If Vick is found guilty, should he be banned from NFL? (1 Viewer)

[TheGreatest]

Asuming he plea bargains and gets off with a minimal sentence like most stars do, I think if Michael Vick is found guilty he should be banned from the NFL for life. NFL needs to set an example that things like this will not be tolerated.

Now I know there is potential for him to go to prison for 6 years, but lets be honest, he is a star and that almost never happens. See OJ

What say you?

 

[Two Deep]

Only during the minimum 5 years he should be required to serve inthe pen.

 

[cobalt_27]

Yes.

 

[vitaflo]

If he's found guilty he probably will be in jail until he's too old to play anyway.

Now I know there is potential for him to go to prison for 6 years, but lets be honest, he is a star and that almost never happens. See OJ

These are the feds, totally different ballgame. Everyone keeps forgetting that. He's not gonna be cut any slack.

 

[cobalt_27]

If he's found guilty he probably will be in jail until he's too old to play anyway.

A guy like Moon or Testaverde would play in their 40s because they could actually play the position without relying on the run. But, for a tool like Vick who clearly doesn't "quarterback" very consistently and needs his legs, his jail term would wipe away the best years his legs can provide. If convicted, his career is done.

 

[-jb-]

He should be treated like every other player that has been convicted of a felony. I'm not sure what precedent there is (i'm sure there is SOME), but bottom line is that the collective bargaining agreement is in place to avoid any arbitrary or capricious decisions, disciplinary or otherwise. This may mean a permanent ban (again, deferring to precedent), it may not. HOWEVER, I highly doubt that any team owner would sign him after this fiasco, given the PR implications. That's where the court of public opinion flexes it's muscle.

 

[Mr. Bill O'Reilly]

Nope... If he's guilty I hope he does some time in prison, but I think after his time is up he has done his punishment and should return to the NFL. I'm a dog lover and I have a pitt but I do understand it is just an animal and not a human being no matter how sentimental it may be to me. I eat so many animals every year (and they're tastey). I also realize it is in part a cultural thing. Anyone remember the show roots? You know the whole #### fighting they did? Anyways, should def serve time if convicted, but I don't think being banned is a good idea.

 

[Mr. Bill O'Reilly]

I'm surprised so far by the poll results.

 

[TC]

Am also surprised. 3:2 support banishment.

While I'm not favoring Vick or his (likely) action, that seems VERY harsh.

 

[cobalt_27]

Nope... If he's guilty I hope he does some time in prison, but I think after his time is up he has done his punishment and should return to the NFL. I'm a dog lover and I have a pitt but I do understand it is just an animal and not a human being no matter how sentimental it may be to me. I eat so many animals every year (and they're tastey). I also realize it is in part a cultural thing. Anyone remember the show roots? You know the whole #### fighting they did? Anyways, should def serve time if convicted, but I don't think being banned is a good idea.

You may eat them. But, do you slam them down repeatedly to their death? How about soaking them down and then electrocuting them? Hang your dog lately, or do you go the drowning route?I think banishment is a very good idea, if convicted.

 

[ceo3west]

Am also surprised. 3:2 support banishment. While I'm not favoring Vick or his (likely) action, that seems VERY harsh.

What would it take for you, Vick executing humans? Executing dogs would be enough for me.

 

[seahawk 17]

I am no Vick fan, and if convicted would expect him to get prison time. The reality is however, that he is a huge name and won't get banned. If the falcons give him the boot, some team will take him.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I think a lifetime ban is in his future because of the gambling charges.

 

[Yenrub]

If he's found guilty he probably will be in jail until he's too old to play anyway.

Now I know there is potential for him to go to prison for 6 years, but lets be honest, he is a star and that almost never happens. See OJ

These are the feds, totally different ballgame. Everyone keeps forgetting that. He's not gonna be cut any slack.

How much Fed time was Jamal Lewis facing when he was charged? How much time did he actually get?

 

[Yenrub]

Once he serves his time I don't think he should be banned.

 

[sholditch]

Am also surprised. 3:2 support banishment. While I'm not favoring Vick or his (likely) action, that seems VERY harsh.

What would it take for you, Vick executing humans? Executing dogs would be enough for me.

