• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Does anybody else think it's bull the way NFL is teating Vick?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The statements from the league have been to the effect that "We are very disappointed in Michael Vick for having put himself in the position to be indicted for dog fighting" or something like that.

They are a private employer and they can punish their players as they see fit. Lets not forget that PacMan Jones is suspended for the year and he has yet to be convicted of anything either. Travis Henry... same thing.

The theory goes that you don't get arrested 12 times on accident, mistaken identity or any other way that would indicate that you weren't out getting into trouble. Same thing goes with a federal indictment. That doesn't happen by accident. Some will raise the argument that you can indict a ham sandwich. In the case of small town prosecutors *cough*Nifong*cough* that is true. But the feds do not operate that way.

The district Vick was indicted in has a 99+% conviction rate since 2000. They don't bring indictments unless they know for a fact they have an air tight MF of a case. Think of the Chuck Norris joke: "CN doesn't go hunting, that implies the possibility of failure. CN goes killing." That's a federal prosecutor.

I think the league is right to suspend him. I think the league has to do whatever is necessary to protect its image.
Yeah....what he said.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok? someone who works at a day care center is arrested and accused of molesting a child. Do you wait until that person is convicted before you remove them from their job and cut off their access to other children?

The NFL has an image to protect and there is a LOT of money riding on protecting that image. It is in their best interest to be proactive in a case like this.

And think about it? if the NFL allows Vick to play his presence will overshadow everything that happens on the field. They can?t afford to let this happen.
That analogy would be valid if Vick worked in a dog kennel. But he doesn't - he plays football, usually with humans.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91

When is congress going to get involved and do a judicial review of the NFL and their owners for their unlawful supensions of these NFL players?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I have no problem with the NFL's actions. As others have said they have a reputation to uphold and also have a league behavior policy. They haven't kicked him out of the league.

As far as people comparing this to fishing, that's crap, it isn't even close.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
I guess this dog fighting deal is huge with some people... Used to be a gentleman's sport...suit and tie affair in the 40's in the south. I am indifferent to it i guess.. not something I'd go see but at the same time animals are just that animals. I shoot them catch them and feel they are food and lessor in some way. No Biggie and dogs like to fight so let them.
Just because you support dog fighting doesnt mean the NFL shouldnt suspend Vick.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have created a dog eat dog world and the dog fight allows us to feel our feelings about our own lives vicariously. The viciousness and violence the dogs do to each other is just like what we do and what is done to us. We are magnetized always by our own unconscious feelings and seek to experience them always indirectly by a back door.
Nobody back-doored Vick.
How do you know?

He could be a sufferer of little man syndrome.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
I guess this dog fighting deal is huge with some people... Used to be a gentleman's sport...suit and tie affair in the 40's in the south. I am indifferent to it i guess.. not something I'd go see but at the same time animals are just that animals. I shoot them catch them and feel they are food and lessor in some way. No Biggie and dogs like to fight so let them.
Yeah, and throwing Christians to the lions was also a nice pasttime. Nobody wants to let people have fun anymore!

While your position that since animals are food for us makes them lesser in some way is enlightening, perhaps you might consider that a society's worth is not judged by how they treat the best among them, but the lowest.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,031
66
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok? someone who works at a day care center is arrested and accused of molesting a child. Do you wait until that person is convicted before you remove them from their job and cut off their access to other children?

The NFL has an image to protect and there is a LOT of money riding on protecting that image. It is in their best interest to be proactive in a case like this.

And think about it? if the NFL allows Vick to play his presence will overshadow everything that happens on the field. They can?t afford to let this happen.
For once you and I are in complete agreement. This is a PR nightmare for the league in a way that directly affects its legitimate business interests. The heinous nature of these charges will predictably tar everything Vick does this year.

Frankly this may be the best thing for the Falcons - if Vick is going to be unavailable to practice by mid-season due to his trial, they might as well be working out with their backup QBs, and besides, imagine the fan/PR backlash if he is allowed to play the entire season, as the criminal justice process does its thing, and wins a ring, then gets sent to prison in the off-season.

Frankly I have zero sympathy for Vick. He chose to be a starting QB in the NFL, with the attention and publicity that connotes, and apparently also chose, at the same time, to associate with the scum of the earth, engage in a sizable interstate criminal conspiracy, and personally kill several dogs through unnecessarily cruel means. The evidence against him is overwhelming, and he stands accused of crimes that are so deliberate and so cruel that nobody will ever look at him the same. I say screw him.

Boy, the bloom really is off the rose with professional sports this year: we have the NBA ref scandal, the Vick case, Barry Bonds about to break the HR record through blatant juicing, and the Tour de France and the entire sport of cycling on the verge of total collapse due to doping. What a mess . . .

