How Many Games Should Vick Be Suspended?

[SCRedskinsFan]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I agree the Feds are involved because it is multi-state but how does that supercede the mantra 'innocent until proven guilty'? Anyone with common sense acknowledges that something doesn't smell right, but why the rush to punish NOW? He's going to get his, so why the mob mentality to (figuratively) lynch him immediately instead of when the trial has run it's course?

This thread is about guessing what Goodell is going to do. We're not talking about any court than Roger Goodell's. And, based on Goodell's track record (Henry, Johnson, et.al.) MV is likely to be suspended.

However, as I stated earlier, I feel certain that the league and owner will come to a "leave of absence" accomodation for MV. Like it or not, MV is a very public figure (by choice and with generous recompense) and the public court (you call it mob mentalitY) will have its say...

[backrow]

Originally Posted by irish

The dog fighting stuff is only the tip of the iceberg. The real crux of the issue is that it looks like this dog fighting is part of an interstate gambling ring. Thats the main reason the Feds are involved. The Feds are not the LA district attys office, they dont waste their time on maybe cases. This is a done deal. Vick is finished because I am 100% sure the cousin living at the house has flipped on Vick. He will be the one that tells the tale on the others (including Vick).

Interstate gambling is the reason I'm looking for the "Vote for Lifetime Ban", but I have been unable to locate such. Perhaps the poll needs ammending. Granted, It's not at all like the Pete Rose situation, but just wait until IRS gets it's teeth into this gambling business.

[GusFrerotte]

Vick needs to be suspended the whole season and not just for what he did, but because the trial, etc will cause too much distraction for the Falcons. Vick is a marked man, like Cain, plus with the distraction his gameplay will probably suffer to some degree. He isn't all that in my mind anyway!!!!!

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Another question I have for those who want call Pacman's situation different from Vick's: In Pacman's case, he has gotten into trouble for multiple separate incidents over time. Right? Now, he still hasn't been convicted of any of them, but there are eye witnesses placing him at the various scenes and his repeated alleged offenses led to a suspension. So, what's the difference here? Vick isn't being accused of one isolated incident. Rather, he is being accused of breaking the law on multiple separate occasions. And there are eyewitnesses placing him at each of the various scenes where illegal activities were being conducted.

So, should the NFL somehow reward the person who gets charged all at once because the Feds do the responsible thing by building a case before charging him over the guy who is just unlucky enough to get caught each time he allegedly breaks the law by the local authorities? I mean, both men are being accused of repeated instances of illegal activity. It's not like Vick is being indicted for one instance of dog fighting. Why are are willing to go easier on the guy whose repeated behavior over the course of 6 six years just happens to get lumped into one indictment?

[BigSKINBauer]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Another question I have for those who want call Pacman's situation different from Vick's: In Pacman's case, he has gotten into trouble for multiple separate incidents over time. Right? Now, he still hasn't been convicted of any of them, but there are eye witnesses placing him at the various scenes and his repeated alleged offenses led to a suspension. So, what's the difference here? Vick isn't being accused of one isolated incident. Rather, he is being accused of breaking the law on multiple separate occasions. And there are eyewitnesses placing him at each of the various scenes where illegal activities were being conducted.

So, should the NFL somehow reward the person who gets charged all at once because the Feds do the responsible thing by building a case before charging him over the guy who is just unlucky enough to get caught each time he allegedly breaks the law by the local authorities? I mean, both men are being accused of repeated instances of illegal activity. It's not like Vick is being indicted for one instance of dog fighting. Why are are willing to go easier on the guy whose repeated behavior over the course of 6 six years just happens to get lumped into one indictment?

Diffenence is that pacman was given times not to be out yet he still was out. He got introuble and was told not to do things but still did them and got introuble doing them. I would be fine if vick wasn't allowed to do things. NO being out past midnight. No more getting arrested. No going to the pet shop, whatever.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by BigSKINBauer

Diffenence is that pacman was given times not to be out yet he still was out. He got introuble and was told not to do things but still did them and got introuble doing them. I would be fine if vick wasn't allowed to do things. NO being out past midnight. No more getting arrested. No going to the pet shop, whatever.

Ok, good point.

I still think a lot of people need to change their way of thinking, though, regarding how Vick has behaved in the past and that he was this squeaky-clean guy up until a few days ago. Just because he hadn't been caught doesn't mean he was a good guy who just made one mistake. Both guys are being accused of behaving badly for years, and neither has been convicted of their recent crimes (which led to a suspension for Pacman). But I hear you, Pacman was warned. Then again, did Vick really not know that this type of thing would lead to suspension by the league each time he allegedly committed these crimes over the past 6 years? I doubt it.

By the way, BSB....getting awefully close to that 5,000 post milestone.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Another question I have for those who want call Pacman's situation different from Vick's: In Pacman's case, he has gotten into trouble for multiple separate incidents over time. Right? Now, he still hasn't been convicted of any of them, but there are eye witnesses placing him at the various scenes and his repeated alleged offenses led to a suspension. So, what's the difference here? Vick isn't being accused of one isolated incident. Rather, he is being accused of breaking the law on multiple separate occasions. And there are eyewitnesses placing him at each of the various scenes where illegal activities were being conducted.

So, should the NFL somehow reward the person who gets charged all at once because the Feds do the responsible thing by building a case before charging him over the guy who is just unlucky enough to get caught each time he allegedly breaks the law by the local authorities? I mean, both men are being accused of repeated instances of illegal activity. It's not like Vick is being indicted for one instance of dog fighting. Why are are willing to go easier on the guy whose repeated behavior over the course of 6 six years just happens to get lumped into one indictment?

