Goodell on Vick (1 Viewer)

[brutha]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11657456

"Vick must show geniune remorse"



after not only all he did but how he did it, is Goodell really stupid enough to think Vick will ever have any remorse? the only remorse he has is getting caught and the price he's paying, otherwise he'd still be fighting, killing, torturing dogs like there was no tomorrow, and enjoying it. also water is wet. for crying out loud earth to Goodell hello

or is he just saying that in case Vick still has money-making potential so he can line the NFL's pockets some more?

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Federal prison has a away of changing your outlook on what you will do and what you have done I suspect.

Is Vick remorseful? Don't know, but what he has earned is an opportunity to make his life right again.

 

[eefflrat]

I don't have a problem with a guy who served his time for a crime and having the opportunity to continue his career. While it was wrong, and I don't condone what he did, many people will argue he didn't hurt any human being, and that what he did is not much crueler than hunting for sport...

Putting all of the personal feelings aside he has paid his debt to society, and he paid more than the average Joe. He had more to lose and lost it...He shouldn't be given a chance to earn a living again? Remorse? why should he show remorse, he went to jail, and i am going to suspect that he won't be fighting dogs any time soon, why do i have to hear him say he is sorry? What does Goodell mean by remorse? Does he want Vick to say sorry? Well, we all know he is sorry for getting caught, and maybe he has had time to reflect on what he did, Goodel will never know if Vick is truly sorry? people ask "how can someone not know that is wrong", vick and many others said that was the culture he was brought up in. It was accepted. What about in Muslim countries where they marry 8 year old girls, and kill women who leave the home without a male family member as punishment? Many of us here think that is wrong, but it is theie way of life.

I find it hard to be judge and jury on Mike Vick's remorse.

 

[Sinrman]

Federal prison has a away of changing your outlook on what you will do and what you have done I suspect.Is Vick remorseful? Don't know, but what he has earned is an opportunity to make his life right again.

Yeah.. and I don't ever see him doing that again, whether he believes it was right or not. Even if he is blowing smoke and apologizes, yet still believes in dog fighting and all, he won't show it.

 

[Adebisi]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11657456

"Vick must show geniune remorse"



after not only all he did but how he did it, is Goodell really stupid enough to think Vick will ever have any remorse? the only remorse he has is getting caught and the price he's paying, otherwise he'd still be fighting, killing, torturing dogs like there was no tomorrow, and enjoying it. also water is wet. for crying out loud earth to Goodell hello

or is he just saying that in case Vick still has money-making potential so he can line the NFL's pockets some more?

Where does it say that Goodell thinks Vick will ever have any remorse? I think you have a lot of misdirected anger here.

 

[bcr8f]

So Goodell is the stupid one?

 

[fatness]

Oh good, a Vick thread. These are always productive.

 

[Ozymandias]

Goodell is playing it smart. If he goes ahead and reinstates him without argument, there will be a whole lot of people ready to protest. However, if he interviews Vick, says that he believes Vick is genuinely remorseful, that Vick recognizes that what he did was cruel and inhuman, and that he is prepared to make amends any way he can, then Goodell, after a period of probation, can give him the green light and undercut much (but not all) of the protests.

Some will never forgive Vick; but most people would be willing to give him another chance.

 

[Carver]

Why dont they just stone this guy to death. Maybe that will be a big enough price to pay for some of you people.

 

[Adebisi]

Goodell is playing it smart. If he goes ahead and reinstates him without argument, there will be a whole lot of people ready to protest. However, if he interviews Vick, says that he believes Vick is genuinely remorseful, that Vick recognizes that what he did was cruel and inhuman, and that he is prepared to make amends any way he can, then Goodell, after a period of probation, can give him the green light and undercut much (but not all) of the protests. Some will never forgive Vick; but most people would be willing to give him another chance.

 

[LHUCKS]

Vick put in hard time...he deserves another shot.

 

[habsfan]

"Showing genuine remorse" sounds awfully subjective to me. Can anyone define what that looks like or what Vick does to show it? This isn't the clearly insane inmate in the movies who is denied parole year after year after year...

 

[Ozymandias]

"Showing genuine remorse" sounds awfully subjective to me. Can anyone define what that looks like or what Vick does to show it? This isn't the clearly insane inmate in the movies who is denied parole year after year after year...

Of course it's subjective. But so are protests. They are judgment calls based on how deeply people feel about a) animal cruelty, and/or b) rehabilitation. So Goodell is trying to keep both sides happy, or at the very least, cushion his decision. Smart move.

 

[meanjoegreen]

Goodell is playing it smart. If he goes ahead and reinstates him without argument, there will be a whole lot of people ready to protest. However, if he interviews Vick, says that he believes Vick is genuinely remorseful, that Vick recognizes that what he did was cruel and inhuman, and that he is prepared to make amends any way he can, then Goodell, after a period of probation, can give him the green light and undercut much (but not all) of the protests. Some will never forgive Vick; but most people would be willing to give him another chance.

Goodell has already shown in the past that he doesn't know when Vick is being genuine or not. Vick lied to him in his face in the past when Goodell asked him about dog fighting, and Goodell believed him. It turned out Vick lied to him.

 

[Ozymandias]

Goodell is playing it smart. If he goes ahead and reinstates him without argument, there will be a whole lot of people ready to protest. However, if he interviews Vick, says that he believes Vick is genuinely remorseful, that Vick recognizes that what he did was cruel and inhuman, and that he is prepared to make amends any way he can, then Goodell, after a period of probation, can give him the green light and undercut much (but not all) of the protests. Some will never forgive Vick; but most people would be willing to give him another chance.

Goodell has already shown in the past that he doesn't know when Vick is being genuine or not. Vick lied to him in his face in the past when Goodell asked him about dog fighting, and Goodell believed him. It turned out Vick lied to him.

And maybe Vick is sorry he did. You ever sorry you lied? I did, a long time ago, and it still haunts me. So yes, I'm genuinely sorry.

 

[T Bell]

"Maybe remorse just isn't your game. I know! Let's have a passing contest!"

 

[identikit]

"Maybe remorse just isn't your game. I know! Let's have a passing contest!"

