I'm not much of a football fan, but I happened to catch this clip on the TV news this morning. The NFL is considering reinstatement of Michael Vick's eligibility, including the possibility of extending his suspension. Terrell Owens thinks that's "unfair" and suggests that "It’s almost like kicking a dead horse in the ground."
Perhaps not the best analogy in support of Mr. Vick, who convicted of animal cruelty.
I am a pitbull owner, and not much of a football fan, but I think Vick has paid his debt. This has cost him 10's of millions of dollar as well as prison time. I give TO credit for stepping up and saying it.
ManofFewWords wrote: I give TO credit for stepping up and saying it.
I dont.
Theyre both Morons.
I say, put Vick in the ring with the dogs he pissed off, and if he can still walk, then he can go get a normal job like the rest of us. The NFL should no longer be an option.
Vick said: Im rich and famous. I can do as I please and then my fame/money/position of perceived power will get me out of it. Im famous, and therefore entitled to F around and break laws at my leisure
F Vick and TO
Time for the big kids who get paid mills to play a kids game to step up and behave.
I could probably eventually forgive Vick if he had just funded the dog fighting ring.
Once I heard that he actively participated in the torture (hanging, drowning) of the dogs it was a different story. Anyone who can kill a dog for sport is a sick individual.
I say never let him back. Regardless of how talented / fun to watch he was.
ManofFewWords wrote: I am a pitbull owner, and not much of a football fan, but I think Vick has paid his debt. This has cost him 10's of millions of dollar as well as prison time. I give TO credit for stepping up and saying it.
Yeah, he has paid his debt, may as well let him work.
I particularly enjoyed the bit where TO says that Vick wasn't a problem other than the dogs/gambling.
Yeah. Vick was a model citizen except for that... Oh wait. No he wasn't. And as reprehensible as dog fighting is to me personally, if I'm the NFL commissioner, I'm way more concerned about the illegal gambling side of it and the affect that has on the perceived integrity of my league.
I don't actually have any problems with Vick being allowed to play again (ie at this point a major suspension is probably not called for). But if I were making the hiring (as opposed to suspension) decision, the fact that he says he's not willing to play elsewhere for a year would make me doubt his commitment/attitude.
The guy never was good QB (Good athlete? Yes. Good QB? No). He's been in trouble a lot (not just the dog stuff) and if he steps over the line again you bet your ass he's going to get the mother of all suspensions, so I know my team can't rely on him being there in whatever capacity we hire him for. He is displaying zero commitment to wanting to prove he can still play, and instead is being the same self-entitled dumbass he's always been (seems to run in the family, see also: Marcus). Why the hell would I as a GM hire him?
^^FTW
just in. Vick reinstated.
^^Not suprised. Its publicity for the league. That is all.
No shocker...I hate what he did/got caught up in...I did however eat lunch with him a couple of times while he was at tech...even tossed a ball around, back then he was a real cool dude!
I'm torn about the whole deal.
Dog fighting is about as low as it gets. I read a great book about human fighters and the sport in general. It was a great book. Until the author starts the chapter on dog fighting and how it's not really cruel. I couldn't finish the rest of the book as his viewpoint as a normal, compassionate person was compromised.
I am also involved in dog rescue and in an area where dog fighting is intense. To the point that if you are adopting out terriers, or almost any kind of game dog, you need to be careful who you talk to and adopt to. Keep in mind this applies to "bait" dogs as well. Small breeds that are known for tenacity like fox terriers or jack russells. Reason being that the guys who fight dogs use the bait dogs to train their fighting dogs on.
With that in mind I think Vick shouldn't be reinstated.
Then I think about how he has suffered, paid his debts, and served time. He can't be the same person after that. I'd like to think he would never do this again. I can't be certain. So I'm thinking "Shouldn't Vick be given the chance to redeem himself?"
I will say I don't think it will be easy for the guy either way. If he plays you know he's going to get boo'ed and hounded, no pun intended, forever after.
Did you guys see the article in Sports Illustrated about how some of his dogs were rehabilitated? Great article...
The rule of law and democracy are both messy, but better than any alternative yet. He has paid the price as determined by fellow citizens for breaking the law and is entitled to the chance to work. The league was considering the outcome of any lawsuit brought on by the NAACP or others if they had declined to reinstate him.
Dog fighting is utterly disgusting. If I owned a team there is no way I sigh him.
If I was playing on an opposing team I would make it my personal goal to take the mans head off during a game.
There is no excuse for what he did it was just flat out cruel.
The bottom line on this as I see it comes down to whether we believe in our justice system to have administered proper punishement/rehabilitation. By that book - he served his time and should be treated as any other citizen (legally at least).
Does what he did constitute a life sentence of one form or another (ala Megan's Law does with peepee touchers)?
I think there is room for both lines of thought - I just can't quite figure where to draw that line. It is somewhere between dogs and kids though for sure.
Xceler8x wrote: Did you guys see the article in Sports Illustrated about how some of his dogs were rehabilitated? Great article..
