Vick Indicted

[EasyEd]

It's really wrong to torture and kill dogs but to suck the brains out of a human as it's emerging from the mother - well, that's another story.

[Elvado]

For the record, I had nothing to do with this turn in the discussion, though I'dlove to know why dogfighting is worse.

[thebin]

Textbook totally unrelated threadkillers...when you encouter them...ignore them.

[Deleted]

thebin said:

"'Im just content to let the legal system figure that out before passing judgment. "

wait for it.....

"I think Vick's guilty as hell, by the way."


Both statements are even right next to each other. That's one for the ages. So exactly what judgemental horrors are you sparing us that I guess I imposed on Vick/you with my posts?

My point was that while I think he's guilty, the judicial system has not decided yet - and until then, it doesn't make sense for the NFL or the Falcons or you or me or anyone else to treat him as if he is guilty. That's all I'm trying to say with those statements. I don't think that's a terribly outrageous point to make.

I also thought the Duke guys were guilty at first - turns out I was wrong, and it turned out to be a bad decision by Duke to suspend the season and throw the entire team under the bus. A rush to judgment led to poor judgment.

In this case, you advocate a similar rush to judgment (suspend him until he's proven innocent). Despite the differences in the cases (and they are vast), the principles are the same.

Consider the flip side of the business decision for the league: what if they suspend him as you recommend, and then he's found innocent? Can you imagine the lawsuit from Vick then, especially if the case drags on for a couple of years and he misses out on millions in salary? Bad business decision. Better to take the time to get it right.

Even Pacman Jones (after 10+ brushes with the law) wasn't suspended until he was actually found guilty of something.

[Elvado]

The real question is whether Arthur Blank (Home Depot) can run this accused savage out there as his QB. The potential for collateral damage is profound.

As an aside, I'm looking forward to seeing the PETA crowd take on a real villain instead of the people who provide foie gras.

[hifigator]

vadie said:

As an aside, I'm looking forward to seeing the PETA crowd take on a real villain instead of the people who provide foie gras.

I love it, and I can't agree more.

[hilltopper2000]

"It's really wrong to torture and kill dogs but to suck the brains out of a human as it's emerging from the mother - well, that's another story."

"For the record, I had nothing to do with this turn in the discussion, though I'dlove to know why dogfighting is worse. "

-I'm all for ignoring this sort of thing, but this is so remarkably asinine I can't resist. In order to complete the analogy, we have to posit a dog crawling into a woman's birth canal, at which point she would have had to invite Michael Vick to kill the dog and remove it from her body. In that instance, I would say that the woman has a constitutionally potected countervailing right in her own reproductive system that outweighs the dog's interest in its own life.

[Boz]

vadie said:

As an aside, I'm looking forward to seeing the PETA crowd take on a real villain instead of the people who provide foie gras.

I'd just like to go on record that if Michael Vick was indicted for running an illegal PETA-fighting pit in his home, I'd gladly contribute to his defense fund.

[thebin]

hifigator said:

vadie said:

As an aside, I'm looking forward to seeing the PETA crowd take on a real villain instead of the people who provide foie gras.

I love it, and I can't agree more.

I echo all of these thoughts and have seen similar sentiment all over the web....finally a case where decent people will be backing PETA. I read somewhere that PETA was likewise surprised to find this much outrage among sports fans. I am telling you, American dog lovers are a natural lobby that make the AARP crowd look politically weak.

[hifigator]

The AARP is politically weak.

[Deleted]

thebin said:

I am a lifelong football and NFL lover but this league is starting to get to me. I can't in good faith continue making all of these jerks richer. I'll just do what I did with basketball- switch to college exclusively. Its becoming like the league in The Last Boy Scout.

I tried to make this point last year with my "Am I The Only One Sick And Tired Of The NFL?" thread (coming on the heels of various arrests and shootings), but most people shot me down mid-stride.

Unfortunately it took this, Pacman, Tank and another Chris Henry arrest to get more people jumping over to my side.