 

[meanjoegreen]

Goodell is playing it smart. If he goes ahead and reinstates him without argument, there will be a whole lot of people ready to protest. However, if he interviews Vick, says that he believes Vick is genuinely remorseful, that Vick recognizes that what he did was cruel and inhuman, and that he is prepared to make amends any way he can, then Goodell, after a period of probation, can give him the green light and undercut much (but not all) of the protests. Some will never forgive Vick; but most people would be willing to give him another chance.

Goodell has already shown in the past that he doesn't know when Vick is being genuine or not. Vick lied to him in his face in the past when Goodell asked him about dog fighting, and Goodell believed him. It turned out Vick lied to him.

And maybe Vick is sorry he did. You ever sorry you lied? I did, a long time ago, and it still haunts me. So yes, I'm genuinely sorry.

I think Vick is sorry he got caught.

 

[Mark Wimer]

and that what he did is not much crueler than hunting for sport...

OK, I gotta call you out on this statement. Why? Because it is absolutely ridiculous and exhibits a complete lack of knowledge about hunters. Ethical hunters (and most of those who pursue game animals fall into this category - say 98%) aspire to 1-shot kills. They may not achieve this standard in every instance, but even when an animal is wounded rather than killed, hunters track and complete their hunt (ie. kill their prey) as quickly as possible.

In addition, a lot of hunters who are fortunate to own land plant feed plots (White tail deer hunters), create water access for the game animals, and in the case of upland (that means "game bird" hunters, btw) hunters, actively raise chicks to adolescent stage and then release them for maintaining game populations. Ducks Unlimited is one of the premier conservation societies in the United States, and has fought for wetland preservation/conservation for decades. Ducks Unlimited is primarily (although not exclusively) made up of duck hunters. The Federal government supports Ducks Unlimited with the postage stamps known as "Duck Stamps".

Michael Vick and his compatriots chained up dogs to truck axles pounded into the ground, in the glare of North Carolina's weather, with little or no provision for their exercise. They intentionally starved their "stable" of fighting dogs to make the dogs more aggressive in the ring. The sanitation provided to the fighting dogs was non-existant. Vick and his "friends" intentionally beat to death (with multiple blows like pounding a muzzled dog on the ground repeatedly) animals that they raised from puppy-hood or purchased as young animals. They were perverse and vicious owners of their animals, and entirely responsible for the conditions of the animals dependant on them.

When the females were no longer able to fight, they selected the "most game" females, used pliers to pull all their teeth out, without anesthesia, and then strapped them into "rape stands" for selected male fighting dogs to breed with (the females were so brutalized by their time in the ring that they would attack any male dog that attempted to mount them, thus the pulling of the teeth and the "rape stands").

Equating the systematic, brutal, intentional torture of canines with the legitimate, population-managing activities of sport hunters is a travesty. You are entirely wrong to draw this comparison, IMO.

My .02.

 

[roadkill1292]

Why dont they just stone this guy to death. Maybe that will be a big enough price to pay for some of you people.

 

[eefflrat]

and that what he did is not much crueler than hunting for sport...

OK, I gotta call you out on this statement. Why? Because it is absolutely ridiculous and exhibits a complete lack of knowledge about hunters. Ethical hunters (and most of those who pursue game animals fall into this category - say 98%) aspire to 1-shot kills. They may not achieve this standard in every instance, but even when an animal is wounded rather than killed, hunters track and complete their hunt (ie. kill their prey) as quickly as possible.

In addition, a lot of hunters who are fortunate to own land plant feed plots (White tail deer hunters), create water access for the game animals, and in the case of upland (that means "game bird" hunters, btw) hunters, actively raise chicks to adolescent stage and then release them for maintaining game populations. Ducks Unlimited is one of the premier conservation societies in the United States, and has fought for wetland preservation/conservation for decades. Ducks Unlimited is primarily (although not exclusively) made up of duck hunters. The Federal government supports Ducks Unlimited with the postage stamps known as "Duck Stamps".

Michael Vick and his compatriots chained up dogs to truck axles pounded into the ground, in the glare of North Carolina's weather, with little or no provision for their exercise. They intentionally starved their "stable" of fighting dogs to make the dogs more aggressive in the ring. The sanitation provided to the fighting dogs was non-existant. Vick and his "friends" intentionally beat to death (with multiple blows like pounding a muzzled dog on the ground repeatedly) animals that they raised from puppy-hood or purchased as young animals. They were perverse and vicious owners of their animals, and entirely responsible for the conditions of the animals dependant on them.

When the females were no longer able to fight, they selected the "most game" females, used pliers to pull all their teeth out, without anesthesia, and then strapped them into "rape stands" for selected male fighting dogs to breed with (the females were so brutalized by their time in the ring that they would attack any male dog that attempted to mount them, thus the pulling of the teeth and the "rape stands").

Equating the systematic, brutal, intentional torture of canines with the legitimate, population-managing activities of sport hunters is a travesty. You are entirely wrong to draw this comparison, IMO.

My .02.

well, see i don't care if you hunt, inject steroids in horses for sport, race greyhounds, #### fight, lion poach, kill gorillas or hunt for dolphins.....People do a lot of that for sport as well...I''m not P.E.T.A.. I don't do it myself, but i understand that some people do...People made Mike Vick out to be the biggest creep on earth...You are probably a hunter, that's great....Do what you have to do, i don't care....Just because i don't eat Venison, duck, lamb, or goose doesn't mean i think you should stop, and it doesn't mean I think you're a bad person. Sure I think Vick was a jerk, but my point was more that he was raised that way, and i have seen people get away with worse, and if he wasn't Mike Vick he wouldn't have been witch hunted as much....that's all...Is it barbarian, i don't know, I mean do you like to watch boxing, do you enjoy MMA? Some people like it, i don't judge...That was more my point...Oh and of course, remorse, why should he show it, he has already served his time, lost almost everything he has had..Either he gets another chance or not...

 

[Adebisi]

Goodell is playing it smart. If he goes ahead and reinstates him without argument, there will be a whole lot of people ready to protest. However, if he interviews Vick, says that he believes Vick is genuinely remorseful, that Vick recognizes that what he did was cruel and inhuman, and that he is prepared to make amends any way he can, then Goodell, after a period of probation, can give him the green light and undercut much (but not all) of the protests. Some will never forgive Vick; but most people would be willing to give him another chance.

Goodell has already shown in the past that he doesn't know when Vick is being genuine or not. Vick lied to him in his face in the past when Goodell asked him about dog fighting, and Goodell believed him. It turned out Vick lied to him.

