How Many Games Should Vick Be Suspended?

[hesscl34]

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?

The reality is this isn't just about him, it's about the NFL players as a whole. They seem to be getting into trouble more and more and more, and I hate to say it but something needs to start happening now if not for any other reason than to make it clear to players that if they are even considering criminal activity, think twice. People in the public eye are made examples of all of the time. Conviction or no conviction he was indicted and I think that deserves action by the NFL. He needs to be suspended.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

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 there is a dead guy, on top of your car, which is sitting in your garage, I think a suspension is warranted. To think that Vick is innocent of the charges is almost crazy. How a guy doesn't know that he has several buildings painted black on his property with dozens of dead dogs in his yard escapes me. If he's not guilty of running a dog-fighting ring, he's guilty of being one of the dumbest guys on the face of the earth.

Besides, as others have noted, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal proceedings. A person can be held civilly liable for misconduct if a jury simply decides that it is more likely than not that the person committed the tortious act. For example, OJ was NOT convicted of a crime, but was held civilly liable.

Moreover, employers can suspend or fire employees based on hearsay or other types of evidence that a jury would never hear. Employers need not conduct mini-trials or await criminal convictions before firing an employee for inappropriate conduct. People do and should get fired all the time for sexual harassment, racist remarks, etc. even though no trial was held. I'm not sure why we have elevated the "right" to play in the NFL above what it is.....a job.

I don't think many Vick supporters would be happy if some jerk at work who made racist remarks or who exercised his right to free speech by bearing a swastika tat on his forehead had to be convicted of a crime before an employer could fire him.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

If there is a dead guy, on top of your car, which is sitting in your garage, I think a suspension is warranted. To think that Vick is innocent of the charges is almost crazy. How a guy doesn't know that he has several buildings painted black on his property with dozens of dead dogs in his yard escapes me. If he's not guilty of running a dog-fighting ring, he's guilty of being one of the dumbest guys on the face of the earth.

Besides, as others have noted, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal proceedings. A person can be held civilly liable for misconduct if a jury simply decides that it is more likely than not that the person committed the tortious act.

Moreover, employers can suspend or fire employees based on hearsay or other types of evidence that a jury would never hear. Employers need not conduct mini-trials or await criminal convictions before firing an employee for inappropriate conduct. People do and should get fired all the time for sexual harassment, racist remarks, etc. even though no trial was held. I'm not sure why we have elevated the "right" to play in the NFL above what it is.....a job.

I highly doubt Vick is innocent but I don't like the notion that we convict someone before he's convicted in court (civil and criminal). It would set an unbelievable precedence to have people convicted by their employer merely for being indicted/investigate.

No doubt, your employer will want you out if you're under suspicion for a criminal act but they don't terminate you right there and then. You reach an agreement and part company amicably.

Sure, they can fire you at will but the truth is there is no such thing when you know your rights. If you're unjustly terminated you have recourse through the court system. Bob, meet my lawyer. His name is John Payme and he likes to get paid and so do I Bob.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Moreover, employers can suspend or fire employees based on hearsay or other types of evidence that a jury would never hear. Employers need not conduct mini-trials or await criminal convictions before firing an employee for inappropriate conduct. People do and should get fired all the time for sexual harassment, racist remarks, etc. even though no trial was held. I'm not sure why we have elevated the "right" to play in the NFL above what it is.....a job.

I don't think many Vick supporters would be happy if some jerk at work who made racist remarks or who exercised his right to free speech by bearing a swastika tat on his forehead had to be convicted of a crime before an employer could fire him.

Excellent post Sheriff.

This is the point that I think a lot of people are missing. I'm not saying throw the guy in jail......that's for the courts to decide. But if the NFL has shown anything under the new conduct policy, it's that they do not have to wait for a conviction from a criminal trial to suspend players. And this is completely consistent with the same standard that 90% of the rest of us in the real world live with every day. Would it suck if Vick was eventually found innocent after being suspended? You bet. Would it also suck if Pacman was found innocent of his alleged crimes after being suspended? Apparently it wouldn't because there wasn't nearly this much support for Pacman when Goodell's decision was handed down on him. What's the difference?

Is it that Vick has been put on Madden covers and paraded around as the NFL poster child all these years while Pacman was villified (and justifiably so) since being drafted? So is our perception that Vick is somehow a better person who deserves a higher level of "justice" than Pacman because of what we've been told (or sold) all these years? They are both being accused of terrible, criminal behavior since coming into the league.....it just took longer for it to catch up with Vick......that doesn't make him any better of a person than Pacman. In fact, if both players are found guilty of what each one is being accused of, I could argue that Vick is actually a worse person than Pacman. But the fact is neither one has been convicted yet.....but one sits at home while the other may be left alone by the NFL. I can't help but think that the NFL wouldn't have such a hard time with this if this was Brandon Lloyd's house and he was the subject of this indictment.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't think many Vick supporters would be happy if some jerk at work who made racist remarks or who exercised his right to free speech by bearing a swastika tat on his forehead had to be convicted of a crime before an employer could fire him.

When things like that there is a process the company goes through. The actions of the individual violates standard company harassment and discrimination policy. And I would also wager that a swastika violates company dress code policy. Usually what tends to happen in these types of situations is a) HR puts the individuals on different teams/project, b) HR conducts an investigation into the matter to ascertain the individuals guilt.