With all the crap going on in the league, however, I get the feeling some good is going to come out of this, especially when you consider the positions The Commish has been willing to take in recent months. Specifically, I'm wondering if maybe once and for all we'll see a professional league (over the next decade or so) start to value character over talent. Not that the NFL is going to demand saint-like existences from its players, but instead giving guys a much shorter leash and not being afraid to revoke the privilege of playing in the NFL for serious offenses.

[Deleted]

ed said:

It's really wrong to torture and kill dogs but to suck the brains out of a human as it's emerging from the mother - well, that's another story.

Suck the brains out? What is this, Invasion of the Body Snatchers or something?

"Remember that scene in Scanners when the dude's head exploded..."

[SoCal Hoya85]

What is it with the Vicks? They throw away millions. Nike is pretty much assuming he is guilty they are suspending the release of his shoe, and they stuck by Kobe Bryant.

msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7040070?MSNHPHMA

[thebin]

hifigator said:

The AARP is politically weak.

You joking? The gray panthers vote all the time and are not as party loyal as younger voters and everyone knows it. Why do you think its legal for 80 year olds to drive 30 foot long cars?

[kghoya]

there is a special place in hell for people like vick and his buddies...

[HealyHoya]

cam said:

thebin said:

"'Im just content to let the legal system figure that out before passing judgment. "

wait for it.....

"I think Vick's guilty as hell, by the way."


Both statements are even right next to each other. That's one for the ages. So exactly what judgemental horrors are you sparing us that I guess I imposed on Vick/you with my posts?

My point was that while I think he's guilty, the judicial system has not decided yet - and until then, it doesn't make sense for the NFL or the Falcons or you or me or anyone else to treat him as if he is guilty. That's all I'm trying to say with those statements. I don't think that's a terribly outrageous point to make.

I also thought the Duke guys were guilty at first - turns out I was wrong, and it turned out to be a bad decision by Duke to suspend the season and throw the entire team under the bus. A rush to judgment led to poor judgment.

In this case, you advocate a similar rush to judgment (suspend him until he's proven innocent). Despite the differences in the cases (and they are vast), the principles are the same.

Consider the flip side of the business decision for the league: what if they suspend him as you recommend, and then he's found innocent? Can you imagine the lawsuit from Vick then, especially if the case drags on for a couple of years and he misses out on millions in salary? Bad business decision. Better to take the time to get it right.

Even Pacman Jones (after 10+ brushes with the law) wasn't suspended until he was actually found guilty of something.

The Falcons can, and in my opinion should, suspend Vick immediately. The problem I have with your reasoning is that you equate suspending Vick with treating him as if he's guilty. I think that's flawed. Whether Vick is ultimately found guilty of these admittedly heinous acts or acquitted on all charges, there are a tremendous number of factors that suggest suspension is not only defensible, but practical.

The Falcons are a business. Blank deciding to suspend Vick is nearly directly analogous to Nike deciding to suspend the introduction of Vick's new shoes and clothing line. It's a straight business decision. Vick has rights, sure, but he's a commodity. If the Falcons decide to suspend Vick they will most likely do so with pay. That mitigates a lot of his actionable claims.

Further, in a civil action, Blank and the Falcons would have a plethora of reasons for their action. Start with a sensible business decision, go to ensuring Vick's safety, the safety of teammates, the safety of fans at the game, go to the legitimate need to defend the value of the image of the Falcons franchise, go to the fact that it isn't Vick's right to be a starting QB in the NFL. His contract stipulates that he be paid a certain salary based on the fulfillment of certain conditions. Putting aside for a moment whether Vick has violated material terms of his employment contract as a result of these allegations, he isn't guaranteed a starting job. In fact, for most NFL contracts, you're guaranteed very little.

Imagine the protests by SPCA, PETA and similar groups at Falcon home and away games. Imagine the impact this has on Nike and similar companies. Imagine the discussions being held by the Falcon's major sponsors and question how many games Vick could start before sponsorships are pulled. Does Arthur Blank want Home Depot associated with this mess? Of course not and it's his team. Imagine the number of season-ticket holders contemplating refunds if Vick starts. Imagine how much bad press, heinous imagery, disgusting stories, etc. will now be synonymous with "Atlanta Falcons" and "Michael Vick" for the next year-plus.