I suppose Vick should have considered the consequences of lying at that point. If the commish doesn't believe him this time around, who can really blame him?Does Vick deserve a second chance? If he's really sorry, then yes.Do I care either way and will I shed any tears for Vick if he never plays another down again? Of course not.

 

[Da Guru]

Vick made a mistake and has paid for it. Time for Goodell to move on.

 

[Adebisi]

Vick made a mistake and has paid for it. Time for Goodell to move on.

Let's just put our cards on the table here: Goodell is going to do what's in the best financial interests of the league. That likely means letting Vick play again, but I think Ozymandias gave us a pretty nice summary of the thinking behind Goodell's actions from a business standpoint. Vick's style of play is extremely marketable, and a comeback would boost the league's ratings for at least a few weeks (and over the long-term if Vick can still play like he once did). But the league has to do what it can to curtail the negative publicity that would come about from letting him just waltz back into the league without a second thought.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Vick made a mistake and has paid for it. Time for Goodell to move on.

Let's just put our cards on the table here: Goodell is going to do what's in the best financial interests of the league. That likely means letting Vick play again, but I think Ozymandias gave us a pretty nice summary of the thinking behind Goodell's actions from a business standpoint. Vick's style of play is extremely marketable, and a comeback would boost the league's ratings for at least a few weeks (and over the long-term if Vick can still play like he once did). But the league has to do what it can to curtail the negative publicity that would come about from letting him just waltz back into the league without a second thought.

 

[Footballhead]

Every dawg deserves another chance. Besides, the Michael Vick roller coaster's kinda fun.

 

[T Bell]

Kind of ironic. He does his time out of the league for abusing dogs, only to return to the league where he can abuse worms.

 

[bro1ncos]

Why dont they just stone this guy to death. Maybe that will be a big enough price to pay for some of you people.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

Personally, I don't care if Vick gets another chance in the NFL or not. He has paid the price for his crime(s) as was determined by the laws of our nation and the Judge who handled his case. As such, he is free to pursue most any career he wants, including returning to the NFL.

I don't believe Mr. Goodell has any way of really determining whether Vick is remorseful or not (it's a matter of his opinion) and it really should not matter if Vick is remorseful. Being remorseful or showing remorse was not included in the punishment handed to Vick in this case nor should it be an indicator if Vick should be allowed back into the NFL. Vick committed a crime, got caught and paid the price (such price being very high considering his reputation, career and bankroll).....move on already.

 

[Stealthycat]

once a person is punished for what they did by way of a fulfilled prison sentence, a second chance at life is what they've earned

yes, EARNED - because through our judicial system they have paid the price for what they did and the system has deemed them fit to return to society

don't forget what they did, don't place blind trust where it shouldn't be placed ........ Vick was involved in dog fighting. He didn't kill anyone. He isn't a rapist. He isn't a child molester. He has every right to go back to work in the NFL as anyone else does.

Goodell's job is to keep intact the integrity of the league and by placing a good faith foot forward, accepting Vick as a changed man, that will show volumes.

Besides, if he doesn't let Vick back he'll be labeled racist for it - so Vick WILL be allowed back, where and what position is yet to be determined.

I'll never be a fan, though he is an electric player to watch.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I think Vick is an absolute scumbag and I doubt he will EVER be a decent human being (or even truly remorseful). This is based not just on the dog fighting, but on many previous incidents and peeks we have gotten into his lifestyle.

That said, he has paid for THIS crime, and as such, I would have no problem with Goodell allowing him back into the league. ON THE OTHER HAND, I would really not have a problem with him saying "we'll pass" either, and I'm surprised so many people do.

No one would be saying "Mike Vick can't make a living", nor would anyone be saying "Mike Vick can't play play football.". He would be saying, "We don't want you to work for our organization, because you aren't good for it.". There is no constitutional right to play in the NFL, even if you have the talent. The management of an organization (particularly one based heavily on public opinion and interest) absolutely has the right to allow or disallow any individual to represent it and/or be a part of it. Why don't people get that?

Sometimes when you commit heinous acts, there are consequences BEYOND the legal ones, and I have no problem with that at all. Ask any ex-con if getting a job becomes easier or harder after they've served the time. I'm not saying no one ever deserves a "second" (though in this case, it's not really the first problem we've seen) chance. I'm saying no one has the absolute RIGHT to just go back to what they were doing (in this case make mega-millions to play a game in a VERY public arena) before they got busted. Sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't.

If you were a security guard and get busted for theft, you may have to look for a new line of work after you've been released. If you were a day-care worker and get put away for kiddie-porn, you probably aren't going to get your old gig back. And if you are an NFL QB who is generally "the face of the franchise", and who the public needs to buy tickets to watch, it may or may not be in the best interest of the league to welcome you back to your old job if you've been convicted of a couple of felonies with particularly gruesome details. I know I wouldn't buy a ticket to watch him, and it's POSSIBLE I might not even buy a ticket to watch ANOTHER team just knowing he's in the league (truthfully, unlikely in my case, but I could see it in others). And yes, before we start hearing about Leonard Little and all the rest, yeah - I feel the same way about them.

 

[roadkill1292]

If you still want your pound of flesh, go to his games and boo him. It's football, not a morality play. In fact, football is a pretty good outlet for ex-cons; they're not being asked to handle someone else's money or supervise small children.

 

[Moe Green]

Kind of ironic. He does his time out of the league for abusing dogs, only to return to the league where he can abuse worms.

Let's all pray for universal astroturf.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

If you still want your pound of flesh, go to his games and boo him. It's football, not a morality play. In fact, football is a pretty good outlet for ex-cons; they're not being asked to handle someone else's money or supervise small children.

It isn't about a pound of flesh, and it isn't a morality play. It's a business decision.Is he good for the NFL? You can debate what the best business decision IS, but that's all that Goodell needs to worry about. That is what seems to be contrary to what so many folks around here seem to think (and really the only thing that bothers me, I don't care THAT much whether he is reinstated or not). They seem to imply Vick has a god-given right to play football for the NFL. He doesn't. If his multitude of moronic decisions and legal problems happen to cost him his career, oh well. It's happened to better men.No, there is no supervision of small children. But there is most certainly a "family" aspect to the NFL. It's a public entertainment business (these guys aren't actually doing anything productive, their SOLE purpose is to provide a spectacle for the masses). For better or worse, pro athletes are guys kids look up to and cheer for. Is it good to have those kids looking up to Mike Vick? If the parents determine, "No - it really isn't" and therefore go away from the game, the NFL loses. Which brings us back to the business decision. You CAN make arguments in the other direction, and I can actually see some of them making sense. Just don't give me this crap about "Mike has paid for what he did, so the league should bend over backwards to help him out now." He made his bed (and again, not just with the dog thing, read his wikipedia entry when you have a lot of spare to get through the "Incidents, criminal troubles" section), and he can lie in it.

