Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Vick Indicted ! ?


Recommended Posts

Dont count Vick out just yet. We've seen indictments dropped (Duke) and professional athletes play entire seasons before the legal system takes its course of action. Imagine landing Vick in the teen rounds and having him return from a 4 game suspension and run for 1000 yards in 12 games...

What will you give me for him then???The only thing he will probably be running from this year is the law. :popcorn::DisgruntledVickOwner:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 670
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've been calling Vick a scumbag for awhile now. A lot of people wouldn't listen. Maybe now they will.

Probably not. People like LHUCKS will always like the biggest jerks in the world. Got an excuse and an apology for every one of them.
:goodposting: If these allegations are accurate I think he's a disgrace...not sure where you pulled that out of your ### from.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for me this is a no win situation for the NFL.

1. If they suspend Mike Vick this is his 1st time being in trouble with the Law. Plus there is a history on Vicks side. The Jamal Lewis case he was not suspended until after he was convicted on Fed Charges. So the NFL already has a history of how they have handled the situation in the past. And that was not to do anything till a person was convicted. So far no one has tested the power of Roger Goodell so we do not really know if what he is trying to do will really stand on a appeal. And I am willing to bet that Vick will appeal if he is suspended. And for everyone saying the NFLPA would not stand by Vick they were going to stand by Pacman?

2. If they don't suspend Mike Vick, then what it "could" open the door for Pacman/Henry/Tank to come back and say what Vick did was far worse than anything that they have done. I am not sure if they can still appeal or if this would open the door for it? Plus lets face it if Mike Vick does play, how do you think Fans will treat him and such?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, accoring to John Clayton:

The problem is, ESPN has proven to be a shill on this topic, and should just be disregarded as we continue classify spin doctoring as 'news reports.' Point blank, we need to keep the agents who feed stories to our lazy writers happy. Sometimes that means catering to somewhat unsavory sorts, 'nuff said. With that out of the way, we've concocted some cockamamie story that results not only in the team standing by Vick being the short term solution, but in fact Michael Vick is the obligatory starter for Atlanta on opening day. Goodell can't do anything about it. Blank can't do anything about it. This is simply what must occur due to common sense taking over. We refuse to mention other options, such as picking up a free agent or trading for a player. Also, we want to emphasize that only Vick's tenure in Atlanta is in jeopardy, his career is doing fine. Very fine. Did we mention that federal cases like these are hard to prove? In fact they lost one in 1974. Just trying to provide you, our reader, the whole story.

Fixed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone out there think that DJ Shockley could get a shot to start in training camp? Anyone else feeling sorry for Bobby Petrino right now?

I feel better for Patrino, VICK HAS BEEN THE MOST OVERATED PIECE OF CRAP IN FOOTBALL PERIOD. Now the Falcons get to move on and get a QB, Harrington will be much, much better then Vick. They Can trade or draft an upgrade later. Who knows maybe Daunte goes to the Falcons, that would funny Daunte and Harrington reunited once again.
The plan to bring in Brian Brohm continues. With Joey H running the show in 2007, they won;t have to trade up too far to get Brohm in the 2008 draft.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you are indicted does not automatically mean you are convicted.

not automatically, but we're talking about the feds. it's close enough.
The feds were involved with Jamal Lewis and he was not suspended until AFTER the case, not before or during it IIRC.
too bad for Vick there is a new sheriff running the NFL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously a lot of the things i wrote were tongue in cheek.I stand by the stance that it was wrong for people to come out so strongly against him when up until today there was 0 credible evidence known to the public that linked him directly to the dogfighting.I have no problem changing my stance once CREDIBLE news comes out, but i wasn't about to tear down a person before hearing any real evidence.Yes it looks like my initial assumption was wrong, but that doesn't mean my initial stance of giving him the benefit of the doubt was.

Wow. This is the biggest load of chickenpoop I've read in a long while. For dozens of posts you defended Vick causing major flame wars and personally forcing threads to be locked. Now you're claiming that you were just kidding?!?!?!Were you also kidding about banning yourself from FBG if you were wrong, because I was looking forward to that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious, his cousin, the tenant most discussed, Mr. Davon Boddie, is not mentioned in the indictment... :IBTL:

That's what I was thinking also. Boddie was the target of the first federal search of the property I believe. I suppose that means he's one of the anonymous informants now?
I haven't put this under a microscope, but if I remember right. His cousin Boddie, was busted away from the property for drugs. He said he lived at Vicks, which they then searched and found the Dog fighting stuff. He may be the snitch getting out of his drug charges.
One of the biggest problems here is perception. Vick would have been better off getting caught beating up homeless guys than being connected with dog fighting. People imagine their family dog being viciously mauled, and killed by a pit bull. If you see video footage of dog fighting it is brutal. This does nothing good for the image of the NFL to have one of their star players connected with it. I'm very curious to see what Goodell does about this.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yudkin is right...the NFL has some liability issues here. Innocent until proven guilty fellas.

