Vick to be suspended 1 year (1 Viewer)

[jeter23]

Yahoo Sports' Jason Cole reports Michael Vick will be suspended for one year by the NFL. The announcement is expected either this week or next.

The league is reportedly intent on taking action before Week 1 so the matter doesn't detract from the buildup to the season. Cole adds that if Vick is found not guilty of charges related to dog fighting, there's a chance commissioner Roger Goodell would allow him to return to the Falcons in-season.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Amdu...o&type=lgns

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

same thing was reported during halftime of the Sea/SD game.

 

[Jedeye]

The league has a lawyer working on the case right now. At question is whether Vick lied to the Commisioner about dogfighting taking place on his property, regardless of whether Vick was involved or not. If they determine that Vick lied, they will then consider it a violation of the league's conduct policy, and Vick will be suspended for the year.

 

[Revo]

But he'll still be eligible for my Fantasy Dogfighting League, right?

 

[smcindoe]

So if he's not guilty, he can come back early.

If he is guilty, he's going to jail for a lot more than one year.

What exactly is this announcement for, again?

 

[Tommy Collins]

The league has a lawyer working on the case right now. At question is whether Vick lied to the Commisioner about dogfighting taking place on his property, regardless of whether Vick was involved or not. If they determine that Vick lied, they will then consider it a violation of the league's conduct policy, and Vick will be suspended for the year.

I had read that he confessed to knowing about it taking place but did not have any involvement before his friends started turning on him. If all it comes down to is a lie, kiss him goodbye.

So if he's not guilty, he can come back early.If he is guilty, he's going to jail for a lot more than one year.What exactly is this announcement for, again?

His trial isn't until November. The season will be over.

 

[proninja]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

he is ban for life by the NFL than pac man should be to

FSU alum represent. :(What sport did you play?

 

[smcindoe]

His trial isn't until November. The season will be over.

Well, yeah, for the Falcons it will be.

 

[bentley]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

he is ban for life by the NFL than pac man should be to

That could be the worst sentence structure I've read in my entire life.

 

[Traders2001]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

Each and every person is judged by their own merits and demerits.And I didnt say what was right or wrong... I said the NFL will regret it. They will lose a ton of revenue.

 

[bentley]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

Each and every person is judged by their own merits and demerits.And I didnt say what was right or wrong... I said the NFL will regret it. They will lose a ton of revenue.

I think I agree with this. Which is kinda too bad. I appreciate the outrage at Vick. I just don't quite get why it's so much greater than the fact that someone like Leonard Little is playing.

 

[John Black]

This could set things up for Vick to return next season. Since the trial isn't till November and say he doesn't do any jail time then the NFL can state he was punished and thus he can return in 08.

Just a theory

 

[twistd]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

I don't think the NFL will have to ban him. He will miss this year. I think he will get convicted, and spend at least two years in jail. He is 27 now. If he misses this year, and then spends two years in jail. He'd be 30 at that point. He'd be out of the game for three years. He hasn't developed as a QB yet. He has potential, but he has quite a ways to go. If he misses three years he is basically starting from scratch. Who wants to take him on at that point? He may be able to sign as a backup. But is the bad pub worth it to sign him? Does he have enough value at that point to make it worth all the hassle, and heat you would get?

 

[twistd]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

Each and every person is judged by their own merits and demerits.And I didnt say what was right or wrong... I said the NFL will regret it. They will lose a ton of revenue.

The NFL would take a hit publicitywise, but they won't lose revenue. The NFL is the most popular sport, and will remain so. Do you really think people will stop watching because they allowed Vick back in the league? The only way it becomes an issue is if Vick is cleared. Otherwise he will do at least a year in jail. That means Goodell won't have to deal with it for two years at least.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

twistd - I cannot stress enough how much I disagree. And I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Despyzer]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

Some criminal acts are much less likely to damage the integrity of the game than high-stakes, interstate gambling rings. Vick needs to be removed from the league - not because of the PR hit or because his offense is more heinous - but on account of the credibility of the the individual performances and outcomes of games being called into question due to the influence of heavy-handed gamblers.

 

[gman8343]

that cheering you hear is from Atlanta's WRs.

 

[twistd]

twistd - I cannot stress enough how much I disagree. And I'll just leave it at that.