 

[Ozymandias]

If you still want your pound of flesh, go to his games and boo him. It's football, not a morality play. In fact, football is a pretty good outlet for ex-cons; they're not being asked to handle someone else's money or supervise small children.

It isn't about a pound of flesh, and it isn't a morality play. It's a business decision.Is he good for the NFL? You can debate what the best business decision IS, but that's all that Goodell needs to worry about. That is what seems to be contrary to what so many folks around here seem to think (and really the only thing that bothers me, I don't care THAT much whether he is reinstated or not). They seem to imply Vick has a god-given right to play football for the NFL. He doesn't. If his multitude of moronic decisions and legal problems happen to cost him his career, oh well. It's happened to better men.No, there is no supervision of small children. But there is most certainly a "family" aspect to the NFL. It's a public entertainment business (these guys aren't actually doing anything productive, their SOLE purpose is to provide a spectacle for the masses). For better or worse, pro athletes are guys kids look up to and cheer for. Is it good to have those kids looking up to Mike Vick? If the parents determine, "No - it really isn't" and therefore go away from the game, the NFL loses. Which brings us back to the business decision. You CAN make arguments in the other direction, and I can actually see some of them making sense. Just don't give me this crap about "Mike has paid for what he did, so the league should bend over backwards to help him out now." He made his bed (and again, not just with the dog thing, read his wikipedia entry when you have a lot of spare to get through the "Incidents, criminal troubles" section), and he can lie in it.

Right. Does the fact that he's paid his debt to society mean that ALPO is now required to hire him to promote dog food? No, it simply means that he can get a job at whatever place think it it's good business for them to do so. That could be the NFL, and it could be Alfie's Tile Laying and Concrete Work.

 

[rct]

once a person is punished for what they did by way of a fulfilled prison sentence, a second chance at life is what they've earnedyes, EARNED - because through our judicial system they have paid the price for what they did and the system has deemed them fit to return to societydon't forget what they did, don't place blind trust where it shouldn't be placed ........ Vick was involved in dog fighting. He didn't kill anyone. He isn't a rapist. He isn't a child molester. He has every right to go back to work in the NFL as anyone else does.Goodell's job is to keep intact the integrity of the league and by placing a good faith foot forward, accepting Vick as a changed man, that will show volumes. Besides, if he doesn't let Vick back he'll be labeled racist for it - so Vick WILL be allowed back, where and what position is yet to be determined. I'll never be a fan, though he is an electric player to watch.

I consider what Vick did about as bad as child molestation. Yes, cruetly and abusing defenseless animals is not the same as abusing children, but it still shows a depraved mind that probably can not be rehabilitated.I doubt Goodell would be labeled racist for not letting Vick back in, unless you can point to similarly situated white players who let back in after similarly abusing animals.

 

[roadkill1292]

If you still want your pound of flesh, go to his games and boo him. It's football, not a morality play. In fact, football is a pretty good outlet for ex-cons; they're not being asked to handle someone else's money or supervise small children.

It isn't about a pound of flesh, and it isn't a morality play. It's a business decision.Is he good for the NFL? You can debate what the best business decision IS, but that's all that Goodell needs to worry about. That is what seems to be contrary to what so many folks around here seem to think (and really the only thing that bothers me, I don't care THAT much whether he is reinstated or not). They seem to imply Vick has a god-given right to play football for the NFL. He doesn't. If his multitude of moronic decisions and legal problems happen to cost him his career, oh well. It's happened to better men.No, there is no supervision of small children. But there is most certainly a "family" aspect to the NFL. It's a public entertainment business (these guys aren't actually doing anything productive, their SOLE purpose is to provide a spectacle for the masses). For better or worse, pro athletes are guys kids look up to and cheer for. Is it good to have those kids looking up to Mike Vick? If the parents determine, "No - it really isn't" and therefore go away from the game, the NFL loses. Which brings us back to the business decision. You CAN make arguments in the other direction, and I can actually see some of them making sense. Just don't give me this crap about "Mike has paid for what he did, so the league should bend over backwards to help him out now." He made his bed (and again, not just with the dog thing, read his wikipedia entry when you have a lot of spare to get through the "Incidents, criminal troubles" section), and he can lie in it.

Of course it's a business decision and I have come to respect Mr. Goodell's need to make it on those grounds alone. However, the reason it's a business decision is because of the many fans who want punishment above and beyond that which the civil authorities impose. I'm urging those people to let up a little.As for the children who might be watching, this could be a good lesson to them about how society works, especially if we took this decision out of the commissioner's office, which I have long urged. I'd rather the individual teams have the power to decide, as they have the best read on their own fan bases. Our kids are gonna run into ex-cons somewhere along the way in life and maybe it's a good thing to see one rebound from his crimes. I'm not sure where the theory began that ex-cons should be relegated to washing dishes for the rest of their lives but it's been voiced on this board more than once.I might have missed it but I don't remember anybody urging the league to "bend over backwards" to help Vick. Because we're not offended by his presence on the field, some of us would just like the NFL to give him a fair shake. If teams want to avoid him because of the PR hit, I'm actually fine with that. But if an Al Davis or Steve Bisciotti wants to sign 'im up, I'd like them to be able to do so without interference from the rest of the league's fans and the league office.

 

[fatness]

Just don't give me this crap about "Mike has paid for what he did, so the league should bend over backwards to help him out now."

Now you're just making things up. Nobody in this thread said that. If your argument's so weak it requires making things up then maybe it's not such a good argument.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Just don't give me this crap about "Mike has paid for what he did, so the league should bend over backwards to help him out now."

Now you're just making things up. Nobody in this thread said that. If your argument's so weak it requires making things up then maybe it's not such a good argument.