Sorry but that applies to criminal court.Vick has already done enough to bring much shame on the league which will justify a suspension.He's toast in the NFL.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just plain hard for me to believe that Vick was in no way involved in this dog fighting, if only it was to place bets. He has the dog kennel, and it was his house for crying out loud. No matter if you visit the place once a year, are you telling me he didn’t know what was happening? Not to mention the eye witness accounts of him dropping bets and watching the fights.

It's really just mind boggling that a man with so much money and fame would be involved with such craziness. If I had the kind of money he has I believe I could find tons of other (legal) activities to enjoy, and heck if you like betting, then go to Vegas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How binding is Vick's contract?

Falcons have trade, release options, but salary cap issues are substantial

By TIM TUCKER ~ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 07/09/07

On that giddy day in December 2004 when the Falcons signed Michael Vick to a 10-year, $130 million contract, Arthur Blank gushed: "He's a Falcon for life."

Vick's contract, though, is not nearly as binding as the Falcons owner's words suggested. If, theoretically, the Falcons wanted to trade or release their embattled quarterback, his contract would not necessarily preclude it.

The biggest hurdle would be the impact against the team's salary cap, but that impact, although still hefty, shrank as of June 1. The hit would be $6 million-plus for 2007 and about $15 million for 2008.

Property owned by Vick is at the center of an ongoing investigation of an alleged widespread dogfighting operation. The Falcons repeatedly have declined to comment on the situation and did so again Monday, three days after federal investigators executed a second search warrant at Vick's Surry County, Va., property.

The Falcons have given no indication of any inclination to unload Vick, who has been involved in a series of off-field controversies. But from a contractual standpoint, what would happen if the team got to that point with him?

NFL contracts, unlike those in Major League Baseball, the NBA and the NHL, are not fully guaranteed. That means football players are assured of receiving only the portions of their contracts that are stipulated to be guaranteed — generally signing bonuses. Vick's contract included $37 million in guaranteed bonuses.

The rest is in base salary, which increases each year, payable only as long as he remains on the team.

The NFL's standard player contract stipulates various grounds under which clubs may terminate the contract. One such stipulation: ". . . f player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract."

If a contract is terminated under that clause, the player has the right to file a grievance and have an arbitrator decide whether the club acted reasonably.

Aside from "personal conduct," other grounds for termination of NFL contracts are "unsatisfactory" skill or performance by the player and a "need" by a team to make "room" under the salary cap for other players. The standard contract also stipulates that if an injured player is released, he'll be paid for the balance of the season in which the injury was suffered.

While NFL teams usually can terminate player contracts at will, they cannot escape the salary-cap ramifications.

While the guaranteed bonuses generally are paid at the beginning — or in the early stages — of long-term contracts, teams are allowed to amortize the bonuses over the length of a contract (up to a maximum of six years) for salary-cap purposes. Rather than taking the full hit against the cap when the bonus(es) are paid, teams spread out the impact by counting a portion against the cap each year. (It's not necessarily the same amount each year, depending on how creatively the bonuses are structured. In Vick's case, the Falcons exercised for cap purposes a clause to convert "roster bonuses" to "signing bonuses" in 2005 and 2006.)

But here's the rub: When a player is traded or released, the cap impact "accelerates," as the NFL's collective bargaining agreement puts it. All bonus money previously paid to the player, but not yet counted against the cap, has to be accounted for within one or two years, depending on the date the player is unloaded.

The key date is June 1.

Trading or releasing a player after June 1 is cap-friendlier than doing so on or before June 1:

• If a player is released or traded on or before June 1, the full unamortized portion of his bonus(es) count against that year's cap. In Vick's case, if he had been released or traded before June 1, roughly $22 million would have counted against the Falcons' 2007 cap — a hit that would have crippled the team's financial competitiveness for the coming season.