BTW, to correct the OP, Vick is apparently being paid during his suspension.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,421
5,486
126
Originally posted by: dyna

When is congress going to get involved and do a judicial review of the NFL and their owners for their unlawful supensions of these NFL players?
the players agreed to it, how is it unlawful?
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
This just isn't about dog fighting, but the horrible, cruel, and sadistic ways in which he allegedly killed the dogs, sorry but that's just sick.

Anyone trying to downplay the seriousness of this kind of behavior is f'ing retarded.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,031
66
91
Originally posted by: dyna

When is congress going to get involved and do a judicial review of the NFL and their owners for their unlawful supensions of these NFL players?
The players have no constitutional or statutory right to play professional football, and they have no rights at all outside those included in their individual contracts and the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok? someone who works at a day care center is arrested and accused of molesting a child. Do you wait until that person is convicted before you remove them from their job and cut off their access to other children?

The NFL has an image to protect and there is a LOT of money riding on protecting that image. It is in their best interest to be proactive in a case like this.

And think about it? if the NFL allows Vick to play his presence will overshadow everything that happens on the field. They can?t afford to let this happen.
I agree with your conclusion, but that's really not an applicable analogy. A person accused of child molestation isn't removed from his job because of the bad PR (which would indeed be bad) but because of the possible danger he presents if he remains in his position. Even if Vick admitted guilt here, his continuing to play would not present a danger to other players, unless he hid a pitbull under his jersey.
 

laketrout

Senior member
Mar 1, 2005
672
0
0
While hiding a pitbull under his jersey would be entertaining, their explanation was that because he's the quarterback he is suppose to be a leader for the team on and off the field and therefore they are justified in keeping him off the field. Now, that sounds nice, but I would just come out and say we don't want his negative image tarnishing the rest of us myself.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,334
4,034
126
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok? someone who works at a day care center is arrested and accused of molesting a child. Do you wait until that person is convicted before you remove them from their job and cut off their access to other children?

The NFL has an image to protect and there is a LOT of money riding on protecting that image. It is in their best interest to be proactive in a case like this.

And think about it? if the NFL allows Vick to play his presence will overshadow everything that happens on the field. They can?t afford to let this happen.
For once you and I are in complete agreement. This is a PR nightmare for the league in a way that directly affects its legitimate business interests. The heinous nature of these charges will predictably tar everything Vick does this year.

Frankly this may be the best thing for the Falcons - if Vick is going to be unavailable to practice by mid-season due to his trial, they might as well be working out with their backup QBs, and besides, imagine the fan/PR backlash if he is allowed to play the entire season, as the criminal justice process does its thing, and wins a ring, then gets sent to prison in the off-season.

Frankly I have zero sympathy for Vick. He chose to be a starting QB in the NFL, with the attention and publicity that connotes, and apparently also chose, at the same time, to associate with the scum of the earth, engage in a sizable interstate criminal conspiracy, and personally kill several dogs through unnecessarily cruel means. The evidence against him is overwhelming, and he stands accused of crimes that are so deliberate and so cruel that nobody will ever look at him the same. I say screw him.

Boy, the bloom really is off the rose with professional sports this year: we have the NBA ref scandal, the Vick case, Barry Bonds about to break the HR record through blatant juicing, and the Tour de France and the entire sport of cycling on the verge of total collapse due to doping. What a mess . . .

BTW, to correct the OP, Vick is apparently being paid during his suspension.
So far, ice hockey is doing OK.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok? someone who works at a day care center is arrested and accused of molesting a child. Do you wait until that person is convicted before you remove them from their job and cut off their access to other children?

The NFL has an image to protect and there is a LOT of money riding on protecting that image. It is in their best interest to be proactive in a case like this.

And think about it? if the NFL allows Vick to play his presence will overshadow everything that happens on the field. They can?t afford to let this happen.
I agree with your conclusion, but that's really not an applicable analogy. A person accused of child molestation isn't removed from his job because of the bad PR (which would indeed be bad) but because of the possible danger he presents if he remains in his position. Even if Vick admitted guilt here, his continuing to play would not present a danger to other players, unless he hid a pitbull under his jersey.
The NFL has the best deal possible, they can do pretty much whatever they want with their players and the NFL brand is what they are protecting. You analogy doesn't work because the NFL is an entity unto its own. NFL players can be fired, cut, suspended etc. whenever the owner holding the player under the contract wants barring some mediation through the players union.

The NFL players union is his only recourse but I don't think his fellow players are going to go to bat for him, it's their interests at stake as well. The NFL must protect it's image, that's the bottom line.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Can't argue that NFL has been successful in avoiding the thug image that's killing BBall ATM. But still I think it's bull because it's not like he killed someone or strangled a coach or something.
I dont think people who torture animals to the point of breaking them in order to put them into a cage and make them fight another animal to the death are much different. These people imo should be snuffed out of our society. They are worthless humans who server little purpose beyond satisfying their disgusting habit by killing, maiming, and torturing defenseless animals.