It was paraphrasing, nothing more. I can't quote the direct statements of everybody on that side of the fence, but was trying to get the prevailing "attitude". Maybe it was stretched a bit, but it's not that far off either.If you think the argument is weak, fine - attack the argument. But if the "bending over backwards" characterization bothers you that much, just feel free to sub in your own summary.

 

[b_taco]

he just needs to "show" it, not actually feel remorseful.

 

[Stealthycat]

"We don't want you to work for our organization, because you aren't good for it.".

right - let each team decide if they want him

 

[Holy Schneikes]

If you still want your pound of flesh, go to his games and boo him. It's football, not a morality play. In fact, football is a pretty good outlet for ex-cons; they're not being asked to handle someone else's money or supervise small children.

It isn't about a pound of flesh, and it isn't a morality play. It's a business decision.Is he good for the NFL? You can debate what the best business decision IS, but that's all that Goodell needs to worry about. That is what seems to be contrary to what so many folks around here seem to think (and really the only thing that bothers me, I don't care THAT much whether he is reinstated or not). They seem to imply Vick has a god-given right to play football for the NFL. He doesn't. If his multitude of moronic decisions and legal problems happen to cost him his career, oh well. It's happened to better men.No, there is no supervision of small children. But there is most certainly a "family" aspect to the NFL. It's a public entertainment business (these guys aren't actually doing anything productive, their SOLE purpose is to provide a spectacle for the masses). For better or worse, pro athletes are guys kids look up to and cheer for. Is it good to have those kids looking up to Mike Vick? If the parents determine, "No - it really isn't" and therefore go away from the game, the NFL loses. Which brings us back to the business decision. You CAN make arguments in the other direction, and I can actually see some of them making sense. Just don't give me this crap about "Mike has paid for what he did, so the league should bend over backwards to help him out now." He made his bed (and again, not just with the dog thing, read his wikipedia entry when you have a lot of spare to get through the "Incidents, criminal troubles" section), and he can lie in it.

Of course it's a business decision and I have come to respect Mr. Goodell's need to make it on those grounds alone. However, the reason it's a business decision is because of the many fans who want punishment above and beyond that which the civil authorities impose. I'm urging those people to let up a little.As for the children who might be watching, this could be a good lesson to them about how society works, especially if we took this decision out of the commissioner's office, which I have long urged. I'd rather the individual teams have the power to decide, as they have the best read on their own fan bases. Our kids are gonna run into ex-cons somewhere along the way in life and maybe it's a good thing to see one rebound from his crimes. I'm not sure where the theory began that ex-cons should be relegated to washing dishes for the rest of their lives but it's been voiced on this board more than once.I might have missed it but I don't remember anybody urging the league to "bend over backwards" to help Vick. Because we're not offended by his presence on the field, some of us would just like the NFL to give him a fair shake. If teams want to avoid him because of the PR hit, I'm actually fine with that. But if an Al Davis or Steve Bisciotti wants to sign 'im up, I'd like them to be able to do so without interference from the rest of the league's fans and the league office.

So it's a call to fans to "let up". Why? Again, actions like Vick's almost ALWAYS have ramifications above and beyond the civil punishment. Why should Vick be different? Because he's really cleaned up his act since he got busted? Don't see any evidence of that at all. The guy failed a piss test after he was released on bond, then improperly yanked funds from some retirement account to pay for the court imposed payment to help the dogs recover.Why should I, as an NFL fan who essentially pays his salary, be interested in seeing Michael Vick continue to be paid millions of dollars to play football? I have ZERO interest in seeing that. I'm MUCH more interested in giving millions of dollars to some other schmo who is more likely to be a decent human being. I don't want to see the guy dead. I don't care WHAT he does with his life from this point forward - if he is contrite and changes his ways, good for him in all seriousness. I hope he does. I'd be surprised because I don't think it's easy to be that kind of man and just COMPLETELY become somebody else, but if he can and does, then GREAT - one less loser on the streets. But none of that requires him to be a millionaire football player in the NFL. He had his shot at that, and he blew it again and again. "Sorry I gave you the herpes when I knew damn well I had it lady, here's some hush money." "I don't know hidden compartment in my water bottle came from officer!". "Dog fighting? Never heard anything about it. I was never there Mr. Blank". He's been playing "above the law" for YEARS. An apology written by an agent followed by business as usual just isn't what I want to spend my ticket price money on.As for the kids, I think we will just differ on that. A guy who has his history is just better off not a role model at all, or more specifically, a role model for what NOT to do with your life if you happen to be gifted. Do we need redemption stories? Sure, I'm all for them. How bout the story where Micahel Vick isn't a multi-millionaire prima-dona anymore, but becomes a hard-working average joe, but a model citizen working to change the culture that turned him into the animal he is (or was). THAT's a redemption story I can get behind. I have lot more trouble with, "Man, I sure am sorry, I'll never do it again. But I'd like to pick up where I left off please. What do you say?". We don't need the latter story. It doesn't show anything or mean anything.He had it all, and he threw it away. That's as good a life-lesson as anything we would ever get from Vick in the NFL going forward.As for letting each team decide what to do about Vick - that isn't Goodell's job. His job is to protect the league as a whole. Why should the NFL (as an ORGANIZATION of teams) ever suspend anybody for anything? Just let the individual teams do it. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. There just might be a whack job owner out there senile enough to let Vick be Vick, but it's still Goodell's job to prevent that from happening if it's not good for the league (just like with all of the other suspensions).

 

[cstu]

Why dont they just stone this guy to death. Maybe that will be a big enough price to pay for some of you people.

I'll now be rooting for him just to piss off the holier-than-thou types around here. Watching him win a SB would be beautiful.

 

[pollardsvision]

If you still want your pound of flesh, go to his games and boo him. It's football, not a morality play. In fact, football is a pretty good outlet for ex-cons; they're not being asked to handle someone else's money or supervise small children.

It isn't about a pound of flesh, and it isn't a morality play. It's a business decision.Is he good for the NFL? You can debate what the best business decision IS, but that's all that Goodell needs to worry about. That is what seems to be contrary to what so many folks around here seem to think (and really the only thing that bothers me, I don't care THAT much whether he is reinstated or not). They seem to imply Vick has a god-given right to play football for the NFL. He doesn't. If his multitude of moronic decisions and legal problems happen to cost him his career, oh well. It's happened to better men.