• If a player is released after June 1, the portion of the bonus(es) that were originally scheduled to count against that year's cap still do so, but the remaining cap impact is deferred until the following year. If the Falcons were to trade or cut Vick later this summer, $6 million-plus would count against the 2007 cap and the rest ($15 million-plus) against the 2008 cap. Spreading the impact over two years might make the impact somewhat more manageable, although still daunting.

The NFL salary cap is $109 million this year and is expected to rise by at least $5 million next year.

Also, a team saves the salary-cap charge of a player's base salary when it trades or releases him. Vick is due a base salary of $6 million this year and increasing amounts each year through 2013. Of course, a team would incur cap charges for a traded or released player's replacement.

If the NFL were to suspend Vick for one or more games, he would not be paid but his salary would count against the cap. The Falcons would be allowed an exemption to replace him on the roster for the length of his suspension.

When the Falcons jubilantly made Vick the NFL's highest paid player in December 2004, the potential — even hypothetical — impact of cutting ties were on no one's radar. Laughing that day about the mega-dollars in the contract, Blank told the media: "It should be officially understood and known now that I work for Michael Vick."

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/f...9/0710vick.html
I know this is a long thread, but I posted the majority of this article way back on page 1, post #49 .

Still doesn't seem very cut and dry. As the article stated, and Yudkin expounded upon, this clause is inserted in every player contract, but it doesn't really define "conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club". This could be quite a mess between the NFL commissioner's office, the Falcons, and the NFLPA. Really difficult to predict if and how the Falcons could recoup any of the cap hit or bonus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, accoring to John Clayton:

The problem is, ESPN has proven to be a shill on this topic, and should just be disregarded as we continue classify spin doctoring as 'news reports.' Point blank, we need to keep the agents who feed stories to our lazy writers happy. Sometimes that means catering to somewhat unsavory sorts, 'nuff said. With that out of the way, we've concocted some cockamamie story that results not only in the team standing by Vick being the short term solution, but in fact Michael Vick is the obligatory starter for Atlanta on opening day. Goodell can't do anything about it. Blank can't do anything about it. This is simply what must occur due to common sense taking over. We refuse to mention other options, such as picking up a free agent or trading for a player. Also, we want to emphasize that only Vick's tenure in Atlanta is in jeopardy, his career is doing fine. Very fine. Did we mention that federal cases like these are hard to prove? In fact they lost one in 1974. Just trying to provide you, our reader, the whole story.

Fixed
:thumbup:

priceless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2940065

I had a feeling that this thing wasn't over. Now we can start talking suspension. I think he could easily get 8 games just for being indicted, especially given the thorough and careful nature of the investigation.

Seriously doubt it. Indicted is not convicted. I know, Pacman wasn't convicted either, but his involvement was pretty clear cut and came with a laundry list of other issues. Vick has never had any prior problems, (other than giving the fans the finger). The NFL will take the wait-and-see approach on this I think. But if he's convicted, they'll bring the hammer down.
Anyone else think "indicted on conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting" sounds like the weakest of charges possible? I am also in the camp that I think the Commish waits for a conviction here first before leveling any suspension due to what looks like a pretty weak indictment. My take is this doesn't impact Vick's games played this season.
I don't think it's weak. Conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting carries the same penalty as transporting dogs used in dog-fighting. There's no federal crime against just dog-fighting, which is why the transporting bit is in there. That's what makes it federal.

This is a real charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vick's attorneys could very well contend that he is receiving unfair treatment for being a famous athlete if indeed these types of cases typically are handled differently and have led to less severe outcomes.

Famous athletes aren't a protected class, so that wouldn't be all that legally significant. He'd be better off claiming he's receiving unfair treatment because he's a male, or because he's black, or something along those lines.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I ranted earlier in this post, but let me explain why Vick has no chance of playing in 2007. There have been reports that his large contract may be a reason why ATL keeps him and lets him play. ATL simply can't afford to keep him, for ATL will lose well over $22M in other areas by letting him remain. People mention Jamal Lewis as someone who played a season while waiting to be convicted. Update folks - drugs are an "accepted" form of illegal activity in the court of public opinion. Had Jamal been accused of selling those same drugs to kindergarten kids, do you think he would've played the season? There are some crimes that are just so bad in people's minds, that the best Public Relations people in the world can't defend. Cruelty to animals is one of them, a few notches below child molestation. Think of it this way - if Vick was previously an owner of a daycare, then the feds had discovered a kiddie snuff ring at Vick's property, would anyone be saying, "innocent until proven guilty"?