I think there was a series based around the dogs that were being rehabbed. Dogtown, I think it was called.
he's back in, btw, as an update to the saga. conditional approved of reinstatement.
personally I think he did some bad E36 M3 but he's done his time and paid his fine and all that... I mean if it were any other job I don't think this would have been that big of a deal.
In a lot of places, what he did still isn't that big of a deal.
I'm a domestic violence attorney... I see guys get away with beating their wives on a daily basis and here we are calling for stricter punishment on a celeberity that abused dogs?
I realize its wrong.. but like I said... he got some punishment already. No reason to ruin his livlihood.
andrave wrote: No reason to ruin his livlihood.
The reason to "ruin" his livelihood is because he's not that good a good QB so you'd be moving him to a new position (or a modified occasional use variation of QB, see: Miami's wildcat formations), has a bad attitude, shows a lack of commitment, and possibly doesn't have even his previous talents available to him anymore, not to mention if he does get in trouble again he's hosed and so is your team if you're relying on him.
He's a bad risk/investment for a team. Even if we look at him independent of suspension by the league, though that could make it worse. Even if he was cleared to play tomorrow with no strings attached, I wouldn't hire him, and not due to any moral stand, but the risk/reward equation is not in his favor.
Now some team is going to take that gamble, and it could pay off big time. Just like any gamble, sometimes it works. Lottery tickets are a stupid way to make money, even if some people get rich. If it were me managing a team, the odds do not work out in a way that says hiring Vick is a good idea. The number of ways hiring him can go south trumps the small odds he's a serious contributor to your team.
In reply to keethrax:
The issue here is his legal ability to be able to play, not to be confused with whether or not he will.
ManofFewWords wrote: In reply to keethrax: The issue here is his legal ability to be able to play, not to be confused with whether or not he will.
If not playing = "ruined livelihood" I would assume both are relevant. But nice of you to decide what is and isn't relevant for me, thanks. Glad you were there to save me the trouble.
Further, I addressed what I thought about being allowed to play (that as a league commissioner, the gambling aspect would trouble me far more than the particulars that it was for dog fighting).
Further still, if he's been reinstated (though that was a pretty weak reinstatement wording on the part of the NFL) then the "legal" (as in league rules, not actual laws) part's covered pretty solidly.
But in any case, TO's statement (which is what the thread was actually about, and we all know threads never drift to related topics, that would be wrong...) was ridiculous in the extreme. You can cherry pick reasonable and rational bits out of it, but as far as I'm concerned, the idiotic parts poison the whole statement.
In my opinion, this is now a legal issue. Not a moral issue as some have stated, and not an issue of (as you stated) his personal shortcomings. I think you're confused.
ManofFewWords wrote: In my opinion, this is now a legal issue. Not a moral issue as some have stated, and not an issue of (as you stated) his personal shortcomings. I think you're confused.
Now that the legal issue is settled, is it not an owner or owners right to exercise a decision their morals lead them to and not hire the guy?
Not to open a bigger bag of worms, but I never said he should be hired. Just that he should be able to be hired. I couldn't care less about the guy, I just think his debt is paid. What he does now is up to him.
ManofFewWords wrote: Not to open a bigger bag of worms, but I never said he should be hired. Just that he should be able to be hired. I couldn't care less about the guy, I just think his debt is paid. What he does now is up to him.
Maybe you ought to find where I disagreed?
Hint: I don't. Though if he does net himself another suspension it's not hard to argue that being suspended while you're in jail and can't play anyhow really isn't a suspension. As long as tit's not extremely long I don't care either way. I'd be happy with nothing further, I'd be happy with 4 games or so further, I really don't care. As long as it's not so long as to ruin a shot at a "2nd chance" this season I don't think it's too onerous.
To me, that's such a simple and obvious concept that it's uninteresting, and as you yourself pointed out, has already been apparently resolved . (The reinstatement part anyhow)
However, I also think TO's comments (you know, the ones that opened up the whole thread?) were were asinine in the extreme. That would be the one (and probably only) actual point of disagreement we actually have, as you seem to appreciate them.
When the person quoted in the opening post of the thread makes statements like: "Michael Vick is a guy that really hasn't any character issues besides what he got a prison sentence for, so why not?" And can say that with a straight face, that makes those character issues directly relevant.
Shaun wrote:ManofFewWords wrote: In my opinion, this is now a legal issue. Not a moral issue as some have stated, and not an issue of (as you stated) his personal shortcomings. I think you're confused.Now that the legal issue is settled, is it not an owner or owners right to exercise a decision their morals lead them to and not hire the guy?
Sure it is.
I'm not sure you even need the morals side of it though. I would argue you could leave the morals completely out of it and still realize it's a likely bad gamble to hire the guy just from a team/business standpoint.
Sure bad gambles sometimes pay off, so the team that does hire him might make me look stupid. A sample size of one makes it tough to say even after the fact however it works out. He could be great and I could still have been right about the odds making it a bad gamble. Similarly, I could be completely wrong and he could be a very good gamble and still do badly making me appear to have been correct when I wasn't.
Does he drive a miata or a P71?
if neither why do we even care?
You'll need to log in to post.