Me too, but seriously

 

[dog214]

Yes I think he should be banned

 

[T Love]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?

In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.

If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

 

[phthalatemagic]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

If that's true, he's a horrible person and should be banned from anything good including football.

 

[Yenrub]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

If the courts say he must serve X amount of years in prison and he serves all those years in prison I don’t have a problem with him playing again.

 

[Z-Dog]

The OP says he cops a plea and gets off with a minimal sentence. I assume that means he pleads guilty to lesser charges, and more minor ones, like negligently allowing use of his property.

I think that if he doesn't go to jail, but cops a plea, he should be suspended for a year. If he goes to jail, he should be suspended indefinitely, at least a year, and have to apply for reinstatement. Decide then if you think he's turned it around.

 

[Angus82]

He's been dogging it from day one. If Mike thinks that he is innocent, he is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Mr. Bill O'Reilly]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

Because I'm not a woman?Seriously... He killed some dogs. Was it despicable? Yep. Cruel? Yep. Does he deserve to serve time in prison (debatable). If he is convicted and serves time, his debt to society is paid and I would have no beef with him returning. I think this is just overreaction and a combination of a lot of Vick hate. Dogs are animals, they're property, and while what he did was cruel, they were his property. If those dogs got out and ate a baby, who is responsible the dog or the owner? That's because dogs are just animals... I'm sure fish don't like being caught by a hook and then "cleaned" while still alive. I'm sure flies don't like being swatted or getting stuck to that sticky film stuff. I'm sure turtles don't want to be soup and cattle don't want their horns removed (painful stuff). You guys sound like a bunch of PETA members. Maybe you shouldn't be enslaving dogs, they should be free to live their lives lmao. You know in Korea they eat dog? Anyways it's all cultural... One man's dog is another man's fish. Sometimes I think the very laws in place to protect dogs and cats are stupid and prejudicial. But if the guy is going to jail and through this public humiliation, I think he's been punished more than enough.

 

[Keith Lewis]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

So you're saying anyone who goes to prison who gets out on parole should not be allowed to work?

 

[a_rackowski]

No - I think dog fighting is probably a lot more popular in NFL circles than we know right now.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I don't think it matters, because I'll be very surprised if he ever takes another snap in the league. Unless he's proven innocent somehow, I can't imagine that the Falcons (or any team) would put him behind center with a stadium full of dog lovers. If I knew he was starting, I wouldn't go to the game and I certainly wouldn't bring a kid to the game. I think a lot of fans would feel that way.

That doesn't count the PETA protests in every city and the general uproar of putting someone like that on your team. Nothing in professional sports really shocks me, but I think this is the end of his career if it isn't dropped. You can beat your wife, you can do drugs, you can steal...but you can't torture and kill a dog. Like it or not, that's the truth.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

So you're saying anyone who goes to prison who gets out on parole should not be allowed to work?

No. they didnt say Vick couldnt get a job elsewhere. They said in the NFL.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

No - I think dog fighting is probably a lot more popular in NFL circles than we know right now.

And its the same for many gangster cultures out there right now.

 

[Angus82]

I don't think it matters, because I'll be very surprised if he ever takes another snap in the league. Unless he's proven innocent somehow, I can't imagine that the Falcons (or any team) would put him behind center with a stadium full of dog lovers. If I knew he was starting, I wouldn't go to the game and I certainly wouldn't bring a kid to the game. I think a lot of fans would feel that way.That doesn't count the PETA protests in every city and the general uproar of putting someone like that on your team. Nothing in professional sports really shocks me, but I think this is the end of his career if it isn't dropped. You can beat your wife, you can do drugs, you can steal...but you can't torture and kill a dog. Like it or not, that's the truth.

Sad but True. These guys make millions but they have no class. Beating women, doing drugs, carrying guns. They have no clue. How is it that you have the world by the stones but yet you urinate it away?? Good Luck Gents.

 

[T Love]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?

In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.