Disagree with what? You believe that the NFL will take a big hit if they allow Vick back into the league? There are a lot of factors to look at. When is important. Vick appears to be out for at least a year. The trial will be resolved by then. If he gets convicted, and serves no jail time, then the NFL is in a difficult position. If he gets convicted, and serves time, the issue won't come up until the jail time is over. That could be the 2009, possibly the 2010 season. Who knows whether anyone will be interested at that point? But if Vick gets acquitted, what happens then? IF he gets acquitted I don't see how they can keep him out of the league next year.I said a couple of weeks ago that I think Vick has played his last down in the NFL.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

Each and every person is judged by their own merits and demerits.And I didnt say what was right or wrong... I said the NFL will regret it. They will lose a ton of revenue.

I don't think this would be a revenue problem long term. Baseball didn't lose revenue over the steroids scandal, the NBA isn't going to lose revenue over the Ref gambling scandal, and the NFL won't lose money over Vick. The only time the NFL would lose money is when players go on strike or there is a lockout. In the end, fans will pay money to see talented players and Vick is talented. There will be a well deserved short term reaction (1-2 years) from fans and sponsors over Vick, but America is all about a redemption story. Vick's time for redemption will come and he will get a second chance in the NFL. If guys like Lawrence Phillips, Ryan Leaf, and Leonard Little can get a second chance than so can Vick. The only way Vick gets banned for life is if these gambling charges end up being more serious ala Pete Rose or something like that. But I don't think the dogfighting ends up earning a lifetime ban, even though many would consider it to be worse than the gambling.

 

[Chaka]

Oh and by the way Mike if you are suspended the Falcons can come after you to the tune of $28 million.

Have a nice day.

 

[mad sweeney]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

Some criminal acts are much less likely to damage the integrity of the game than high-stakes, interstate gambling rings. Vick needs to be removed from the league - not because of the PR hit or because his offense is more heinous - but on account of the credibility of the the individual performances and outcomes of games being called into question due to the influence of heavy-handed gamblers.

It's truly the gambling issue that concerns the league more than the dog fighting. The NFL wants zero connection with gambling in any way, especially with the NBA stuff happening right now. And I believe there will be interstate gambling charges as well added on before thsi goes to trial.

 

[Micon]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

he is ban for life by the NFL than pac man should be to

FSU alum represent. What sport did you play?

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Let me preface what I am about to say that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what Vick has allegedly been accused of. I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth PETA lunatic, but I do think that dog fighting is a needlessly cruel event that should have become extinct after Roman times along with bear-baiting and throwing people to the lions.

That said: is the NFL docking Vick's pay for the season? If so, I think that suspending Vick in this way is unconstitutional, or at the very least, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of the US legal system, and a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, Vick -- like anyone charged with an alleged crime (whether that charge be for a caught-red-handed type of murder or a specious claim by an uncredible witness)-- should be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is his legal right as a citizen of the US.

Vick may not have a leg to stand on in terms of disputing the suspension, given that every player in the NFL is contractually bound to adhere to the NFL's conduct policy. But I imagine that code is highly vague and allows for the widest interpretation of good and bad conduct -- and after the fact -- by the NFL brass.

Since when does NFL policy trump a basic tenet granted at the highest level of government, and even international law?

I understand that the court of public opinion is highly influential and often more salient than any judgement handed out by a jury; and of course, the NFL has an image to uphold.

I also understand the principle of Occam's Razor's, and the evidence against Vick makes it more probable than not that indeed, Vick is a complete d-bag.

But that doesn't change the fact that at this point, his alleged crimes are just that -- alleged. As much as I don't think Vick deserves to be paid because of what he may have done, until he is dragged into court and proven guilty, the NFL may be able to sit his ### on the bench, but they should not be able to take away his paycheck.

 

[JaxBill]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

Some criminal acts are much less likely to damage the integrity of the game than high-stakes, interstate gambling rings. Vick needs to be removed from the league - not because of the PR hit or because his offense is more heinous - but on account of the credibility of the the individual performances and outcomes of games being called into question due to the influence of heavy-handed gamblers.

It's truly the gambling issue that concerns the league more than the dog fighting. The NFL wants zero connection with gambling in any way, especially with the NBA stuff happening right now. And I believe there will be interstate gambling charges as well added on before thsi goes to trial.

Exactly. The one-year ban for lying to the commish allows the feds time to bring out the gambling details in court.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Tom...

So its possible that these events never took place on his property?

And the justice system will find it never happend at his house?