There are just some crimes that people are guilty until proven innocent. This is one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yudkin is right...the NFL has some liability issues here. Innocent until proven guilty fellas.

Please explain what liability issues they have. :thumbup:
Labor law...one of the biggest fields of law in the U.S.
What labor law would the NFL be violating?Vick would be suspended under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Under that agreement, Goodell can suspend a player if there is evidence that the player engaged in conduct detrimental to the public confidence in the game of professional football. Goodell just has to give the player a chance to appeal from the suspension. If Vick can't show he's innocent on his appeal, that's his tough luck. Even if he's later acquitted in court.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This dude got a year in prison for killing 1 dog.

I'm really waiting for a lawyer to step in here, but it sounds like most people don't understand that the worst is yet to come. Local DA's always indict on the worst charge and add as many charges as they can hoping to plea bargain. Fed's tend to only indict on the charge that they know they can win and take advantage of the long delay to trial to indict on more charges. Even if this charge is the only thing that they can get Vick on, it will be applied per dog, so I see a minimum of 20 years in jail, probably closer to 60 years in jail. As far as Goodell goes, he cares more about the league image more than who's guilty and who's not guilty. I don't see him going out of his way to give a break to a self-described team leader that has flipped off the fans, gave a woman an STD under an alias and got his pot-bottle discovered by underpaid airport screeners. When he says he has no idea what happens on his property when he's paying all the bills, I don't think Goodell is going to do the same thing as Atlanta has been doing and say "Gee Mike, we love you anyway, even if it screws the team and league image because even though you cant throw worth a crap you can run really good and we like selling seats on smoke and mirrors and blaming all your problems on a bad supporting cast.."
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Vick will plea bargain down the charges,

Goodell will lay the hammer down in a one year suspension

plus lots of community service at an animal shelter.

Then, the final shoe will drop as Arthur Frank will cut Vick.

Goodell can't do that until he's convicted if I'm not mistaken.
Article XI of the CBA.
I believe that article refers to actions on the field of play only.

I posted this earlier:

http://www.nflpa.org/RulesAndRegs/ConductPolicy.aspx

In summary, at this point Vick is subject to counseling/evaluation by the league and players can only be suspended for the following:

- Failure to cooperate with said evaluation

- Convicted or admitting to criminal activity

- Failure to report an arrest or criminal charge (one of the things that got Pacman suspended)

- Violent activity in the workplace

None of these apply to Vick (yet). Therefore the league will not suspend him until one of them happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruelty to animals is one of them, a few notches below child molestation.

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised at all the outrage people show Vick compared to other stuff that goes in the world. For example, recently there was the absolute, worst nightmare of a gang rape that occured in Florida:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_...PDk95eWwdlH2ocA

The perps poured various household cleansers into their eyes afterwards. Yet not much press about it. Perhaps because they are poor. Perhaps because it was so disturbing. Yet people get much more outraged over animals.

BTW, I think child molestation is as bad as it gets and animal cruelty is no where near as bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruelty to animals is one of them, a few notches below child molestation.

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised at all the outrage people show Vick compared to other stuff that goes in the world. For example, recently there was the absolute, worst nightmare of a gang rape that occured in Florida:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_...PDk95eWwdlH2ocA

The perps poured various household cleansers into their eyes afterwards. Yet not much press about it. Perhaps because they are poor. Perhaps because it was so disturbing. Yet people get much more outraged over animals.

BTW, I think child molestation is as bad as it gets and animal cruelty is no where near as bad.

:goodposting:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been calling Vick a scumbag for awhile now. A lot of people wouldn't listen. Maybe now they will.

What you want? A cookie?
Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN couldn't be bigger boobs on this story. One hour after Clayton published that Goodell "must" wait to suspend Vick and that the Falcon's standing by Vick is the short term solution, I see Len Pasquarelli is now reporting that Arthur Blank is facing a "test of loyalty" over this situation. Shameless. Jason Cole of yahoo! sports has now reported that Goodell will suspend Vick. I guess we'll just have to hold our breaths and see which is real reporting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruelty to animals is one of them, a few notches below child molestation.

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised at all the outrage people show Vick compared to other stuff that goes in the world. For example, recently there was the absolute, worst nightmare of a gang rape that occured in Florida:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_...PDk95eWwdlH2ocA

The perps poured various household cleansers into their eyes afterwards. Yet not much press about it. Perhaps because they are poor. Perhaps because it was so disturbing. Yet people get much more outraged over animals.