If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

Because I'm not a woman?Seriously... He killed some dogs. Was it despicable? Yep. Cruel? Yep. Does he deserve to serve time in prison (debatable). If he is convicted and serves time, his debt to society is paid and I would have no beef with him returning. I think this is just overreaction and a combination of a lot of Vick hate. Dogs are animals, they're property, and while what he did was cruel, they were his property. If those dogs got out and ate a baby, who is responsible the dog or the owner? That's because dogs are just animals... I'm sure fish don't like being caught by a hook and then "cleaned" while still alive. I'm sure flies don't like being swatted or getting stuck to that sticky film stuff. I'm sure turtles don't want to be soup and cattle don't want their horns removed (painful stuff). You guys sound like a bunch of PETA members. Maybe you shouldn't be enslaving dogs, they should be free to live their lives lmao. You know in Korea they eat dog? Anyways it's all cultural... One man's dog is another man's fish. Sometimes I think the very laws in place to protect dogs and cats are stupid and prejudicial. But if the guy is going to jail and through this public humiliation, I think he's been punished more than enough.

That is incredible if you think that someone who raised dogs to kill other dogs, as well as tortured animals doesn't deserve prison time. Just because an animal is your "property" does not give you the right to torture because a dog is not vicuous enough. It's not about being a woman or a member of PETA, it is about being a HUMAN BEING. Also you are right about if a dog goes out and eats a baby it is the owners that are responsible. It is amazing, but I think that I have heard that once or twice the dog is also held responsible and is put to death too.In Korea they also hold dogs as pets (it is just a special kind of breed for consumption only that is eaten, not some random Golden Retriever). If we are going to take your cultural standard to extremes (you know one man's dog is another man's fish), then in many cultures wives are considered property. By your rational, men could torture and do whatever they wanted to their wives since it is cultural, and according to your standards you are able to treat your property however you wish.

I can't believe you (and I am sure many others out there) would defend these actions as you are trying to do so. The entire process needs to be played out, but if found guilty, I hope he and his associates go to prison for a long time.

 

[BigRed]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

Because I'm not a woman?Seriously... He killed some dogs. Was it despicable? Yep. Cruel? Yep. Does he deserve to serve time in prison (debatable). If he is convicted and serves time, his debt to society is paid and I would have no beef with him returning. I think this is just overreaction and a combination of a lot of Vick hate. Dogs are animals, they're property, and while what he did was cruel, they were his property. If those dogs got out and ate a baby, who is responsible the dog or the owner? That's because dogs are just animals... I'm sure fish don't like being caught by a hook and then "cleaned" while still alive. I'm sure flies don't like being swatted or getting stuck to that sticky film stuff. I'm sure turtles don't want to be soup and cattle don't want their horns removed (painful stuff). You guys sound like a bunch of PETA members. Maybe you shouldn't be enslaving dogs, they should be free to live their lives lmao. You know in Korea they eat dog? Anyways it's all cultural... One man's dog is another man's fish. Sometimes I think the very laws in place to protect dogs and cats are stupid and prejudicial. But if the guy is going to jail and through this public humiliation, I think he's been punished more than enough.

sweet, I knew the apologists wouldn't let me down LMAO @ "it's all cultural" you go Portis!

 

[FFCrazy]

If he's convicted, I don't see how any sponsor or team would ever touch him again.

There's no way Nike is ever going to cut him another check, and I really think he would get booed out of the stadium if he tried to make a come back.

You can do drugs, beat your wife, be just an absolute blithering idiot in all aspects of life (except football), and the general public will probably cut you some slack just so they can watch you score on Sunday....but beating, torturing and killing man's best friend...he might as well have just slit his own wrists.

 

[cobalt_27]

