Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Grim Reaper and Nemo: When Goodell released his player conduct policy one of the things in it that I didn't like was that someone could be suspended before any sort of conviction from due process came around. Simply putting yourself in the position to get in trouble was enough. However, I don't feel you can suspend pac-man and chris henry (not sure if he's gone to trial yet) if they haven't been convicted, then let Vick slide. Sounds a bit unfair to suspend one person for all of the alleged things they've done yet let the league poster-boy go.
Personally, I wish that everyone had to be convicted before the league could take any action. Hell, ST probably would have been out for 4 games when he had all of his legal troubles. The NFL needs to stay consistent with their rulings. While I think Vick is guilty, that story about him breaking the dogs back is nothing but rumor until proven otherwise. However, I have heard stories about Vick dog fighting when he was at tech, I marked it down to rumor but things are really starting to point against Vick. If he did it, I hope he goes down and hard. If he didn't I hope he comes out innocent when everything is all said and done, but I doubt he will.
|
I agree with you in this sense: Vick doesn't have to be convicted, it only has to be proven that he had knowledge of or was in attendance at said events. If that can be proven, and it seems like that won't be a stretch at this point, that he is at least guilty of lying to the commissioner.
It is important to note that a critical standard in the NFL's conduct policy is repeat offenses, so ST would have been safe pending his trial. Vick is technically a first time offender as well, although this is an extraordinary crime.
Anyway, all this aside, I think a suspension should be the least of the man's worries right now.