BTW, I think child molestation is as bad as it gets and animal cruelty is no where near as bad.

:goodposting:
I agree but the personalities of the scumbags are pretty much the same.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruelty to animals is one of them, a few notches below child molestation.

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised at all the outrage people show Vick compared to other stuff that goes in the world. For example, recently there was the absolute, worst nightmare of a gang rape that occured in Florida:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_...PDk95eWwdlH2ocA

The perps poured various household cleansers into their eyes afterwards. Yet not much press about it. Perhaps because they are poor. Perhaps because it was so disturbing. Yet people get much more outraged over animals.

BTW, I think child molestation is as bad as it gets and animal cruelty is no where near as bad.

but this is a FF forum why would you post something like this and think we would not care about these people? I have no idea why this post was made.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Vick will plea bargain down the charges,

Goodell will lay the hammer down in a one year suspension

plus lots of community service at an animal shelter.

Then, the final shoe will drop as Arthur Frank will cut Vick.

Goodell can't do that until he's convicted if I'm not mistaken.
Article XI of the CBA.
I believe that article refers to actions on the field of play only.

I posted this earlier:

http://www.nflpa.org/RulesAndRegs/ConductPolicy.aspx

In summary, at this point Vick is subject to counseling/evaluation by the league and players can only be suspended for the following:

- Failure to cooperate with said evaluation

- Convicted or admitting to criminal activity

- Failure to report an arrest or criminal charge (one of the things that got Pacman suspended)

- Violent activity in the workplace

None of these apply to Vick (yet). Therefore the league will not suspend him until one of them happens.

Hold on . . .

You are right that the section of the CBA I linked to covers only conduct on the field, and that there is a separate policy for off-field conduct.

But the page at NFLPA.org is not the policy. It appears to be only a summary of it. As you can see from this page (the errata sheet), the actual policy is many pages, and contains the phrase "final disciplinary action," which the NFLPA.org page does not.

I am trying to get the actual policy . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Vick will plea bargain down the charges,

Goodell will lay the hammer down in a one year suspension

plus lots of community service at an animal shelter.

Then, the final shoe will drop as Arthur Frank will cut Vick.

Goodell can't do that until he's convicted if I'm not mistaken.
Article XI of the CBA.
I believe that article refers to actions on the field of play only.

I posted this earlier:

http://www.nflpa.org/RulesAndRegs/ConductPolicy.aspx

In summary, at this point Vick is subject to counseling/evaluation by the league and players can only be suspended for the following:

- Failure to cooperate with said evaluation

- Convicted or admitting to criminal activity

- Failure to report an arrest or criminal charge (one of the things that got Pacman suspended)

- Violent activity in the workplace

None of these apply to Vick (yet). Therefore the league will not suspend him until one of them happens.

Hold on . . .

You are right that the section of the CBA I linked to covers only conduct on the field, and that there is a separate policy for off-field conduct.

But the page at NFLPA.org is not the policy. It appears to be only a summary of it. As you can see from this page (the errata sheet), the actual policy is many pages, and contains the phrase "final disciplinary action," which the NFLPA.org page does not.

I am trying to get the actual policy . . .

Scratch that. That is the policy. I got it using my super-secret media contacts in PDF form (attached), and it is the same. (I didn't read the whole title of the errata sheet very carefully.) :bowtie:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if Vick is innocent or not, Goodell is going to do whatever he wants to Vick and the owners and NFLPA will let him.

