Michael Vick

[Uncle Cracker]

First, nobody has fired Vick. He doesn't have a job.

Second, the NFL has a vested interest in image issues. How a team and its players is perceived by the public does affect the promotion and marketing of the league. They have, I'm certain, worded their franchise agreements to their advantage in that area, even though it may seem to the public that they're only "suggesting" how teams might treat this and other issues.

Third, dog fighting is a barbaric sport, and one that involves a lot of gambling. It is not in anybody's interest to employ a player (or coach, for that matter) that has shown a direct involvement in a gambling-supported enterprise. (Remember years ago when Willie Mays got in trouble for taking pay to greet customers at a casino, even after he retired?)

Nobody is saying that he can't work. That his only (legal) marketable skill appears to be the playing of football is a position he put himself in.

[drillman88]

Technically Atlanta fired Vick, yes I don't blame them and he deserved to be released from the mega-contract. He has deserved everthing he has gotten that's not in dispute.

Micheal Jordan is a heavy gambler as well as many other well known sports figures. They have disposable cash and are lured by the thrill of the stakes.

I am not sure that last statement holds water the league has not reinstated him fully yet, only to practice and preseason games, they are holding out to make sure he walks the line. He is a very risky commodity and everyone knows it.

Banned for life would be an extreme measure, He may have put himself in a position that he has no takers for his talent, if that is the case so be it, but the league has not completely cleared the way.

[Uncle Cracker]

Micheal Jordan is a heavy gambler as well as many other well known sports figures.

But he has stayed clear (or has appeared to) of organized crime. Vick has not. If Jordan was caught running dogfights on his property, then he would probably have trouble, even if he is Michael Jordan. And Michael Vick is certainly no Michael Jordan. Jordan's notoriety and high-level associations would make him a harder target to prosecute, and he ain't broke, which would leave him with less motivation and less suspect to grab a quick buck in an inappropriate way. And Jordan would also be less capable of affecting the outcome of a game he's not playing in. When your career's over, you wanna go play golf and bet with your friends, so what? Vick will not be given this latitude.

[paintandbodtman]

they banned Pete Rose for life did'nt they,Hows that any different then banning vick for life.

Wayne

[drillman88]

Pete Rose was banned because he gambled on baseball games, specifically games in which he played or coached. He could have potentially fixed games or controlled the outcome to an extent. Baseball has always taken the hardest stance on gambling of any sport and they made an example of Pete.

[paintandbodtman]

Pete Rose was banned because he gambled on baseball games, specifically games in which he played or coached. He could have potentially fixed games or controlled the outcome to an extent. Baseball has always taken the hardest stance on gambling of any sport and they made an example of Pete.

My understanding none of the (he could have) were proved.He got caught gambling thats all.Vick was proven guilty of much more serious charges.
If it were my call about 75% of sports figures would be banned and or jailed.

Wayne

[Russianwolf]

I think he should be banned, along with players/athletes that are convicted of other criminal charges (rape, murder, drugs, etc.) Obviously he doesn't know how to act when he has access to money, so he shouldn't have access to that kind of money.

They don't deserve our hard earned money, and yes, my money goes to pay these guys, so it's MY hard earned money.


As far as what the NFL can and can't do, They've banned other players if memory serves. Pacman Jone for a year. Tyson was banned by the Nevada Boxing Commission (basically the only one that matters).

Now a ban by the NFL wouldn't prevent him from seeking employment in the Canadian Football league, The Arena Football league or the World Football League.

As far as his debt to society? He may have paid the debt assigned by the court, but his debt to society isn't even close to even.

[crokett]

As far as what the NFL can and can't do, They've banned other players if memory serves.

As far as his debt to society? He may have paid the debt assigned by the court, but his debt to society isn't even close to even.

Suspending a player for a year is different from explicitly telling the teams they cannot sign him to play. This is what a lot of people want.

'Debt to socieity' is generally considered fulfilled when a person serves a sentence as proscribed by a court of law.

Look, I don't disagree that Michael Vick is a first-class schmuck. I don't want my team to sign him. That said, he still should be allowed to play if a team wants to hire him. He's served the time as proscribed by the court. Now he should be allowed to seek employment in his chosen profession. A lot of people with money screw up in major ways. Should we take it away from all of them when they screw up? Why stop with sports figures? What about entertainment figures? Heck, should anybody convicted of a felony never be able to try to find a job?