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Tom...So its possible that these events never took place on his property? And the justice system will find it never happend at his house?

Anything is possible. Look at the OJ verdict.Either way, it's not for you or I to decide. That's due process' job.

 

[bentley]

Let me preface what I am about to say that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what Vick has allegedly been accused of. I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth PETA lunatic, but I do think that dog fighting is a needlessly cruel event that should have become extinct after Roman times along with bear-baiting and throwing people to the lions.

That said: is the NFL docking Vick's pay for the season? If so, I think that suspending Vick in this way is unconstitutional, or at the very least, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of the US legal system, and a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, Vick -- like anyone charged with an alleged crime (whether that charge be for a caught-red-handed type of murder or a specious claim by an uncredible witness)-- should be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is his legal right as a citizen of the US.

Vick may not have a leg to stand on in terms of disputing the suspension, given that every player in the NFL is contractually bound to adhere to the NFL's conduct policy. But I imagine that code is highly vague and allows for the widest interpretation of good and bad conduct -- and after the fact -- by the NFL brass.

Since when does NFL policy trump a basic tenet granted at the highest level of government, and even international law?

I understand that the court of public opinion is highly influential and often more salient than any judgement handed out by a jury; and of course, the NFL has an image to uphold.

I also understand the principle of Occam's Razor's, and the evidence against Vick makes it more probable than not that indeed, Vick is a complete d-bag.

But that doesn't change the fact that at this point, his alleged crimes are just that -- alleged. As much as I don't think Vick deserves to be paid because of what he may have done, until he is dragged into court and proven guilty, the NFL may be able to sit his ### on the bench, but they should not be able to take away his paycheck.

I'm not sure I see the relationship between employment status and the legal system. If the NFL suspends him, he can go work somewhere else. I'm sure that there are some of us that work for companies that have personnel policies that would allow for suspension/termination in case of a felony indictment.

 

[mad sweeney]

Let me preface what I am about to say that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what Vick has allegedly been accused of. I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth PETA lunatic, but I do think that dog fighting is a needlessly cruel event that should have become extinct after Roman times along with bear-baiting and throwing people to the lions.

That said: is the NFL docking Vick's pay for the season? If so, I think that suspending Vick in this way is unconstitutional, or at the very least, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of the US legal system, and a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, Vick -- like anyone charged with an alleged crime (whether that charge be for a caught-red-handed type of murder or a specious claim by an uncredible witness)-- should be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is his legal right as a citizen of the US.

Vick may not have a leg to stand on in terms of disputing the suspension, given that every player in the NFL is contractually bound to adhere to the NFL's conduct policy. But I imagine that code is highly vague and allows for the widest interpretation of good and bad conduct -- and after the fact -- by the NFL brass.

Since when does NFL policy trump a basic tenet granted at the highest level of government, and even international law?

I understand that the court of public opinion is highly influential and often more salient than any judgement handed out by a jury; and of course, the NFL has an image to uphold.

I also understand the principle of Occam's Razor's, and the evidence against Vick makes it more probable than not that indeed, Vick is a complete d-bag.

But that doesn't change the fact that at this point, his alleged crimes are just that -- alleged. As much as I don't think Vick deserves to be paid because of what he may have done, until he is dragged into court and proven guilty, the NFL may be able to sit his ### on the bench, but they should not be able to take away his paycheck.

Please go back and read the part about the lying to the commish violating the personal conduct code and will earn the suspension. Not the allegations and criminal aspect of it. The NFL's personal conduct code is not bound by the Constitution, but by a contract signed by players and owners.

 

[mad sweeney]

Tom...So its possible that these events never took place on his property? And the justice system will find it never happend at his house?

Anything is possible. Look at the OJ verdict.Either way, it's not for you or I to decide. That's due process' job.

Due process for criminal federal proceedings is different than due process for personal conduct violations in a particular working environment.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Tom...So its possible that these events never took place on his property? And the justice system will find it never happend at his house?

Anything is possible. Look at the OJ verdict.Either way, it's not for you or I to decide. That's due process' job.

No, its not possible.It is possible he is not guilty of certain crimes, but the dogfighting on his property will not be up for discussion. It happend.Just like the killing of Nicole and Ron Goldman happend. That was never up for discussion.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

But he'll still be eligible for my Fantasy Dogfighting League, right?