Please let me know what part of the NFL Player Conduct allows this?Right or wrong, Sets a very bad precedence for the commish to do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Where do you draw the line in other situations?
Well this has been the problem from the getgo -- Goodell has never - to my mind - laid down an a=b type list - the way he deals with each player seems to be very individualized which on the one hand they should be - each player's situation will be different. But on the other hand, it seems as if there are no clear lines right now. How he deals with Vick reflects (and will be judged by) how he dealt with PacMan, Henry and Johnson.He's already set precedent - but not clearly. IMO
Are you referring Goodell's decision to suspended the players or the suspension given (length)?Pacman, Henry and Tank all violated the Player Conduct Policy. The policy also allows the commissioner to have a "broad stroke" so all suspensions handed down are on a case-by-case basis. It means we may not know what is coming but the commish can drop the hammer to clean up the league, this is a good thing IMO.
I would say.... both.The problem is (and I have no issue with him cleaning up the league, especially given some of the utter ######ed moves the past year) he needs to defend his policy against all comers. And frankly, it's harder to do that when the scale slides. It's fine to say don't violate the conduct policy - but what does that mean? Did Chambers violate the policy with his arrest (allowing for the fact he tested negative, he was still arrested)? And how do you scale the violation vs punishment?I'm not saying it should be set in stone, nor am I saying the job isn't tough. But it would be easier if there were less than vague parameters.And it all comes down to how he reacts to Vick. He was swift in several earlier cases. There were differences to be sure. But the Commish's office was pretty quick to react.While Vick doesn't have the rap sheet PacMan and the others have, a Fed indictment is pretty friggin serious and is a serious black eye to the league. Even if he didn't know (yes I said that with a straight face) dogfighting went on there, he was warned he would be held accountable by the Sheriff. So even if he's innocent legally, he may not be in the eyes of the Commish's office.And I'm merely saying that had the Commish set down some solid and defined rules or guidelines, his forthcoming decision might hold up to the scrutiny it will receive a little more easily. For a not quite apropos example: I have a five year old. He has a wide range of allowances we grant him in terms of what he can and cannot do. But he knows a) exactly which lines he cannot cross and b) the weight of punishment for each infraction, which are more serious than others and what accumulated offenses will bring him.By setting those parameters up - but not being completely set in stone or nailed down specific (the difference between 'don't hit your brother' vs 'don't hit your brother with a hammer', which is more serious but also leaves room for debate - 'I didn't use a hammer, I used a rock?') - I have given him guidelines so that even at 5, he knows where the lines are.And while Vick ain't my 5 year old and dogfighting is more serious than drawing on the wall, the idea is the same in my opinion. Any rules you lay down - at work, at home in life - should be clear, even if they need to be wide ranging and all encompassing.Saying 'don't misbehave' isn't near as effective, or easily defensible, as saying it and following it with 'this is what I mean by misbehave'.But hey, any effort is a good effort to turn around some deplorable behavior before the NFL becomes the WWE. I'm just saying that a well worded doctrine of guidelines would be easier to back if the NFLPA chose to fight a suspension than 'don't embarrass us'.Just my .02.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Goodell can't get Vick under the Player Conduct Policy, maybe he can get him under the Gambling Policy:

Among the types of conduct detrimental to the NFL and professional football that call for serious penalties are the following:

1. Accepting a bribe or agreeing to throw or fix a game or illegally influence its outcome;

2. Failing to promptly report any bribe offer or any attempt to throw or fix a game or to illegally influence its outcome;

3. Betting on any NFL game;

4. Associating with gamblers or with gambling activities in a manner tending to bring discredit to the NFL.

Any such conduct may result in severe penalties, up to and including a fine and/or suspension from the NFL for life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2940065

I had a feeling that this thing wasn't over. Now we can start talking suspension. I think he could easily get 8 games just for being indicted, especially given the thorough and careful nature of the investigation.

Seriously doubt it. Indicted is not convicted. I know, Pacman wasn't convicted either, but his involvement was pretty clear cut and came with a laundry list of other issues. Vick has never had any prior problems, (other than giving the fans the finger). The NFL will take the wait-and-see approach on this I think. But if he's convicted, they'll bring the hammer down.
Anyone else think "indicted on conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting" sounds like the weakest of charges possible? I am also in the camp that I think the Commish waits for a conviction here first before leveling any suspension due to what looks like a pretty weak indictment. My take is this doesn't impact Vick's games played this season.
I don't think it's weak. Conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting carries the same penalty as transporting dogs used in dog-fighting. There's no federal crime against just dog-fighting, which is why the transporting bit is in there. That's what makes it federal.

This is a real charge.

:bowtie: Not only is it real, but much easier to prove than him actually transporting the dogs himself. Conspiracy means there are others involved, and that Vick was a party to the transport. What is the line that at least one party is "cooperating" with the authorities?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruelty to animals is one of them, a few notches below child molestation.

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised at all the outrage people show Vick compared to other stuff that goes in the world. For example, recently there was the absolute, worst nightmare of a gang rape that occured in Florida:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_...PDk95eWwdlH2ocA

The perps poured various household cleansers into their eyes afterwards. Yet not much press about it. Perhaps because they are poor. Perhaps because it was so disturbing. Yet people get much more outraged over animals.

BTW, I think child molestation is as bad as it gets and animal cruelty is no where near as bad.

