhile ago. But basically the idea was, if Vick (or a guy like Vick) is given some time away from the game but is later given a chance to do the right thing, keep clean, and try to resurrect his career -- the chances of him becoming a good citizen and good guy the rest of his life is far greater than taking his one gift away from him, not allowing him to re-establish himself in the game, which turns a guy bitter and chances are much less that he will end up being a good guy the rest of his life.

 

That makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Vick may just be a dick and it won't work, I am not making any judgments whatsoever on him as a person. I just know the league is concerned about this kind of stuff. Two years away I think you still have a chance. Three four years away, especially your prime years, and I think he doesn't get the chance.

[Pitta]

Agreed. How can you possibly say you're being fair and instilling discipline to the league if a convicted felon, engaged in racketeering only gets a 4 game suspension? I really don't see how a year wouldn't be the minimum. Pacman's gotta be thinking WTF right about now.

 

I was going to post it in the other thread, but thought it absurd, then someone mentioned it here; I can only imagine the Pats*, Skins, or Cowboys must be interested in signing him.

 

Wow is all I can say. Wow.

 

Yeah and he was removed from the league for two years. I think that four games is completely reasonable. I don't find it ridiculous at all and when people like Leonard Little kill somebody, they only get 8 games of suspension (not to mention people like Ray Lewis who get in no trouble even though they were clearly involved in murder). I'm glad Vick's back in the league. He served his time and four more games after two years is completely reasonable

[Cugalabanza]

I guess it's possible that Vick made an impression with his prison record and with speaking privately with the commish. I personally don't buy it, but who knows. I'd like to see for myself, Vick talking about what he's learned. I remember when the accusations first came out, how adamant he was that he had absolutely no involvement in any dog fighting. And he apparently lied right to Goodell's face about it too. Even after he was busted, his whole apology act was a put on. Clearly his only regret was getting caught. Now I'm curious if Vick can string three words together without licking his lips and looking down. If he's a new man, I need to see it for myself.

[TheChimp]

Yeah and he was removed from the league for two years. I think that four games is completely reasonable. I don't find it ridiculous at all and when people like Leonard Little kill somebody, they only get 8 games of suspension (not to mention people like Ray Lewis who get in no trouble even though they were clearly involved in murder). I'm glad Vick's back in the league. He served his time and four more games after two years is completely reasonable

Sometimes it's really easy to locate the people with no pets.

[Kelly the Dog]

I guess it's possible that Vick made an impression with his prison record and with speaking privately with the commish. I personally don't buy it, but who knows. I'd like to see for myself, Vick talking about what he's learned. I remember when the accusations first came out, how adamant he was that he had absolutely no involvement in any dog fighting. And he apparently lied right to Goodell's face about it too. Even after he was busted, his whole apology act was a put on. Clearly his only regret was getting caught. Now I'm curious if Vick can string three words together without licking his lips and looking down. If he's a new man, I need to see it for myself.

While I agree with that in theory, I don't think it's realistic. There are a lot of guys who are such good actors they can sound contrite when they are actually completely full of schit. There are just as many guys who just aren't comfortable with talking to the press, or being prepared for what they should say, that they come across less trustworthy than they actually are.

 

The idea of how good or bad an actor you are determining whether or not I think you deserve a second chance or not doesn't work for me. I really don't believe players or actors or politicians or anyone for that matter saying how sorry they are. All you can do is say fine, i'll give you another chance, show me, and then look back on it a year or two later and see if they actually changed.

[Dan]

1] That's not a realistic real world argument in your first example.

 

2] Goodell has to deal with facts, real world scenarios, fairness and perception.

 

It's a tall order in this case, but IMO the facts of what he did and what punishment he already served, the real world scenario of him spending two years in jail and off the NFL field, the fairness of whether two years or fours years better fits the crime, and perception of what the league stands for (which takes a little hit as evidenced by this thread) leads me to believe he did the right thing.

 

Four years away ends the guy's career. It's legitimate, I suppose, to say that is what he deserves. To me, two plus years fits the crime better. That's the real world scenario. The number of games the league officially suspends him for is a less accurate number than the amount of games he is away from the league.

I agree, Goodell has to deal with facts and real world scenarios. But I still don't see how you can argue that he's been suspended from the league for the past 2 years. The league didn't suspend him at all. They routinely said it was a mute point to discuss because he was in jail.

 

OK, my initial analogy was poor. Let's say, Vick took it to trial. And spent the last two years fighting it in court. He wouldn't have been able to play because he would be too busy in court. Yesterday, the judge declares mistrial. Do you allow Vick to play tomorrow?

 

Maybe that's bad ananlogy. I don't know. My point is, at some point the league needs to acknowledge what he did and dish out an appropriate punishment. If you're giving other guys 4 weeks for misdemeanor drug charges, how can you call this fair? Are they going to say, we think he's been punished enough? What is the perception of that statement?

[Pitta]

Goodell's actions will become much clearer when the Pats* sign Vick......

 

I'm curious why you think New England would bother? After all, they've already got a clear starter, a backup QB they love (Kevin O'Connell), and, if they really want to go in that direction, a mediocre passer who can run with the ball (Julian Edelman).

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree, Goodell has to deal with facts and real world scenarios. But I still don't see how you can argue that he's been suspended from the league for the past 2 years. The league didn't suspend him at all. They routinely said it was a mute point to discuss because he was in jail.

 

OK, my initial analogy was poor. Let's say, Vick took it to trial. And spent the last two years fighting it in court. He wouldn't have been able to play because he would be too busy in court. Yesterday, the judge declares mistrial. Do you allow Vick to play tomorrow?

 

Maybe that's bad ananlogy. I don't know. My point is, at some point the league needs to acknowledge what he did and dish out an appropriate punishment. If you're giving other guys 4 weeks for misdemeanor drug charges, how can you call this fair? Are they going to say, we think he's been punished enough? What is the perception of that statement?

I hear what you're saying, but I think it's all pretty simple:

 

1] Mike Vick did something heinous and must pay a price.

2] Mike Vick, outside of the league's control, spends two years in prison and away from the game.

 

so 3] Is two plus years away from the game the most fair punishment, or is three or four years away from the game the most fair punishment?

 

I think the league says two plus years is the most fair. That punishment most clearly fits the crime.

 

It's not much different than a judgment call from a court on two crimes committed at the same time. Say a guy named Mike Vick assaults two guys in a bar. He goes to trial and gets convicted on two counts of assault for the same fight, each worth two years. Should they run concurrently or consecutively? Sometimes the guy goes to jail for two years total, sometimes he goes to jail for two and then another two for four total. The judge or jury or statute decides which is the most fair, two years or four years.

[Lori]

Okay, just getting home from work and checking up on this. And I'd like to know where in either the original link or in this one from ESPN it says that Goodell has made a decision? Holy jumping to conclusions based on anonymous sources, Batman.

[billsrcursed]

Okay, just getting home from work and checking up on this. And I'd like to know where in either the original link or in this one from ESPN it says that Goodell has made a decision? Holy jumping to conclusions based on anonymous sources, Batman.

 

I was just wondering the same thing....