 

[gianmarco]

Let me preface what I am about to say that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what Vick has allegedly been accused of. I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth PETA lunatic, but I do think that dog fighting is a needlessly cruel event that should have become extinct after Roman times along with bear-baiting and throwing people to the lions.

That said: is the NFL docking Vick's pay for the season? If so, I think that suspending Vick in this way is unconstitutional, or at the very least, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of the US legal system, and a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, Vick -- like anyone charged with an alleged crime (whether that charge be for a caught-red-handed type of murder or a specious claim by an uncredible witness)-- should be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is his legal right as a citizen of the US.

Vick may not have a leg to stand on in terms of disputing the suspension, given that every player in the NFL is contractually bound to adhere to the NFL's conduct policy. But I imagine that code is highly vague and allows for the widest interpretation of good and bad conduct -- and after the fact -- by the NFL brass.



Since when does NFL policy trump a basic tenet granted at the highest level of government, and even international law?

I understand that the court of public opinion is highly influential and often more salient than any judgement handed out by a jury; and of course, the NFL has an image to uphold.

I also understand the principle of Occam's Razor's, and the evidence against Vick makes it more probable than not that indeed, Vick is a complete d-bag.

But that doesn't change the fact that at this point, his alleged crimes are just that -- alleged. As much as I don't think Vick deserves to be paid because of what he may have done, until he is dragged into court and proven guilty, the NFL may be able to sit his ### on the bench, but they should not be able to take away his paycheck.

For the same reason your employer can fire you if he doesn't really like you or not hire you to begin with. And for the same reason your landlord can stop renting a house to you just because they don't like you. If the police come to your house 10 times in one month, but you never get convicted, do you think the landlord has to keep you there? No. Those kinds of things are privileges. Playing in the NFL is a privilege. It's a job, just like most others. Your employer doesn't need to have a guilty verdict of a crime to fire you. They can fire you if they don't like your hair. Don't confuse apples and oranges. Unless there are specific parts of the CBA or Vick's contract that do not permit the NFL to do so (which do not exist), the NFL is in no way obligated to wait for a criminal ruling.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Let me preface what I am about to say that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what Vick has allegedly been accused of. I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth PETA lunatic, but I do think that dog fighting is a needlessly cruel event that should have become extinct after Roman times along with bear-baiting and throwing people to the lions.

That said: is the NFL docking Vick's pay for the season? If so, I think that suspending Vick in this way is unconstitutional, or at the very least, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of the US legal system, and a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, Vick -- like anyone charged with an alleged crime (whether that charge be for a caught-red-handed type of murder or a specious claim by an uncredible witness)-- should be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is his legal right as a citizen of the US.

Vick may not have a leg to stand on in terms of disputing the suspension, given that every player in the NFL is contractually bound to adhere to the NFL's conduct policy. But I imagine that code is highly vague and allows for the widest interpretation of good and bad conduct -- and after the fact -- by the NFL brass.

Since when does NFL policy trump a basic tenet granted at the highest level of government, and even international law?

I understand that the court of public opinion is highly influential and often more salient than any judgement handed out by a jury; and of course, the NFL has an image to uphold.

I also understand the principle of Occam's Razor's, and the evidence against Vick makes it more probable than not that indeed, Vick is a complete d-bag.

But that doesn't change the fact that at this point, his alleged crimes are just that -- alleged. As much as I don't think Vick deserves to be paid because of what he may have done, until he is dragged into court and proven guilty, the NFL may be able to sit his ### on the bench, but they should not be able to take away his paycheck.

I'm not sure I see the relationship between employment status and the legal system. If the NFL suspends him, he can go work somewhere else. I'm sure that there are some of us that work for companies that have personnel policies that would allow for suspension/termination in case of a felony indictment.

Where can Vick work that will earn him the same livelihood that he was earning in the NFL? Corporate personnel policies are a valid analogy. But if found innocent of that felony indictment, I imagine that employee would have a good chance at successfully sueing that company for loss of wages.

 

[gianmarco]

Where can Vick work that will earn him the same livelihood that he was earning in the NFL? Corporate personnel policies are a valid analogy. But if found innocent of that felony indictment, I imagine that employee would have a good chance at successfully sueing that company for loss of wages.

Nowhere, obviously. And who says he should be able to make that same livelihood? Would it be a crime if he had to work for minimum wage?