Well I didn't see much of it on ESPN or NFLN or the Shark Pool but it was all over the news every time I looked. Take this in context. We are not discussing non footbal related stuff here. If an NFL player or associate was involved in the rape/assault then you can e sure it will be all over here. Apples and oranges.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yudkin is right...the NFL has some liability issues here. Innocent until proven guilty fellas.

Really? They can't suspend until he's proven guilty? The NFL, like all other private or public employers has their own set of rules regarding employment and as long as no federal or state laws are being broken by their enforcement, there is no liability.What happens to cops when they are suspected of crimes? They get suspended.What happens to teachers when they are accused of innapropriate conduct with students? They get suspended.When the convictions come, then they get fired. SUspensions with or without pay I'm sure depend on circumstances and the amount of evidence when allegations are made.Many states are "at will" which means unless you have a contract or agreement that states otherwise, your employer can fire you for parting your hair the wrong way. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. I can't believe how many times I'm hearing "innocent until proven guilty". We're not talking about anyone going to jail and having their freedom taken away. It's a JOB and an employer has the right to maintain the integrity of their business. Would Goddell get to sue Vick for return of his salary and the loss of revenue the NFL would suffer if he let him play and he was later convicted? Do you think there might be some dog lovers or just "family" oriented people who might be turned off by the NFL if they did not take a proactive approach to this?
:goodposting::thumbup:
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2940065

I had a feeling that this thing wasn't over. Now we can start talking suspension. I think he could easily get 8 games just for being indicted, especially given the thorough and careful nature of the investigation.

Seriously doubt it. Indicted is not convicted. I know, Pacman wasn't convicted either, but his involvement was pretty clear cut and came with a laundry list of other issues. Vick has never had any prior problems, (other than giving the fans the finger). The NFL will take the wait-and-see approach on this I think. But if he's convicted, they'll bring the hammer down.
Anyone else think "indicted on conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting" sounds like the weakest of charges possible? I am also in the camp that I think the Commish waits for a conviction here first before leveling any suspension due to what looks like a pretty weak indictment. My take is this doesn't impact Vick's games played this season.
I don't think it's weak. Conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting carries the same penalty as transporting dogs used in dog-fighting. There's no federal crime against just dog-fighting, which is why the transporting bit is in there. That's what makes it federal.

This is a real charge.

:goodposting: Not only is it real, but much easier to prove than him actually transporting the dogs himself. Conspiracy means there are others involved, and that Vick was a party to the transport. What is the line that at least one party is "cooperating" with the authorities?
A lawyer interviewed on the Total Access said that the conspiracy issue could affect his playing time. As 2 of the 3 indicted players are not NFL players and they will be tried simultaneously due to the conspiracy, that their right to a speedy trial may interfere with Vick's 07 season. The other 2 have little interest in trying to delay any court action until January.
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2940065

I had a feeling that this thing wasn't over. Now we can start talking suspension. I think he could easily get 8 games just for being indicted, especially given the thorough and careful nature of the investigation.

Seriously doubt it. Indicted is not convicted. I know, Pacman wasn't convicted either, but his involvement was pretty clear cut and came with a laundry list of other issues. Vick has never had any prior problems, (other than giving the fans the finger). The NFL will take the wait-and-see approach on this I think. But if he's convicted, they'll bring the hammer down.
Anyone else think "indicted on conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting" sounds like the weakest of charges possible? I am also in the camp that I think the Commish waits for a conviction here first before leveling any suspension due to what looks like a pretty weak indictment. My take is this doesn't impact Vick's games played this season.
I don't think it's weak. Conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting carries the same penalty as transporting dogs used in dog-fighting. There's no federal crime against just dog-fighting, which is why the transporting bit is in there. That's what makes it federal.

This is a real charge.

:goodposting: Not only is it real, but much easier to prove than him actually transporting the dogs himself. Conspiracy means there are others involved, and that Vick was a party to the transport. What is the line that at least one party is "cooperating" with the authorities?
A lawyer interviewed on the Total Access said that the conspiracy issue could affect his playing time. As 2 of the 3 indicted players are not NFL players and they will be tried simultaneously due to the conspiracy, that their right to a speedy trial may interfere with Vick's 07 season. The other 2 have little interest in trying to delay any court action until January.
Don't you think if Vick offered to pay their legal fees that maybe they would agree to go at his pace?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Professionally, the gambling angle is going to end up biting Vick more than the dogs.

Only if he's not convicted of a felony here. Then, yes, the gambling angle will be a problem. Otherwise, if he's convicted of a felony, me thinks that's going to take a much bigger bite out of Vick's career.