If the company thinks you're guilty with reasonable certainty they'll fire you and you can go hit them with a law suite if you're wrongly terminated. This is a clear cut case whilst the Vick case is not. Plus, Vick has money and the NFLPA backing him.

[RobH4413]

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.

According to the newest policy-

If your past history of hit-and-runs has damaged the reputation of the company, then yes, you should be suspended.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

According to the newest policy-

If your past history of hit-and-runs has damaged the reputation of the company, then yes, you should be suspended.

OK, are any of Vicks past transgression comparable to his current one?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

All fair points Saden. We merely differ in our opinions as to what the NFL should be able to do here, regardless of the outcome of US v. Vick. I also agree that celebs like Vick are people just like you and me and should be held to the same standard (not higher or lower).

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

All fair points Saden. We merely differ in our opinions as to what the NFL should be able to do here, regardless of the outcome of US v. Vick. I also agree that celebs like Vick are people just like you and me and should be held to the same standard (not higher or lower).

It the case of a celeb, I would agree, I think.. but he's really a rold model for young athletes by being an NFL star. It comes with being who he is... It's not like he's Paris Hilton.

[12thMan]

I think we've had some very well thought out posts and good arguments on both sides of the fence.

In my opinion the best and most reasonable way for the NFL to handle this is to remove themselves from trying to determine whether or not Vick is actually guilty of a crime or not; They need to, and I believe they will, make their decision independent of the courts, the judge, or what any lawyer provides. The NFL would do themselves an injustice, in my opinion, of attempting to play the role of lawyer or judge.

Goodell's intention is to clean up the image of the NFL. Period. And sometimes that involves hardcore evidence and guilt beyond reasonable doubt and sometimes it doesn't. If Goodell makes his decision based on Vick's criminal involvement or lack thereof, then justice, according to the NFL, may not run truly run its course. Because it's the image and the perception of the league that the Commish is trying to restore. And on that basis, I think Vick will be, at the very least, suspended for several games, if not the entire season.

Now if the court of law later determines that Vick is actually guilty of said crimes, then obviously the NFL must submit to the higher authority and either extend Vick's suspension indefinetely or ban him from the league all together.

My 12 cents.

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think we've had some very well thought out posts and good arguments on both sides of the fence.

In my opinion the best and most reasonable way for the NFL to handle this is to remove themselves from trying to determine whether or not Vick is actually guilty of a crime or not; They need to, and I believe they will, make their decision independent of the courts, the judge, or what any lawyer provides. The NFL would do themselves an injustice, in my opinion, of attempting to play the role of lawyer or judge.

Goodell's intention is to clean up the image of the NFL. Period. And sometimes that involves hardcore evidence and guilt beyond reasonable doubt and sometimes it doesn't. If Goodell makes his decision based on Vick's criminal involvement or lack thereof, then justice, according to the NFL, may not run truly run its course. Because it's the image and the perception of the league that the Commish is trying to restore. And on that basis, I think Vick will be, at the very least, suspended for several games, if not the entire season.

Now if the court of law later determines that Vick is actually guilty of said crimes, then obviously the NFL must submit to the higher authority and either extend Vick's suspension indefinetely or ban him from the league all together.

My 12 cents.

Now let's think... what would the redskins do if this was one of their players?

[BigSKINBauer]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

Now let's think... what would the redskins do if this was one of their players?

well they would obviously be innocent silly. NO action needed.


Note: Sean Taylor. Joe Gibbs knew with he divine power that ST would not be guilty and therefore used his judgment not to take action.


Taylor did sit out one game for his DUI (which he wasn't guilty of because he is a redskin). It was the Green Bay game. I forget the exact reasoning but it wasn't exactly for the DUI. Anyone remember?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by BigSKINBauer

well they would obviously be innocent silly. NO action needed.


Note: Sean Taylor. Joe Gibbs knew with he divine power that ST would not be guilty and therefore used his judgment not to take action.


Taylor did sit out one game for his DUI (which he wasn't guilty of because he is a redskin). It was the Green Bay game. I forget the exact reasoning but it wasn't exactly for the DUI. Anyone remember?

Pretty sure it was because he missed a meeting.

[BigSKINBauer]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

Pretty sure it was because he missed a meeting.

Article from that game says he was suspended after a DWI arrest.
Illegal-Motion Sickness (washingtonpost.com)

"Green Bay scored on its first three possessions with Favre (playing his 197th consecutive game) attacking the Redskins' undermanned secondary; starting safeties Matt Bowen (injury) and Sean Taylor (suspended after a DWI arrest) were out and replacement Andre Lott left with an injury in the first half. "


F...ing article makes me remember the worst call i have ever, ever, ever, ever, ever seen. It was such a good play too. I mean, that was highlight material right there. I remember where i was. In the basement of my old house. I saw the play while talking on the phone with a friend. The play happened and i ran out the room. While screaming for joy my friend told me to STFU because there was a flag. I begged it not to be a holding call. Stupid ref. F... that ref.

[GTripp0012]

4 games, if for no other reason than to let Joey Harrington accrue even MORE negative QB value in his career.