 

[mad sweeney]

Let me preface what I am about to say that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what Vick has allegedly been accused of. I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth PETA lunatic, but I do think that dog fighting is a needlessly cruel event that should have become extinct after Roman times along with bear-baiting and throwing people to the lions.

That said: is the NFL docking Vick's pay for the season? If so, I think that suspending Vick in this way is unconstitutional, or at the very least, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of the US legal system, and a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, Vick -- like anyone charged with an alleged crime (whether that charge be for a caught-red-handed type of murder or a specious claim by an uncredible witness)-- should be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is his legal right as a citizen of the US.

Vick may not have a leg to stand on in terms of disputing the suspension, given that every player in the NFL is contractually bound to adhere to the NFL's conduct policy. But I imagine that code is highly vague and allows for the widest interpretation of good and bad conduct -- and after the fact -- by the NFL brass.

Since when does NFL policy trump a basic tenet granted at the highest level of government, and even international law?

I understand that the court of public opinion is highly influential and often more salient than any judgement handed out by a jury; and of course, the NFL has an image to uphold.

I also understand the principle of Occam's Razor's, and the evidence against Vick makes it more probable than not that indeed, Vick is a complete d-bag.

But that doesn't change the fact that at this point, his alleged crimes are just that -- alleged. As much as I don't think Vick deserves to be paid because of what he may have done, until he is dragged into court and proven guilty, the NFL may be able to sit his ### on the bench, but they should not be able to take away his paycheck.

I'm not sure I see the relationship between employment status and the legal system. If the NFL suspends him, he can go work somewhere else. I'm sure that there are some of us that work for companies that have personnel policies that would allow for suspension/termination in case of a felony indictment.

Where can Vick work that will earn him the same livelihood that he was earning in the NFL? Corporate personnel policies are a valid analogy. But if found innocent of that felony indictment, I imagine that employee would have a good chance at successfully sueing that company for loss of wages.

But he is not being suspended for the charges. He is being suspended for lying to the Commissioner and thus violating the Conduct Code. Even if innocent, his reason for being suspended would still be valid.

 

[3C's]

Where can Vick work that will earn him the same livelihood that he was earning in the NFL? Corporate personnel policies are a valid analogy. But if found innocent of that felony indictment, I imagine that employee would have a good chance at successfully sueing that company for loss of wages.

Would it be a crime if he had to work for minimum wage?

No, but it sure would be funny! "Would you like some fries wif dat?"

 

[1huskerfan]

Let me preface what I am about to say that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what Vick has allegedly been accused of. I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth PETA lunatic, but I do think that dog fighting is a needlessly cruel event that should have become extinct after Roman times along with bear-baiting and throwing people to the lions.

That said: is the NFL docking Vick's pay for the season? If so, I think that suspending Vick in this way is unconstitutional, or at the very least, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of the US legal system, and a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, Vick -- like anyone charged with an alleged crime (whether that charge be for a caught-red-handed type of murder or a specious claim by an uncredible witness)-- should be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is his legal right as a citizen of the US.

Vick may not have a leg to stand on in terms of disputing the suspension, given that every player in the NFL is contractually bound to adhere to the NFL's conduct policy. But I imagine that code is highly vague and allows for the widest interpretation of good and bad conduct -- and after the fact -- by the NFL brass.

Since when does NFL policy trump a basic tenet granted at the highest level of government, and even international law?

I understand that the court of public opinion is highly influential and often more salient than any judgement handed out by a jury; and of course, the NFL has an image to uphold.

I also understand the principle of Occam's Razor's, and the evidence against Vick makes it more probable than not that indeed, Vick is a complete d-bag.

But that doesn't change the fact that at this point, his alleged crimes are just that -- alleged. As much as I don't think Vick deserves to be paid because of what he may have done, until he is dragged into court and proven guilty, the NFL may be able to sit his ### on the bench, but they should not be able to take away his paycheck.

Hey, I was fired from my job in college and I was NEVER convicted of a crime, much less a felony. Do you know a good lawyer who can get me a good chunk of change? I think my constitutional rights were violated too.

 

[3C's]

Interesting comment at PFT: Before Vick was indicted, we'd heard from several sources that NFL security believed that Vick was involved in dog fighting, and that the NFL had a strong role in pressing the federal government to get involved.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I appreciate the outrage at Vick. I just don't quite get why it's so much greater than the fact that someone like Leonard Little is playing.