But, let's face it, he's in a big heap o' doo right now as it is just with the indictment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2940065

I had a feeling that this thing wasn't over. Now we can start talking suspension. I think he could easily get 8 games just for being indicted, especially given the thorough and careful nature of the investigation.

Seriously doubt it. Indicted is not convicted. I know, Pacman wasn't convicted either, but his involvement was pretty clear cut and came with a laundry list of other issues. Vick has never had any prior problems, (other than giving the fans the finger). The NFL will take the wait-and-see approach on this I think. But if he's convicted, they'll bring the hammer down.
Anyone else think "indicted on conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting" sounds like the weakest of charges possible? I am also in the camp that I think the Commish waits for a conviction here first before leveling any suspension due to what looks like a pretty weak indictment. My take is this doesn't impact Vick's games played this season.
I don't think it's weak. Conspiracy to transport dogs used in dog-fighting carries the same penalty as transporting dogs used in dog-fighting. There's no federal crime against just dog-fighting, which is why the transporting bit is in there. That's what makes it federal.

This is a real charge.

:shrug: Not only is it real, but much easier to prove than him actually transporting the dogs himself. Conspiracy means there are others involved, and that Vick was a party to the transport. What is the line that at least one party is "cooperating" with the authorities?
A lawyer interviewed on the Total Access said that the conspiracy issue could affect his playing time. As 2 of the 3 indicted players are not NFL players and they will be tried simultaneously due to the conspiracy, that their right to a speedy trial may interfere with Vick's 07 season. The other 2 have little interest in trying to delay any court action until January.
Don't you think if Vick offered to pay their legal fees that maybe they would agree to go at his pace?
I couldn't possibly have any idea. And that's even assuming that the Feds would even capitulate to the lawyer's requests to postpone things to suit his football schedule. This is the feds, not the locals, they go at the pace they want.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be at all suprised if Vick's career is over, permanently. When the feds get involved this is real bad for Vick. If convited, there is no way that Goddell lets a human being this dispicable wear the NFL logo. Even if he is allowed to play, what franchise is going to want to alienate a huge section of their fan base for an overrated QB. I think many of you are really underestimating the casual fan's interest in the game and how critical that is to a team's financial success. The vast majority of fans will be absolutely outraged if he came and played for their team. He is not that great of a QB and would be devastating to a team's image. All of this is of course discounting the fact that he could spend at least the next few years in jail.

Of course maybe he won't be convicted. I would like nothing better than to believe that he wasn't involved, but it is getting harder and harder with this new information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruelty to animals is one of them, a few notches below child molestation.

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised at all the outrage people show Vick compared to other stuff that goes in the world. For example, recently there was the absolute, worst nightmare of a gang rape that occured in Florida:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_...PDk95eWwdlH2ocA

The perps poured various household cleansers into their eyes afterwards. Yet not much press about it. Perhaps because they are poor. Perhaps because it was so disturbing. Yet people get much more outraged over animals.

BTW, I think child molestation is as bad as it gets and animal cruelty is no where near as bad.

Well, at least Vick didn't rape a woman and pour household cleansers into her eyes! Let's give him a good citizenship medal! He's certainly a much more honorable character than a typical child molester!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yudkin is right...the NFL has some liability issues here.

Innocent until proven guilty fellas.

very :bag:
Both of you quit being candy asses, I usually agree with the Innocent until proven guilty, but it aint going to matter, Vick aint playing this season, adjust your Cheat sheets fellas. You dynasty nuts better have a second QB on your roster. :X
Link to post
Share on other sites
:bag:

Didn't bother to read all the posts.... To all the loudmouths who said he wouldn't face charges, etc. etc. etc.... BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Try to think before you post next time....

Damn Right!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with Dodds and Yudkin on this one. I don't think there's any way Vick is on the field when the season starts. The Commissioner has a lot of latitude in dealing out suspensions, he has repeatedly referred to the image of the game as his overriding principle, and this Vick mess is a major black eye to the league. He simply can't ignore this while waiting for an actual conviction. Remember, due process (innocent until proven guilty) is a legal concept, and the NFL is not bound by the same standards when suspending players.

This is Footballguys, everything revolves around evaluating talent and projections. God bless Dodds and Yudkin but they are smokin somin if they think the NFL wants to put up with any more Vick BS. Go back to work fellas and adjust your damn projections for christ sakes and wake up, respectfully of course.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...