I voted no for the simplest reasons. A) You can achieve the same effect informally without risking the legal and PR ramificationsB) You don't risk setting off a labor dispute with the NFLPAEven if everyone in the NFLPA hated Vick, think about the long term ramifications of a lifetime ban that didn't involve gambling, it's a dangerous slippery slope and the players union would fight it tooth and nail. Consider that the NFL has had unprecedented growth and success because Tags knew he had a weak players union but he never tried to make them lose face to the public. His last act, in fact, was to make some concessions to the NFLPA, mostly to ensure Goodells transition smoothly and to end his personal legacy in the NFL on a high note. Clipping Vick is taking away his right to earn. That's a very very complicated issue that would send shockwaves throughout all facets of the current CBA. The language of current contracts would be under scrutiny. Veteran players would fear there was another way to jettison what little guaranteed money they do get now. It's not as simple as saying, "Yeah, let's whack Michael Vick from the NFL" Goodell wants to leave a legacy of tough justice, not vengeance. There's a difference. Do you think he wants to end up like Bud Selig in terms of perception this early in his career? You clip Vick, he sues. What choice does he have? You back him into a corner. Then this becomes front page news and then Vick will inevitably pull the race card out. The spotlight will focus on a weak players union then Ditka and crew will use it as a pulpit to point out how veterans and older players are getting screwed. Anyone with an ax to grind with the NFL will pile on. Yes public sentiment is against Vick RIGHT NOW. But give it a year and most players will not care about those dogs, they will care about new rules that will make it harder for them to survive in the NFL. Michael Vick isn't worth the risk of starting a chain of events that could catalyze a labor dispute for the future. Remember when MLB baseball owners got tagged for widespread collusion decades ago, it was a series of smaller events that brought that situation to a head. Punish Vick to the point where having a career is unlikely or undesirable. Let him do himself in. Don't walk in, clip him and have him turn into some kind of potential labor martyr a year later.

This does involve gambling, so the ban would have some precedent to back it up. Plus, Vick's a first-rate ##### and the antithesis of how the league wants to portray itself. So, along with electrocuting dogs and pounding them to their death, which kinda sort rubs some people the wrong way, he gambled on the whole thing, and that's Goodell's easy out. I don't think the NFLPA is going to use Vick as their excuse to grow a backbone and start a fight. Goodell would ban him, and then the NFLPA would come back and say, "Really?! You sure about that? Well...he is a convicted felon, who hanged, strangled, and electrocuted man's best friend, and bet on the whole thing, to boot. Whatever you say, Roger...we ain't going to bat for this guy."

 

[cobalt_27]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

So you're saying anyone who goes to prison who gets out on parole should not be allowed to work?

He can work. Just not for a company that doesn't want to hire him. He can't force himself on just any job, just like you and me.

 

[cobalt_27]

The OP says he cops a plea and gets off with a minimal sentence. I assume that means he pleads guilty to lesser charges, and more minor ones, like negligently allowing use of his property.I think that if he doesn't go to jail, but cops a plea, he should be suspended for a year. If he goes to jail, he should be suspended indefinitely, at least a year, and have to apply for reinstatement. Decide then if you think he's turned it around.

 

[roadkill1292]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

So you're saying anyone who goes to prison who gets out on parole should not be allowed to work?

He can work. Just not for a company that doesn't want to hire him. He can't force himself on just any job, just like you and me.

That would be fine if the "company" wasn't defined as the NFL. The companies should be the Oakland Raiders, Detroit Lions, etc. After the civil authorities have had their day, it should be up to each of the 32 "companies" to decided whether or not to offer a former offender employment, not Mr. Goodell. That's not the way it is, but that's the way I think it should be.I'm surprised at these poll results, too. I thought the spread would have been much greater. Obviously, I voted no.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I voted no for the simplest reasons. A) You can achieve the same effect informally without risking the legal and PR ramificationsB) You don't risk setting off a labor dispute with the NFLPAEven if everyone in the NFLPA hated Vick, think about the long term ramifications of a lifetime ban that didn't involve gambling, it's a dangerous slippery slope and the players union would fight it tooth and nail. Consider that the NFL has had unprecedented growth and success because Tags knew he had a weak players union but he never tried to make them lose face to the public. His last act, in fact, was to make some concessions to the NFLPA, mostly to ensure Goodells transition smoothly and to end his personal legacy in the NFL on a high note. Clipping Vick is taking away his right to earn. That's a very very complicated issue that would send shockwaves throughout all facets of the current CBA. The language of current contracts would be under scrutiny. Veteran players would fear there was another way to jettison what little guaranteed money they do get now. It's not as simple as saying, "Yeah, let's whack Michael Vick from the NFL" Goodell wants to leave a legacy of tough justice, not vengeance. There's a difference. Do you think he wants to end up like Bud Selig in terms of perception this early in his career? You clip Vick, he sues. What choice does he have? You back him into a corner. Then this becomes front page news and then Vick will inevitably pull the race card out. The spotlight will focus on a weak players union then Ditka and crew will use it as a pulpit to point out how veterans and older players are getting screwed. Anyone with an ax to grind with the NFL will pile on. Yes public sentiment is against Vick RIGHT NOW. But give it a year and most players will not care about those dogs, they will care about new rules that will make it harder for them to survive in the NFL. Michael Vick isn't worth the risk of starting a chain of events that could catalyze a labor dispute for the future. Remember when MLB baseball owners got tagged for widespread collusion decades ago, it was a series of smaller events that brought that situation to a head. Punish Vick to the point where having a career is unlikely or undesirable. Let him do himself in. Don't walk in, clip him and have him turn into some kind of potential labor martyr a year later.