[billwmeyer]

Quote:
"Suspending a player for a year is different from explicitly telling the teams they cannot sign him to play. This is what a lot of people want. "


It might be what a lot of people want, but that is not the Commissioners ruling. He is free to play after the 6th game of the year with whatever team that signs him. The Commissioner will even let him practice and play in preseason games. If he behaves, the Commissioner may let him play sooner - that is the conditional part.

Don't forget, he not only broke the law, but he outright lied to the Commissioner and his clubs owner about his involvement. The Commissioner has given him a chance to make amends, and he definately can play this year, if a team chooses to sign him.

Bill

[radhak]

I am too sick of Vick to want to join in any discussion about him, but there's something to be said for even-handed justice.

Imagine a bank manager jailed for domestic battery. Comes out, and most probably loses his job (depends on the bank). But should the head honcho of all things bank (dunno who that'd be, maybe the fed chairman?) send out a memo that no bank should hire him? For an unconnected crime, that would be a stretch. I'd rather leave it individual banks he applies to, to decide.

As for the gravity of the crime, comparisons are never more odious. No domestic battery could compare to what he did; even among murders, his was more heinous - deliberate and planned cruelty. But it was not genocide. And for any crime, once (if) you walk out of jail, you are only stopped from working in areas connected to your crime (gambler from casinos/race tracks, hackers from computers, etc).

Vick should be banned from any care giver role (animal or human) or even close contact, but I don't see what banning him from football would achieve, other than show that we (society) could be vindictive too.

At the same time, I'd be interested to see which team picks him, and for how much. Would tell me a lot about that team, and its owner.

[Pappy]

Both of my sons have felony convictions. One was for drug involvement, the other was an a charge that should have been a misdemeanor. The DA was running for County Judge and twisted some facts and figures to get it to a felony level.

Both have done their time, although one is still on probation. Can they work? Sure, but job opportunities are limited for both of them. The youngest just moved into a duplex. In the house/apartment hunt, he found that most apartments and rental agencies wouldn't even take an application from him because of the conviction.

Vick may be getting harsher treatment than some other celebrities, but he is getting similar treatment by 'society' as other felons.

[crokett]

Quote:
"Suspending a player for a year is different from explicitly telling the teams they cannot sign him to play. This is what a lot of people want. "


It might be what a lot of people want, but that is not the Commissioners ruling. He is free to play after the 6th game of the year with whatever team that signs him. The Commissioner will even let him practice and play in preseason games. If he behaves, the Commissioner may let him play sooner - that is the conditional part.

I know that. I am saying there are people who want Vic banned for life, never to play football anywhere again. I don't. I also don't think he got off all that lightly - his life is in ruins right now compared to what it was.

[LCHIEN]

obviously some people think he got off too lightly, other people think he got way more than others for similar crimes and in comparison to crimes against other humans and was made an example of because of his fame.

The sentence he received was probably a reasonable compromise of those opinions and is the official punishment given by the justice system.

The rules are set and he and everybody else needs to get on and there will be some stigma from public opinion that he still has to pay for, and it will be whatever it is.

[Bruce Cohen]

Hey Crockett,

How much is Vick paying you to do his Public Relations

Bruce

And I wonder if one of those dogs were yours would you be so complacent about this poor excuse of a person, although I doubt he even deserves to be placed in the same species as the rest of us.

[crokett]

Hey Crockett,

How much is Vick paying you to do his Public Relations

Bruce

And I wonder if one of those dogs were yours would you be so complacent about this poor excuse of a person, although I doubt he even deserves to be placed in the same species as the rest of us.

For the third time, I am not complacent. The man is scum. I'm not defending him, I'm defending his right try to find a job. I've already sent an email to the Bills telling them if they sign him I am no longer a fan. My opinion wouldn't change if it were my dogs he hurt, at least not after he'd been in prison for a long time. I guess we will agree to disagree though.

No one who thinks he shouldn't play again has answered my question yet. Assuming he is banned for life as a felon, then where do we draw the line? Should any felon anywhere not be allowed to work again? What if you commit a felony unrelated to your job? These guys are entertainers, that's all. They aren't doctors, policemen, firefighters, etc. Why should convicted football players not be allowed to work at football but us regular folk are allowed to at least attempt to return to our jobs?