If it hasn't happened already, in a couple of weeks the only responsible business decision will be to suspend Michael Vick indefinitely and, most likely, with some degree of contractually obligated pay.

[theexorcist]

Healy:

"His contract stipulates that he be paid a certain salary based on the fulfillment of certain conditions."

He violates various clauses if he gets convicted and thus can't play.

Vick is paid to play a game, not to be an entertainer. There's nothing in his contract that stipulates no protests occur at his games, or that Falcons attendance must be a certain amount. While he may be a de facto entertainer, he's not a de jure one.

I also made an earlier point regarding the fact that much income comes from endorsements. Vick cannot earn those if he cannot play, and his window for playing is very limited. If the Falcons want to be rid of him, they should trade him or renounce his contract. They should not keep him hostage.

Richard Jewell was falsely accused of being behind the Olympic Park bombing. While he was never officially charged, FBI leaks made him a national joke.

Be very careful what you're favoring, Healy. If not, you can get suspended from work and have your reputation destroyed even if you're innocent.

[hifigator]

He's not innocent though.

[HealyHoya]

theexorcist said:

Healy:

"His contract stipulates that he be paid a certain salary based on the fulfillment of certain conditions."

He violates various clauses if he gets convicted and thus can't play.

Vick is paid to play a game, not to be an entertainer. There's nothing in his contract that stipulates no protests occur at his games, or that Falcons attendance must be a certain amount. While he may be a de facto entertainer, he's not a de jure one.

I also made an earlier point regarding the fact that much income comes from endorsements. Vick cannot earn those if he cannot play, and his window for playing is very limited. If the Falcons want to be rid of him, they should trade him or renounce his contract. They should not keep him hostage.

Richard Jewell was falsely accused of being behind the Olympic Park bombing. While he was never officially charged, FBI leaks made him a national joke.

Be very careful what you're favoring, Healy. If not, you can get suspended from work and have your reputation destroyed even if you're innocent.

Excorist -- I honestly have no idea what your post means.

Vick violates various clauses if he gets convicted and thus can't play? Probably. One assumes it would be difficult to start at quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons whilst being detained in a federal corrections facility. Road games would be especially tough, though I suppose the shower situation would be essentially unchanged.

I don't really see your point. It is also quite possible that Vick could be found to have violated material terms of his contract in the absence of a criminal guilty verdict. The terms of employment contracts are violated everyday without a criminal guilty plea.

While I applaud your use of de facto and de jure (-- you must be intelligent -- res ipsa loquitur) I never claimed that protests/attendance were a part of his contract. Re-read the post, it's clear. Those issue do not have to be stated explicitly in his contract for them to be given due consideration.

Vick cannot make money off endorsements if he can't play? That's simply wrong. Ask Michael Jordan. The Falcons have absolutely no legal duty to aid Michael Vick in making money via endorsements by playing him. If he sucked, they benched him and started, say, Matt Schaub last year, could he have sued them? Of course not. Michael Vick has a legal right to be PAID by the Atlanta Falcons, assuming he is meeting the obligations set out in his contract. That contract DOES NOT mandate that he play, or start, and the Falcons have no recognizable duty to play him, beyond what the coaching staff believes is in the best interest of winning football games.

Richard Jewell? Richard Jewell? What? Richard Jewell? Awful example. That has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Vick's situation. In fact, I'll counter with this just to continue the absurdities:

Jeff Gillooly.

Ridiculous.

Look, suspensions from work due to unproven allegations of misconduct are routine. It may offend your black-helicopter, big-brother, Ruby-Ridge, these-colors-don't-run sensibilities but it's commonplace. Look on-line, read a newspaper, it happens every day.

Suspended with pay. Suspended without pay. Suspended pending review. Placed on administrative leave. Etc. Etc. Each happens routinely and without criminal or even civil judgments.

Honestly, I have no clue where your post came from.

[FormerHoya]

Don't most NFL contracts contain clauses allowing teams to cut players for, and as I don't have the contracts in front of me I'm sure to have the language wrong, "conduct embarrasing to the team."?

I think this is pretty embarrasing.