I think you are over analyzing this. It's going to go to an arbitrator at that stage and Vick's not going to be playing no matter what the result is because he will be black-listed. He won't be a martyr because the NFL might not even have to suspend him. Atlanta could sue Vick for breach of contract if he is unable to play because of his legal problems, they would then release him, and then he will just rot. No one is going to take the PR plunge with a player who was convicted of fighting, killing, and gambling on dogs. Maybe not even the CFL.

 

[cobalt_27]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?

In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.

If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

So you're saying anyone who goes to prison who gets out on parole should not be allowed to work?

He can work. Just not for a company that doesn't want to hire him. He can't force himself on just any job, just like you and me.

That would be fine if the "company" wasn't defined as the NFL. The companies should be the Oakland Raiders, Detroit Lions, etc. After the civil authorities have had their day, it should be up to each of the 32 "companies" to decided whether or not to offer a former offender employment, not Mr. Goodell. That's not the way it is, but that's the way I think it should be.I'm surprised at these poll results, too. I thought the spread would have been much greater. Obviously, I voted no.

We know. You've been a shill for Vick from day one. Vick represents the NFL first, and foremost. After that, he employs his services to one of the many franchises that work under the NFL umbrella. Those "companies" don't operate independently, you do understand this, I hope. Goodell does run the show here. And, he has every right to say, "You don't represent us, anymore. I won't allow you to represent us, anymore," and the individual franchises that operate under Goodell's watch will not be able to draw up a contract for Vick, which must be signed by the league office.

Civil authorities won't have a day with any of this. I mean, unless they really decide that (a) Vick is worth it and (b) that we should break up the NFL, no one's going to touch this.

 

[Mapmaker]

I voted NO ... I don't think it will be necessary!

If he's convicted of this stuff he'd be far too much a public embarassment to any team to ever think for one second that he'd get another chance to play in the NFL

I think he'll end up a butt-boy for some new "best friend" named Bubba that he'll meet in the not too distant future!

 

[roadkill1292]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?

In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.

If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

So you're saying anyone who goes to prison who gets out on parole should not be allowed to work?

He can work. Just not for a company that doesn't want to hire him. He can't force himself on just any job, just like you and me.

That would be fine if the "company" wasn't defined as the NFL. The companies should be the Oakland Raiders, Detroit Lions, etc. After the civil authorities have had their day, it should be up to each of the 32 "companies" to decided whether or not to offer a former offender employment, not Mr. Goodell. That's not the way it is, but that's the way I think it should be.I'm surprised at these poll results, too. I thought the spread would have been much greater. Obviously, I voted no.

We know. You've been a shill for Vick from day one. Vick represents the NFL first, and foremost. After that, he employs his services to one of the many franchises that work under the NFL umbrella. Those "companies" don't operate independently, you do understand this, I hope. Goodell does run the show here. And, he has every right to say, "You don't represent us, anymore. I won't allow you to represent us, anymore," and the individual franchises that operate under Goodell's watch will not be able to draw up a contract for Vick, which must be signed by the league office.

Civil authorities won't have a day with any of this. I mean, unless they really decide that (a) Vick is worth it and (b) that we should break up the NFL, no one's going to touch this.