I think the difference is intent and malice. I don't think you'd get anyone here who would argue (fisherman aside) who would argue that a random dog's life is worth more than a random person's life. Little exercised some bad judgement, that probably at least half the people reading this now have done at some point in their life....getting behind the wheel after you've had too many. For most of us, it worked out fine. For Little, it obviously didn't. Vick ALLEGEDLY tortured and killed dogs with his bare hands.

I think the difference in outrage is that there are a whole lot of us, had luck smiled a little differently, that could have been in Little's shoes. It's pretty hard for most people reading this right now to sympathize (or is it empathize? whichever one means relate through shared experience) with Vick for the things he's ALLEGEDLY done.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies -- rather than answer them individually, I'll answer the common thread among them: that the NFL is in its right to suspend Vick, regardless of general law, thanks to the code of conduct agreement.

I don't dispute that the NFL is within its contractual right to sit Vick down. I would dispute that if it came down to the NFL's code of conduct versus international law, international law would -- and should -- win.

Let's say (however unlikely it seems) that Vick is found innocent. I imagine that Vick would sue the NFL to (at the very least) recoup his wages for that year, based on the NFL's proactive move to punish Vick for a crime he would not have committed. I imagine Vick and his lawyer would also go after all of his endorserment money as well. I imagine in this case, Vick would be successful recouping a lot of that money. All of these suits would be settled out of court, of course, but if the NFL decided to take a hard line against this countersuit, and it was disputed all the way up to the Supreme Court, do you think they would find in favor of the NFL's conduct policy, or uphold the presumption of innocence?

The reality of any contract is that they are not the letter of law -- indeed, lawyers make their living in interpreting whatever "iron-clad" clause might be in any contract. That's why you can break a lease, or sue a company that wrongfully fired you, regardless of your employment contract.

The more philosophical question here isn't what the NFL has done within the understanding of their contract with Vick; it's their stepping on a basic right of presumption of innocence (and, as others have pointed out, inconsistently so with other offenders of this very code of conduct) that I feel is wrong.

 

[SSOG]

Lifetime ban to follow. Or the NFL will regret it.

Ban for life = RIDICULOUSThen you should ban 25% of the players in the NFL they are all criminal ( Wife beaters , murderers ( Ray Lewis ) etc etc etc ) why would he pay for everybody , totally ridiculous comment .

What an ignorant post.There are probably around 2200-2500 players in camps right now (70-80 players a team times 32 teams = 2240-2560). Depending on the source, in the last calendar year for which the data was tracked, there were either 35 players arrested, or there were 36 players arrested, or there were 45 players arrested. A substantial portion of those arrests were for traffic violations. Let's just take a middle value- let's say 40 players. If there are 2200 players in the NFL, and 40 of them got in trouble with the law last season, then that's 1.8% of the league. Throw out the traffic violations and we're probably looking at less than 1% of the league. I remember searching for crime rate statistics from the population as a whole and having difficulty finding anything substantial, but I do remember having read before that the population as a whole has a higher crime rate than that. You know what this means? Someone in the NFL is LESS LIKELY TO COMMIT A CRIME than someone not in the NFL. There's also a much higher instance of philanthropy among NFL players. America would definitely be a better place if we all just behaved a little bit more like football players.

 

[twistd]

Let me preface what I am about to say that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what Vick has allegedly been accused of. I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth PETA lunatic, but I do think that dog fighting is a needlessly cruel event that should have become extinct after Roman times along with bear-baiting and throwing people to the lions.

That said: is the NFL docking Vick's pay for the season? If so, I think that suspending Vick in this way is unconstitutional, or at the very least, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of the US legal system, and a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, Vick -- like anyone charged with an alleged crime (whether that charge be for a caught-red-handed type of murder or a specious claim by an uncredible witness)-- should be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is his legal right as a citizen of the US.

Vick may not have a leg to stand on in terms of disputing the suspension, given that every player in the NFL is contractually bound to adhere to the NFL's conduct policy. But I imagine that code is highly vague and allows for the widest interpretation of good and bad conduct -- and after the fact -- by the NFL brass.

Since when does NFL policy trump a basic tenet granted at the highest level of government, and even international law?

I understand that the court of public opinion is highly influential and often more salient than any judgement handed out by a jury; and of course, the NFL has an image to uphold.

I also understand the principle of Occam's Razor's, and the evidence against Vick makes it more probable than not that indeed, Vick is a complete d-bag.