You have already tried and convicted him. You say eyewitnesses placed him at the scene. You know this because of what you have read in the report but it still has not been proven. I'm not sure what the argument is for having him suspended now and not afterwards. If he is convected of this he will go to jail and the Falcons will let him go. When or if he returns he will then have to wait out his suspension which will probably be a year so he will get what is coming. I think its going to be fun to watch this unfold as he tries to return to pratice next week. It would almost be doing the Falcons and Vick a favor if they suspended him. I'm not supporting Vick at all but feel justic should run its course.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You have already tried and convicted him. You say eyewitnesses placed him at the scene. You know this because of what you have read in the report but it still has not been proven. I'm not sure what the argument is for having him suspended now and not afterwards. If he is convected of this he will go to jail and the Falcons will let him go. When or if he returns he will then have to wait out his suspension which will probably be a year so he will get what is coming. I think its going to be fun to watch this unfold as he tries to return to pratice next week. It would almost be doing the Falcons and Vick a favor if they suspended him. I'm not supporting Vick at all but feel justic should run its course.

No, I have not tried and convicted anybody. What I'm saying is the NFL did not wait for a conviction for Pacman to suspend him. Why do they have to wait for a conviction for Vick? I'm simply pointing out the similarities between the two situations and saying that there is an argument to be made that Pacman's situation is at least somewhat precedential here.

[SCRedskinsFan]

With Goodell's track record there's no way he can ignore an indictment from a federal grand jury. Vick's past behavior obviously becomes a factor as well. The way this is snowballing, there seems to be no way that MV will be on the field for the Falcons in the near future.

I assume that there are some trilateral (Goddell-Blank-Vick's Agent) discussions going on right now that will create an acceptable (financially) path toward an indefinite leave of absence for Vick.

That gives this drama some time to play itself out in the courts. IMHO Vick is toast -- the Fed's tend to not lose these cases, and a conviction will result in ample reason for a long term suspension (which may be the least of MV's problems at that point)

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SCRedskinsFan

With Goodell's track record there's no way he can ignore an indictment from a federal grand jury. Vick's past behavior obviously becomes a factor as well. The way this is snowballing, there seems to be no way that MV will be on the field for the Falcons in the near future.

I assume that there are some trilateral (Goddell-Blank-Vick's Agent) discussions going on right now that will create an acceptable (financially) path toward an indefinite leave of absence for Vick.

That gives this drama some time to play itself out in the courts. IMHO Vick is toast -- the Fed's tend to not lose these cases, and a conviction will result in ample reason for a long term suspension (which may be the least of MV's problems at that point)

I ask again, what past behavior? When has he been charged with anything or even investigated in a CRIMINAL investigation?

[dallass-blows 2]

duke had their seaon taken from them for nothing. they did nothing wrong.

if he isnt found guilty yet why the hell would you suspend him?

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by dallass-blows 2

duke had their seaon taken from them for nothing. they did nothing wrong.

if he isnt found guilty yet why the hell would you suspend him?

I found it interesting an article in the Washington Post today kind of touched on this.


"Commissioner Goodell has made a point of disciplining some players prior to them being prosecuted," Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview. "In this case, every indication we've gotten is that the NFL intends to wait until the legal process has played out. To us, that would seem to invalidate an independent code of conduct. What do you need a code of conduct for if you're simply going to wait for the courts to act? We believe Michael Vick should be suspended immediately. This set of activities is heinous. It would seem to warrant harsh treatment under a code of conduct."

washingtonpost.com

I revise my earlier position to say that I think the NFL should lean towards waiting for a conviction. That just makes a lot of sense, it would avoid punishing those who are innocent. I do, however, believe that those with a serious track record should be void of this luxury, and should face consequences immediately.

Even with all the evidence that is available to the public, the principle behind the issue is clear; without a past history of criminal behavior it's inappropriate to punish a player not yet convicted.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

I found it interesting an article in the Washington Post today kind of touched on this.


"Commissioner Goodell has made a point of disciplining some players prior to them being prosecuted," Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview. "In this case, every indication we've gotten is that the NFL intends to wait until the legal process has played out. To us, that would seem to invalidate an independent code of conduct. What do you need a code of conduct for if you're simply going to wait for the courts to act? We believe Michael Vick should be suspended immediately. This set of activities is heinous. It would seem to warrant harsh treatment under a code of conduct."

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

I revise my earlier position to say that I think the NFL should lean towards waiting for a conviction. That just makes a lot of sense, it would avoid punishing those who are innocent. I do, however, believe that those with a serious track record should be void of this luxury, and should face consequences immediately.

Even with all the evidence that is available to the public, the principle behind the issue is clear; without a past history of criminal behavior it's inappropriate to punish a player not yet convicted.

I wonder if your employer should be free to suspend you if you're accused of a hit-and-run with your car.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

I wonder if your employer should be free to suspend you if you're accused of a hit-and-run with your car.

If the option is there for him to take leave without pay, do you think that would be the best option for him, the team, and the league?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If the option is there for him to take leave without pay, do you think that would be the best option for him, the team, and the league?

Without pay you say? For an entire season? What for? So I can drown on my own sorrow? No one but fans think about what's best for the team. I mean, you don't go into work everyday and think to yourself "by god, I'm going to do what's best for the team."

Sure, if you have TB you probably would, and rightly should, think of others first but when it comes down to your paycheck, your team and your employer it's all about you. It's all business. Pay me to sit at home if you want me to "take unpaid time off" otherwise see you tomorrow Bob.