I really don't care about Michael Vick one way or the other. Or any of the other players who have off-field problems, either. I'm opposed in principle to the league's disciplinary policies. If the player has paid the consequences with the state/federal authorities (and they should be treated like everyone else), then the only reason the NFL has for suspending them is for PR purposes. They don't have to do this on my account because I don't care. It's clear that I'm in the minority on this issue (though not as much so as I thought, judging from these poll results) but I urge the rest of you to adopt the same posture as well.I stated clearly that I understood that the league office takes the lead on disciplinary issues, not the individual teams. I think it shouldn't be this way.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I really don't care about Michael Vick one way or the other. Or any of the other players who have off-field problems, either. I'm opposed in principle to the league's disciplinary policies. If the player has paid the consequences with the state/federal authorities (and they should be treated like everyone else), then the only reason the NFL has for suspending them is for PR purposes. They don't have to do this on my account because I don't care. It's clear that I'm in the minority on this issue (though not as much so as I thought, judging from these poll results) but I urge the rest of you to adopt the same posture as well.

I stated clearly that I understood that the league office takes the lead on disciplinary issues, not the individual teams. I think it shouldn't be this way.

Well I'm gonna disagree with you here. If I am convicted of a DUI I would likely lose my job. If I or almost anyone else here got a felony conviction for something they did away from work they are very likely to lose their jobs. It's not about the NFL's disciplinary policy it is about common sense and standard practices in just about any organization in America. You stick up a liquor store after you leave your accounting job, don't bother coming in tomorrow. Seems right to me.

 

[jurb26]

I certainly support the NFL in doing whatever it feels is best for them in this decision. Personally, I don't think a lifetime ban is necessary though. Vick will likely serve prison time for his actions (if found guilty). My guess is that time will be about 2-3 years. I could see a 4 or 5 year suspension, but lifetime just seems a bit knee-jerk right now. If Vick can keep himself out of trouble for 5 solid years, lets face it he will have to be spotless, then I think a 2nd chance should at least be possible.

 

[zed2283]

For all of you voting no, how can you read the below statement and still vote that way?In or about April of 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road by various methods, including hanging, drowning and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground.If these details are true (which is the assumption of the original poster) than he is a dispicable human being and should be in jail for a LONG time. Anyone who shows complete and total disregard for life by killing it in such a brutal manner should not be allowed on the streets, let alone play a game.

Because I'm not a woman?Seriously... He killed some dogs. Was it despicable? Yep. Cruel? Yep. Does he deserve to serve time in prison (debatable). If he is convicted and serves time, his debt to society is paid and I would have no beef with him returning. I think this is just overreaction and a combination of a lot of Vick hate. Dogs are animals, they're property, and while what he did was cruel, they were his property. If those dogs got out and ate a baby, who is responsible the dog or the owner? That's because dogs are just animals... I'm sure fish don't like being caught by a hook and then "cleaned" while still alive. I'm sure flies don't like being swatted or getting stuck to that sticky film stuff. I'm sure turtles don't want to be soup and cattle don't want their horns removed (painful stuff). You guys sound like a bunch of PETA members. Maybe you shouldn't be enslaving dogs, they should be free to live their lives lmao. You know in Korea they eat dog? Anyways it's all cultural... One man's dog is another man's fish. Sometimes I think the very laws in place to protect dogs and cats are stupid and prejudicial. But if the guy is going to jail and through this public humiliation, I think he's been punished more than enough.

I agree with the bottom line here. It's pretty stupid to suggest a lifetime ban from the NFL for committing a crime. Once he does his time, then that's it.

 

[roadkill1292]

I really don't care about Michael Vick one way or the other. Or any of the other players who have off-field problems, either. I'm opposed in principle to the league's disciplinary policies. If the player has paid the consequences with the state/federal authorities (and they should be treated like everyone else), then the only reason the NFL has for suspending them is for PR purposes. They don't have to do this on my account because I don't care. It's clear that I'm in the minority on this issue (though not as much so as I thought, judging from these poll results) but I urge the rest of you to adopt the same posture as well.

I stated clearly that I understood that the league office takes the lead on disciplinary issues, not the individual teams. I think it shouldn't be this way.