No, there is no supervision of small children. But there is most certainly a "family" aspect to the NFL. It's a public entertainment business (these guys aren't actually doing anything productive, their SOLE purpose is to provide a spectacle for the masses). For better or worse, pro athletes are guys kids look up to and cheer for. Is it good to have those kids looking up to Mike Vick? If the parents determine, "No - it really isn't" and therefore go away from the game, the NFL loses. Which brings us back to the business decision. You CAN make arguments in the other direction, and I can actually see some of them making sense.

Just don't give me this crap about "Mike has paid for what he did, so the league should bend over backwards to help him out now." He made his bed (and again, not just with the dog thing, read his wikipedia entry when you have a lot of spare to get through the "Incidents, criminal troubles" section), and he can lie in it.

Of course it's a business decision and I have come to respect Mr. Goodell's need to make it on those grounds alone. However, the reason it's a business decision is because of the many fans who want punishment above and beyond that which the civil authorities impose. I'm urging those people to let up a little.As for the children who might be watching, this could be a good lesson to them about how society works, especially if we took this decision out of the commissioner's office, which I have long urged. I'd rather the individual teams have the power to decide, as they have the best read on their own fan bases. Our kids are gonna run into ex-cons somewhere along the way in life and maybe it's a good thing to see one rebound from his crimes. I'm not sure where the theory began that ex-cons should be relegated to washing dishes for the rest of their lives but it's been voiced on this board more than once.

I might have missed it but I don't remember anybody urging the league to "bend over backwards" to help Vick. Because we're not offended by his presence on the field, some of us would just like the NFL to give him a fair shake. If teams want to avoid him because of the PR hit, I'm actually fine with that. But if an Al Davis or Steve Bisciotti wants to sign 'im up, I'd like them to be able to do so without interference from the rest of the league's fans and the league office.

So it's a call to fans to "let up". Why? Again, actions like Vick's almost ALWAYS have ramifications above and beyond the civil punishment. Why should Vick be different? Because he's really cleaned up his act since he got busted? Don't see any evidence of that at all. The guy failed a piss test after he was released on bond, then improperly yanked funds from some retirement account to pay for the court imposed payment to help the dogs recover.Why should I, as an NFL fan who essentially pays his salary, be interested in seeing Michael Vick continue to be paid millions of dollars to play football? I have ZERO interest in seeing that. I'm MUCH more interested in giving millions of dollars to some other schmo who is more likely to be a decent human being. I don't want to see the guy dead. I don't care WHAT he does with his life from this point forward - if he is contrite and changes his ways, good for him in all seriousness. I hope he does. I'd be surprised because I don't think it's easy to be that kind of man and just COMPLETELY become somebody else, but if he can and does, then GREAT - one less loser on the streets. But none of that requires him to be a millionaire football player in the NFL. He had his shot at that, and he blew it again and again. "Sorry I gave you the herpes when I knew damn well I had it lady, here's some hush money." "I don't know hidden compartment in my water bottle came from officer!". "Dog fighting? Never heard anything about it. I was never there Mr. Blank". He's been playing "above the law" for YEARS. An apology written by an agent followed by business as usual just isn't what I want to spend my ticket price money on.

As for the kids, I think we will just differ on that. A guy who has his history is just better off not a role model at all, or more specifically, a role model for what NOT to do with your life if you happen to be gifted. Do we need redemption stories? Sure, I'm all for them. How bout the story where Micahel Vick isn't a multi-millionaire prima-dona anymore, but becomes a hard-working average joe, but a model citizen working to change the culture that turned him into the animal he is (or was). THAT's a redemption story I can get behind. I have lot more trouble with, "Man, I sure am sorry, I'll never do it again. But I'd like to pick up where I left off please. What do you say?". We don't need the latter story. It doesn't show anything or mean anything.

He had it all, and he threw it away. That's as good a life-lesson as anything we would ever get from Vick in the NFL going forward.

As for letting each team decide what to do about Vick - that isn't Goodell's job. His job is to protect the league as a whole. Why should the NFL (as an ORGANIZATION of teams) ever suspend anybody for anything? Just let the individual teams do it. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. There just might be a whack job owner out there senile enough to let Vick be Vick, but it's still Goodell's job to prevent that from happening if it's not good for the league (just like with all of the other suspensions).

I would never try to convince you that you should have any interest. I'm very excited to see him get another chance, but that's for each fan to decide.

 

[FBGPoker]

Can't wait to see Vick back on the field. He has paid a bigger price then almost anyone else who did what he did.

GL Mr Vick. Most of us are pulling for you to succeed in your comeback.

 

[roadkill1292]

If you still want your pound of flesh, go to his games and boo him. It's football, not a morality play. In fact, football is a pretty good outlet for ex-cons; they're not being asked to handle someone else's money or supervise small children.

It isn't about a pound of flesh, and it isn't a morality play. It's a business decision.Is he good for the NFL? You can debate what the best business decision IS, but that's all that Goodell needs to worry about. That is what seems to be contrary to what so many folks around here seem to think (and really the only thing that bothers me, I don't care THAT much whether he is reinstated or not). They seem to imply Vick has a god-given right to play football for the NFL. He doesn't. If his multitude of moronic decisions and legal problems happen to cost him his career, oh well. It's happened to better men.No, there is no supervision of small children. But there is most certainly a "family" aspect to the NFL. It's a public entertainment business (these guys aren't actually doing anything productive, their SOLE purpose is to provide a spectacle for the masses). For better or worse, pro athletes are guys kids look up to and cheer for. Is it good to have those kids looking up to Mike Vick? If the parents determine, "No - it really isn't" and therefore go away from the game, the NFL loses. Which brings us back to the business decision. You CAN make arguments in the other direction, and I can actually see some of them making sense. Just don't give me this crap about "Mike has paid for what he did, so the league should bend over backwards to help him out now." He made his bed (and again, not just with the dog thing, read his wikipedia entry when you have a lot of spare to get through the "Incidents, criminal troubles" section), and he can lie in it.