But that doesn't change the fact that at this point, his alleged crimes are just that -- alleged. As much as I don't think Vick deserves to be paid because of what he may have done, until he is dragged into court and proven guilty, the NFL may be able to sit his ### on the bench, but they should not be able to take away his paycheck.

I'm not sure I see the relationship between employment status and the legal system. If the NFL suspends him, he can go work somewhere else. I'm sure that there are some of us that work for companies that have personnel policies that would allow for suspension/termination in case of a felony indictment.

Where can Vick work that will earn him the same livelihood that he was earning in the NFL? Corporate personnel policies are a valid analogy. But if found innocent of that felony indictment, I imagine that employee would have a good chance at successfully sueing that company for loss of wages.

Arthur Blank talked to his GM about cutting Vick. The League office asked him not to. They were conducting their own investigation. If Blank had suspended Vick, the maximum suspension would have been four games. That would have effected what the league could do. Also, if Vick had been cut, the Falcons couldn't have gone after the $28 million signing bonus. As things stand now they can, and probably will.Vick doesn't have the same protections that other employees have because of the CBA. That gives the commissioner the right to make decisions regarding behavior. He can appeal the ruling, and I believe it is then put in front of a mediator. If you look at Pacman, he has never been convicted of anything. So in his case it certainly wasn't innocent until proven guilty, at least as far as the NFL is concerned.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

self edit for a reply non-productive for this thread.

 

[mad sweeney]

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies -- rather than answer them individually, I'll answer the common thread among them: that the NFL is in its right to suspend Vick, regardless of general law, thanks to the code of conduct agreement.I don't dispute that the NFL is within its contractual right to sit Vick down. I would dispute that if it came down to the NFL's code of conduct versus international law, international law would -- and should -- win.Let's say (however unlikely it seems) that Vick is found innocent. I imagine that Vick would sue the NFL to (at the very least) recoup his wages for that year, based on the NFL's proactive move to punish Vick for a crime he would not have committed. I imagine Vick and his lawyer would also go after all of his endorserment money as well. I imagine in this case, Vick would be successful recouping a lot of that money. All of these suits would be settled out of court, of course, but if the NFL decided to take a hard line against this countersuit, and it was disputed all the way up to the Supreme Court, do you think they would find in favor of the NFL's conduct policy, or uphold the presumption of innocence?The reality of any contract is that they are not the letter of law -- indeed, lawyers make their living in interpreting whatever "iron-clad" clause might be in any contract. That's why you can break a lease, or sue a company that wrongfully fired you, regardless of your employment contract.The more philosophical question here isn't what the NFL has done within the understanding of their contract with Vick; it's their stepping on a basic right of presumption of innocence (and, as others have pointed out, inconsistently so with other offenders of this very code of conduct) that I feel is wrong.

You're still missing the point. If the Yahoo story is true, Goodell is not suspending Vick for being indicted for dogfighting. He is suspending Vick for lying to him as to his knowledge of what was going on on that property. All it takes is some credit card receipts, airplane receipts, eyewitness reports etc that place Vick at or near his property more than "almost never". The fact that dog fighting took place there is a fact. One defendant has already pleaded guilty to it. Vick told Goodell that there was not and that he was never at the property. If Goodell has evidence of all this (like a conviction of another defendant), then he can ban Vick for lying. If Vick is found to be innocent (which does not alter the fact of dog abuse on the property, just lawyer trickery) then he still was suspended for lying to the Commish, not for being indicted. So he will have no grounds. As for his endorsers, I'm sure Nike's lawyers rival the NFL's and they are pretty sure their culpability is secure should Vick be exoenerated.What you're saying is valid, IF and only IF, they were suspending him for the indictments. But they're not, it's for lying to the Commissioner.

 

[Sopranos]

As a White male and a non Vick fan i have to say IMO he is being treated unfairly. C Henry has many things against him. He has already served a 4 game suspension. IMO he should have got the year. Pacman should have got 4. FWIW IMO he is clueless and i dont think he will play in the league again. But it was his first suspension. And Vicks should be 4 also because of no priors. Thats what would be fair IMO. Seems he would have been better off raping a woman. Its sad but true. I dont care what PITA and the other organizations are saying. Im not a union guy most of the time but the players union has a pretty good case for Vick IMO. You will never be able to to say players dont gamble on ANY sport or in vegas. I can understand if it was betting on football but its dog fighting. Is it right? Is it legal? NO... But its not any worse than what these other guys have done.. I think pacman would have got a less harsh suspension but he probably came off the wrong way to the commish. If you have ever heard him talk you would understand,he doesnt get it...at all.