Well I'm gonna disagree with you here. If I am convicted of a DUI I would likely lose my job. If I or almost anyone else here got a felony conviction for something they did away from work they are very likely to lose their jobs. It's not about the NFL's disciplinary policy it is about common sense and standard practices in just about any organization in America. You stick up a liquor store after you leave your accounting job, don't bother coming in tomorrow. Seems right to me.

Based on the number of DUIs that occur every year, I don't think this is as common an occurrence as you are implying. Those people have to work somewhere. Anecdotally, it hasn't happened around me, at least not for one-time offenders.Again, except for PR purposes, there's no real reason for the NFL to have these policies, either. And if people would just look past this, it wouldn't affect their ability to perform. I can't buy the "it's a privilege to play in the NFL" nor the "held to a higher standard" arguments; they just don't mean anything to me. Except for their athletic abilities, the players aren't anything special. They're just meat.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I really don't care about Michael Vick one way or the other. Or any of the other players who have off-field problems, either. I'm opposed in principle to the league's disciplinary policies. If the player has paid the consequences with the state/federal authorities (and they should be treated like everyone else), then the only reason the NFL has for suspending them is for PR purposes. They don't have to do this on my account because I don't care. It's clear that I'm in the minority on this issue (though not as much so as I thought, judging from these poll results) but I urge the rest of you to adopt the same posture as well.

I stated clearly that I understood that the league office takes the lead on disciplinary issues, not the individual teams. I think it shouldn't be this way.

Well I'm gonna disagree with you here. If I am convicted of a DUI I would likely lose my job. If I or almost anyone else here got a felony conviction for something they did away from work they are very likely to lose their jobs. It's not about the NFL's disciplinary policy it is about common sense and standard practices in just about any organization in America. You stick up a liquor store after you leave your accounting job, don't bother coming in tomorrow. Seems right to me.

Based on the number of DUIs that occur every year, I don't think this is as common an occurrence as you are implying. Those people have to work somewhere. Anecdotally, it hasn't happened around me, at least not for one-time offenders.

I didn't say a lot of people would get fired for a DUI, I said I would. And regardless we are talking about a felony here. If you don't think 99 percent of the folks on this board wouldn't be fired for committing a felony, I think you'd be wrong.

Again, except for PR purposes, there's no real reason for the NFL to have these policies, either. And if people would just look past this, it wouldn't affect their ability to perform. I can't buy the "it's a privilege to play in the NFL" nor the "held to a higher standard" arguments; they just don't mean anything to me. Except for their athletic abilities, the players aren't anything special. They're just meat.

Right so if they aren't anything special they should be fired for committing a felony. The question was "if" Vick is convicted should he be suspended/banned. The answer is yes, because he's nothing special and the rest of us would be fired from our jobs for doing the very same thing.

 

[Godsbrother]

I really don't care about Michael Vick one way or the other. Or any of the other players who have off-field problems, either. I'm opposed in principle to the league's disciplinary policies. If the player has paid the consequences with the state/federal authorities (and they should be treated like everyone else), then the only reason the NFL has for suspending them is for PR purposes. They don't have to do this on my account because I don't care. It's clear that I'm in the minority on this issue (though not as much so as I thought, judging from these poll results) but I urge the rest of you to adopt the same posture as well.

I stated clearly that I understood that the league office takes the lead on disciplinary issues, not the individual teams. I think it shouldn't be this way.

Well I'm gonna disagree with you here. If I am convicted of a DUI I would likely lose my job. If I or almost anyone else here got a felony conviction for something they did away from work they are very likely to lose their jobs. It's not about the NFL's disciplinary policy it is about common sense and standard practices in just about any organization in America. You stick up a liquor store after you leave your accounting job, don't bother coming in tomorrow. Seems right to me.

Based on the number of DUIs that occur every year, I don't think this is as common an occurrence as you are implying. Those people have to work somewhere. Anecdotally, it hasn't happened around me, at least not for one-time offenders.Again, except for PR purposes, there's no real reason for the NFL to have these policies, either. And if people would just look past this, it wouldn't affect their ability to perform. I can't buy the "it's a privilege to play in the NFL" nor the "held to a higher standard" arguments; they just don't mean anything to me. Except for their athletic abilities, the players aren't anything special. They're just meat.