Of course it's a business decision and I have come to respect Mr. Goodell's need to make it on those grounds alone. However, the reason it's a business decision is because of the many fans who want punishment above and beyond that which the civil authorities impose. I'm urging those people to let up a little.As for the children who might be watching, this could be a good lesson to them about how society works, especially if we took this decision out of the commissioner's office, which I have long urged. I'd rather the individual teams have the power to decide, as they have the best read on their own fan bases. Our kids are gonna run into ex-cons somewhere along the way in life and maybe it's a good thing to see one rebound from his crimes. I'm not sure where the theory began that ex-cons should be relegated to washing dishes for the rest of their lives but it's been voiced on this board more than once.I might have missed it but I don't remember anybody urging the league to "bend over backwards" to help Vick. Because we're not offended by his presence on the field, some of us would just like the NFL to give him a fair shake. If teams want to avoid him because of the PR hit, I'm actually fine with that. But if an Al Davis or Steve Bisciotti wants to sign 'im up, I'd like them to be able to do so without interference from the rest of the league's fans and the league office.

So it's a call to fans to "let up". Why? Again, actions like Vick's almost ALWAYS have ramifications above and beyond the civil punishment. Why should Vick be different? Because he's really cleaned up his act since he got busted? Don't see any evidence of that at all. The guy failed a piss test after he was released on bond, then improperly yanked funds from some retirement account to pay for the court imposed payment to help the dogs recover.Why should I, as an NFL fan who essentially pays his salary, be interested in seeing Michael Vick continue to be paid millions of dollars to play football? I have ZERO interest in seeing that. I'm MUCH more interested in giving millions of dollars to some other schmo who is more likely to be a decent human being. I don't want to see the guy dead. I don't care WHAT he does with his life from this point forward - if he is contrite and changes his ways, good for him in all seriousness. I hope he does. I'd be surprised because I don't think it's easy to be that kind of man and just COMPLETELY become somebody else, but if he can and does, then GREAT - one less loser on the streets. But none of that requires him to be a millionaire football player in the NFL. He had his shot at that, and he blew it again and again. "Sorry I gave you the herpes when I knew damn well I had it lady, here's some hush money." "I don't know hidden compartment in my water bottle came from officer!". "Dog fighting? Never heard anything about it. I was never there Mr. Blank". He's been playing "above the law" for YEARS. An apology written by an agent followed by business as usual just isn't what I want to spend my ticket price money on.As for the kids, I think we will just differ on that. A guy who has his history is just better off not a role model at all, or more specifically, a role model for what NOT to do with your life if you happen to be gifted. Do we need redemption stories? Sure, I'm all for them. How bout the story where Micahel Vick isn't a multi-millionaire prima-dona anymore, but becomes a hard-working average joe, but a model citizen working to change the culture that turned him into the animal he is (or was). THAT's a redemption story I can get behind. I have lot more trouble with, "Man, I sure am sorry, I'll never do it again. But I'd like to pick up where I left off please. What do you say?". We don't need the latter story. It doesn't show anything or mean anything.He had it all, and he threw it away. That's as good a life-lesson as anything we would ever get from Vick in the NFL going forward.As for letting each team decide what to do about Vick - that isn't Goodell's job. His job is to protect the league as a whole. Why should the NFL (as an ORGANIZATION of teams) ever suspend anybody for anything? Just let the individual teams do it. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. There just might be a whack job owner out there senile enough to let Vick be Vick, but it's still Goodell's job to prevent that from happening if it's not good for the league (just like with all of the other suspensions).

It doesn't look like we're gonna find much common ground, does it? Every time I use the phrase "I'm urging people to......" it seems to get folks really fired up. I guess I've got to express myself differently.I guess I don't care much about the players as people because they're not special to me beyond their ability to entertain me. So a miscreant on the field isn't offensive to me at all; instead, it's just another humor opportunity awaiting.And I don't think the good fans of Kansas City or Carolina, for example, really need to have their feelings overly considered if Al Davis wants to hire Mike Vick. I don't think they'll boycott the NFL because an ex-con got a job in the league. On the other hand, it's fine by me if they voice their displeasure at their own team considering doing the same thing. Variety is good.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

If you still want your pound of flesh, go to his games and boo him. It's football, not a morality play. In fact, football is a pretty good outlet for ex-cons; they're not being asked to handle someone else's money or supervise small children.

It isn't about a pound of flesh, and it isn't a morality play. It's a business decision.Is he good for the NFL? You can debate what the best business decision IS, but that's all that Goodell needs to worry about. That is what seems to be contrary to what so many folks around here seem to think (and really the only thing that bothers me, I don't care THAT much whether he is reinstated or not). They seem to imply Vick has a god-given right to play football for the NFL. He doesn't. If his multitude of moronic decisions and legal problems happen to cost him his career, oh well. It's happened to better men.No, there is no supervision of small children. But there is most certainly a "family" aspect to the NFL. It's a public entertainment business (these guys aren't actually doing anything productive, their SOLE purpose is to provide a spectacle for the masses). For better or worse, pro athletes are guys kids look up to and cheer for. Is it good to have those kids looking up to Mike Vick? If the parents determine, "No - it really isn't" and therefore go away from the game, the NFL loses. Which brings us back to the business decision. You CAN make arguments in the other direction, and I can actually see some of them making sense. Just don't give me this crap about "Mike has paid for what he did, so the league should bend over backwards to help him out now." He made his bed (and again, not just with the dog thing, read his wikipedia entry when you have a lot of spare to get through the "Incidents, criminal troubles" section), and he can lie in it.

Of course it's a business decision and I have come to respect Mr. Goodell's need to make it on those grounds alone. However, the reason it's a business decision is because of the many fans who want punishment above and beyond that which the civil authorities impose. I'm urging those people to let up a little.As for the children who might be watching, this could be a good lesson to them about how society works, especially if we took this decision out of the commissioner's office, which I have long urged. I'd rather the individual teams have the power to decide, as they have the best read on their own fan bases. Our kids are gonna run into ex-cons somewhere along the way in life and maybe it's a good thing to see one rebound from his crimes. I'm not sure where the theory began that ex-cons should be relegated to washing dishes for the rest of their lives but it's been voiced on this board more than once.I might have missed it but I don't remember anybody urging the league to "bend over backwards" to help Vick. Because we're not offended by his presence on the field, some of us would just like the NFL to give him a fair shake. If teams want to avoid him because of the PR hit, I'm actually fine with that. But if an Al Davis or Steve Bisciotti wants to sign 'im up, I'd like them to be able to do so without interference from the rest of the league's fans and the league office.