 

[Sopranos]

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies -- rather than answer them individually, I'll answer the common thread among them: that the NFL is in its right to suspend Vick, regardless of general law, thanks to the code of conduct agreement.I don't dispute that the NFL is within its contractual right to sit Vick down. I would dispute that if it came down to the NFL's code of conduct versus international law, international law would -- and should -- win.Let's say (however unlikely it seems) that Vick is found innocent. I imagine that Vick would sue the NFL to (at the very least) recoup his wages for that year, based on the NFL's proactive move to punish Vick for a crime he would not have committed. I imagine Vick and his lawyer would also go after all of his endorserment money as well. I imagine in this case, Vick would be successful recouping a lot of that money. All of these suits would be settled out of court, of course, but if the NFL decided to take a hard line against this countersuit, and it was disputed all the way up to the Supreme Court, do you think they would find in favor of the NFL's conduct policy, or uphold the presumption of innocence?The reality of any contract is that they are not the letter of law -- indeed, lawyers make their living in interpreting whatever "iron-clad" clause might be in any contract. That's why you can break a lease, or sue a company that wrongfully fired you, regardless of your employment contract.The more philosophical question here isn't what the NFL has done within the understanding of their contract with Vick; it's their stepping on a basic right of presumption of innocence (and, as others have pointed out, inconsistently so with other offenders of this very code of conduct) that I feel is wrong.

You're still missing the point. If the Yahoo story is true, Goodell is not suspending Vick for being indicted for dogfighting. He is suspending Vick for lying to him as to his knowledge of what was going on on that property. All it takes is some credit card receipts, airplane receipts, eyewitness reports etc that place Vick at or near his property more than "almost never". The fact that dog fighting took place there is a fact. One defendant has already pleaded guilty to it. Vick told Goodell that there was not and that he was never at the property. If Goodell has evidence of all this (like a conviction of another defendant), then he can ban Vick for lying. If Vick is found to be innocent (which does not alter the fact of dog abuse on the property, just lawyer trickery) then he still was suspended for lying to the Commish, not for being indicted. So he will have no grounds. As for his endorsers, I'm sure Nike's lawyers rival the NFL's and they are pretty sure their culpability is secure should Vick be exoenerated.What you're saying is valid, IF and only IF, they were suspending him for the indictments. But they're not, it's for lying to the Commissioner.

I would agree if it were 4 games. But not for the season.

 

[Stunt Rock]

Just in case there was still any doubt, there is absolutely nothing "unconstitutional" about the league suspending Vick. There may or may not be a basis for civil damages (and that is looking unlikely), but I wouldn't expect to see Vick up at the Supreme Court any time soon.

 

[Capella]

Let me preface what I am about to say that in no way, shape, or form do I condone what Vick has allegedly been accused of. I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth PETA lunatic, but I do think that dog fighting is a needlessly cruel event that should have become extinct after Roman times along with bear-baiting and throwing people to the lions.

That said: is the NFL docking Vick's pay for the season? If so, I think that suspending Vick in this way is unconstitutional, or at the very least, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of the US legal system, and a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Essentially, Vick -- like anyone charged with an alleged crime (whether that charge be for a caught-red-handed type of murder or a specious claim by an uncredible witness)-- should be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is his legal right as a citizen of the US.

Vick may not have a leg to stand on in terms of disputing the suspension, given that every player in the NFL is contractually bound to adhere to the NFL's conduct policy. But I imagine that code is highly vague and allows for the widest interpretation of good and bad conduct -- and after the fact -- by the NFL brass.

Since when does NFL policy trump a basic tenet granted at the highest level of government, and even international law?

I understand that the court of public opinion is highly influential and often more salient than any judgement handed out by a jury; and of course, the NFL has an image to uphold.

I also understand the principle of Occam's Razor's, and the evidence against Vick makes it more probable than not that indeed, Vick is a complete d-bag.

But that doesn't change the fact that at this point, his alleged crimes are just that -- alleged. As much as I don't think Vick deserves to be paid because of what he may have done, until he is dragged into court and proven guilty, the NFL may be able to sit his ### on the bench, but they should not be able to take away his paycheck.

I don't know where to even begin here. Holy Moses.