I have a buddy that was fired for a DUI so it definitely does happen. The Doctor is correct in this case: if you are convicted of a felony you are probably going to be fired from your job. Then after you get out of prison good luck finding another decent job because every job application I've ever seen asks if you've been convicted of a felony. I think Vick has likely taken his last snap in the NFL.

 

[roadkill1292]

I really don't care about Michael Vick one way or the other. Or any of the other players who have off-field problems, either. I'm opposed in principle to the league's disciplinary policies. If the player has paid the consequences with the state/federal authorities (and they should be treated like everyone else), then the only reason the NFL has for suspending them is for PR purposes. They don't have to do this on my account because I don't care. It's clear that I'm in the minority on this issue (though not as much so as I thought, judging from these poll results) but I urge the rest of you to adopt the same posture as well.

I stated clearly that I understood that the league office takes the lead on disciplinary issues, not the individual teams. I think it shouldn't be this way.

Well I'm gonna disagree with you here. If I am convicted of a DUI I would likely lose my job. If I or almost anyone else here got a felony conviction for something they did away from work they are very likely to lose their jobs. It's not about the NFL's disciplinary policy it is about common sense and standard practices in just about any organization in America. You stick up a liquor store after you leave your accounting job, don't bother coming in tomorrow. Seems right to me.

Based on the number of DUIs that occur every year, I don't think this is as common an occurrence as you are implying. Those people have to work somewhere. Anecdotally, it hasn't happened around me, at least not for one-time offenders.Again, except for PR purposes, there's no real reason for the NFL to have these policies, either. And if people would just look past this, it wouldn't affect their ability to perform. I can't buy the "it's a privilege to play in the NFL" nor the "held to a higher standard" arguments; they just don't mean anything to me. Except for their athletic abilities, the players aren't anything special. They're just meat.

I have a buddy that was fired for a DUI so it definitely does happen. The Doctor is correct in this case: if you are convicted of a felony you are probably going to be fired from your job. Then after you get out of prison good luck finding another decent job because every job application I've ever seen asks if you've been convicted of a felony. I think Vick has likely taken his last snap in the NFL.

Of course it happens, I'm not disagreeing with the good doctor at all. I don't think it happens as often as both of you might think. Good people make mistakes, and some employers evaluate their employees as part of a bigger picture. I've known people in the public eye around here who were guilty of a DUI yet remained at their job, though I'm sure they were on thinner ice as a consequence. Of course, some felonies are more egregious than others; employers will evaluate each on an individual basis.The reason NFL players are suspended/banned is because of damage to the league's reputation. I'm saying that it doesn't have to do this on my account. I don't care if it's an ex-con filling the uniform.

 

[Godsbrother]

The reason NFL players are suspended/banned is because of damage to the league's reputation. I'm saying that it doesn't have to do this on my account. I don't care if it's an ex-con filling the uniform.

If the NFL gets the reputation as a league full of thugs then eventually it will have an impact on the bottom line. Maybe not from you but it will turn off some people and advertisers.Then there is the gambling aspect of Vick's case. The NFL is very sensitive to gambling to the point of not allowing commercials advertising Las Vegas during their games. Michael Vick is in serious trouble.

 

[roadkill1292]

The reason NFL players are suspended/banned is because of damage to the league's reputation. I'm saying that it doesn't have to do this on my account. I don't care if it's an ex-con filling the uniform.

If the NFL gets the reputation as a league full of thugs then eventually it will have an impact on the bottom line. Maybe not from you but it will turn off some people and advertisers.Then there is the gambling aspect of Vick's case. The NFL is very sensitive to gambling to the point of not allowing commercials advertising Las Vegas during their games.

Michael Vick is in serious trouble.

It's pretty clear from some of the replies I've gotten in other threads that this is an issue that plucks at many fans' core beliefs. There aren't many of us who don't care if there're some ex-cons filling the uniforms in the games we watch. I'd like to see it not be this way but I'm afraid I'm tilting at windmills here.

 

[bcr8f]

With electocuting dogs and bloody executions I say definitely.