So it's a call to fans to "let up". Why? Again, actions like Vick's almost ALWAYS have ramifications above and beyond the civil punishment. Why should Vick be different? Because he's really cleaned up his act since he got busted? Don't see any evidence of that at all. The guy failed a piss test after he was released on bond, then improperly yanked funds from some retirement account to pay for the court imposed payment to help the dogs recover.Why should I, as an NFL fan who essentially pays his salary, be interested in seeing Michael Vick continue to be paid millions of dollars to play football? I have ZERO interest in seeing that. I'm MUCH more interested in giving millions of dollars to some other schmo who is more likely to be a decent human being. I don't want to see the guy dead. I don't care WHAT he does with his life from this point forward - if he is contrite and changes his ways, good for him in all seriousness. I hope he does. I'd be surprised because I don't think it's easy to be that kind of man and just COMPLETELY become somebody else, but if he can and does, then GREAT - one less loser on the streets. But none of that requires him to be a millionaire football player in the NFL. He had his shot at that, and he blew it again and again. "Sorry I gave you the herpes when I knew damn well I had it lady, here's some hush money." "I don't know hidden compartment in my water bottle came from officer!". "Dog fighting? Never heard anything about it. I was never there Mr. Blank". He's been playing "above the law" for YEARS. An apology written by an agent followed by business as usual just isn't what I want to spend my ticket price money on.As for the kids, I think we will just differ on that. A guy who has his history is just better off not a role model at all, or more specifically, a role model for what NOT to do with your life if you happen to be gifted. Do we need redemption stories? Sure, I'm all for them. How bout the story where Micahel Vick isn't a multi-millionaire prima-dona anymore, but becomes a hard-working average joe, but a model citizen working to change the culture that turned him into the animal he is (or was). THAT's a redemption story I can get behind. I have lot more trouble with, "Man, I sure am sorry, I'll never do it again. But I'd like to pick up where I left off please. What do you say?". We don't need the latter story. It doesn't show anything or mean anything.He had it all, and he threw it away. That's as good a life-lesson as anything we would ever get from Vick in the NFL going forward.As for letting each team decide what to do about Vick - that isn't Goodell's job. His job is to protect the league as a whole. Why should the NFL (as an ORGANIZATION of teams) ever suspend anybody for anything? Just let the individual teams do it. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. There just might be a whack job owner out there senile enough to let Vick be Vick, but it's still Goodell's job to prevent that from happening if it's not good for the league (just like with all of the other suspensions).

It doesn't look like we're gonna find much common ground, does it? Every time I use the phrase "I'm urging people to......" it seems to get folks really fired up. I guess I've got to express myself differently.I guess I don't care much about the players as people because they're not special to me beyond their ability to entertain me. So a miscreant on the field isn't offensive to me at all; instead, it's just another humor opportunity awaiting.And I don't think the good fans of Kansas City or Carolina, for example, really need to have their feelings overly considered if Al Davis wants to hire Mike Vick. I don't think they'll boycott the NFL because an ex-con got a job in the league. On the other hand, it's fine by me if they voice their displeasure at their own team considering doing the same thing. Variety is good.

Actually I don't think we are THAT far off on our assessments. I'm OK with people making their own decisions about whether being a scumbag matters in the NFL. MY decision is that it does. I don't like cheering for scumbags. I don't like watching them rake in millions of dollars. If that makes me "holier than thou", I'm cool with that. I'd never ask for saints, but at some point, I just say "You know what, I don't want to watch that guy play football anymore.".I'm also OK with Goodell making the business decision that Vick is OK for the NFL, if he thinks that there are more people like you than like me. It's a business, and it's there to make money.The only thing I'm NOT OK with, is the general perception that Michael Vick has the RIGHT to play in the NFL. That's just dead wrong. He may get that privilege again, but but their are no rights involved. No one and no organization OWES Michale Vick anything (in fact you can easily make the case for the converse). He has not EARNED anything by doing time, as some have suggested. Cry me a river that his career is in the toilet and he's "broke" (but still demanding three high-end luxury vehicles and several mansions as part of his bankruptcy settlement.) He had a lot and he lost a lot, but as an absolute disgrace of a human being, he's still doing alright for himself. I get the distinct impression that some folks actually feel BAD for Vick, and that he DESERVES more out of life than the random Joes who weren't blessed with that amazing talent, but might actually be decent people. That's a bit twisted in my book. I don't think you personally are in this category, but there seem to be a lot of folks who are.

 

[abricru]

"We don't want you to work for our organization, because you aren't good for it.".

right - let each team decide if they want him

I'm just glad he won't be playing for my team. He can't pass worth a ****

 

[Truman]

Goodell is playing it smart. If he goes ahead and reinstates him without argument, there will be a whole lot of people ready to protest. However, if he interviews Vick, says that he believes Vick is genuinely remorseful, that Vick recognizes that what he did was cruel and inhuman, and that he is prepared to make amends any way he can, then Goodell, after a period of probation, can give him the green light and undercut much (but not all) of the protests. Some will never forgive Vick; but most people would be willing to give him another chance.

Goodell has already shown in the past that he doesn't know when Vick is being genuine or not. Vick lied to him in his face in the past when Goodell asked him about dog fighting, and Goodell believed him. It turned out Vick lied to him.

I suppose Vick should have considered the consequences of lying at that point. If the commish doesn't believe him this time around, who can really blame him?Does Vick deserve a second chance? If he's really sorry, then yes.Do I care either way and will I shed any tears for Vick if he never plays another down again? Of course not.

Doesn't this really expose Goodell's ability to pass judgement? He couldn't even tell when the guy lied to his face, now he's going to determine whether or not he's remorseful?

 

[Truman]

once a person is punished for what they did by way of a fulfilled prison sentence, a second chance at life is what they've earnedyes, EARNED - because through our judicial system they have paid the price for what they did and the system has deemed them fit to return to societydon't forget what they did, don't place blind trust where it shouldn't be placed ........ Vick was involved in dog fighting. He didn't kill anyone. He isn't a rapist. He isn't a child molester. He has every right to go back to work in the NFL as anyone else does.Goodell's job is to keep intact the integrity of the league and by placing a good faith foot forward, accepting Vick as a changed man, that will show volumes. Besides, if he doesn't let Vick back he'll be labeled racist for it - so Vick WILL be allowed back, where and what position is yet to be determined. I'll never be a fan, though he is an electric player to watch.

I consider what Vick did about as bad as child molestation.

This is what's wrong with democracy.