 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,181
609
126
Since when was an idictment a guilty verdict? Well it's not. But the NFL is under no obligation to hold to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard that the American justice system has.

What the NFL is trying to do is minimize the size of the black eye they are about to receive. This isn't the first time Vick has been in some trouble, and it very well might not be the last. With all of the bad press the NFL is getting in terms of player conduct, I am not at all shocked or sadened by the fact he was suspended from camp. If anything, the NFL must continue to be tough on player misconduct.

And, let's face it: he is an overhyped, spoiled, thug athelete. I won't shead a single tear for this asshole.
 
Feb 16, 2005
13,792
4,808
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Zebo
Can't argue that NFL has been successful in avoiding the thug image that's killing BBall ATM. But still I think it's bull because it's not like he killed someone or strangled a coach or something.
I dont think people who torture animals to the point of breaking them in order to put them into a cage and make them fight another animal to the death are much different. These people imo should be snuffed out of our society. They are worthless humans who server little purpose beyond satisfying their disgusting habit by killing, maiming, and torturing defenseless animals.
We don't agree on much, but I salute you and this well worded post :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
The people who find 'sport' in the slaughter of animals are slime, worthless and a general waste of dna.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,181
609
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
Can't argue that NFL has been successful in avoiding the thug image that's killing BBall ATM. But still I think it's bull because it's not like he killed someone or strangled a coach or something.
Yeah, that is total bull that he is getting in trouble for breaking the law and murdering animals! What a crock! It's not fair that he will be denied the privilege of making millions for running around a football field! Wahhhhhhh!

:roll:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,334
4,034
126
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Zebo
Can't argue that NFL has been successful in avoiding the thug image that's killing BBall ATM. But still I think it's bull because it's not like he killed someone or strangled a coach or something.
I dont think people who torture animals to the point of breaking them in order to put them into a cage and make them fight another animal to the death are much different. These people imo should be snuffed out of our society. They are worthless humans who server little purpose beyond satisfying their disgusting habit by killing, maiming, and torturing defenseless animals.
We don't agree on much, but I salute you and this well worded post :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
The people who find 'sport' in the slaughter of animals are slime, worthless and a general waste of dna.
They do to animals what was done to them as children, done in fact to all of us. When you condemn them you condemn that within you which is like them but expresses itself somewhat differently. Some of us become those who tortured us and turn our rage against whatever victim we can find and some of us identify with the victim and turn our rage against the oppressor. It is the same hate that drives either side.

In this world of endless pain and cruelty there is no action you can take with hate of any kind that will not lead in the end to a kick to the wheel of this endless karma. There is only one way to heal the world and that is to suffer and forgive. There is only one kind of hate we can stop and it is our own.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: shira
Other than for the degree of cruelty and the sophistication of the animal's brain, what is the difference between dog-fighting and sports fishing?

Why is it acceptable - as "sport" - to entice an animal to snag itself on a metal hook, and then force it to fight for its life to the point of complete exhaustion? The fact that many of these fish are released alive doesn't excuse the terror they have been forced to experience.

Why, in the U.S., is it acceptable to raise cows for food, but not dogs?

We're all hypocrites.
Vick wasn't eating the dogs; he was torturing them throughout their life, then killing them if they didn't please him.

But you do raise an interesting point; why is it OK to torture some animals (sport fishing, bullfighting), but not others? The simple answer is, it isn't. I personally don't think bullfighting or sport fishing or other activities of this nature should be legal. They are cruel and barbaric and serve no purpose other than satisfying a sick, twisted desire within man to feel like a God.

I'm not one of those crazy PETA vegans who thinks animals deserve the exact same rights as people (have you noticed how those people always wear leather Birkenstocks? Oh, the irony...). I recognize the legitimacy of hunting and fishing as a means of consumption (but if you're just shooting something so you can frame it or steal it's tusks, you're a bastard). I eat meat at virtually every meal. I just think that there is a very clear line between justified killing and not. If you are killing an animal to eat it, or because it is diseased (rabies, etc.), then that's acceptable. If you get your jollies from torturing an animal for "sport," then killing it for pleasure, only to be fed to your next animal you torture for sport, then you are a sick, twisted individual.

Michael Vick should be shown just how great a "sport" this really is. Dump him in the ring with some lions and see how he fares.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
no i dont think it is bull.

im 100% positive if i did the same as him, my employeer would send me packing the next day. why are athletes any different.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: shira
Other than for the degree of cruelty and the sophistication of the animal's brain, what is the difference between dog-fighting and sports fishing?

Why is it acceptable - as "sport" - to entice an animal to snag itself on a metal hook, and then force it to fight for its life to the point of complete exhaustion? The fact that many of these fish are released alive doesn't excuse the terror they have been forced to experience.

Why, in the U.S., is it acceptable to raise cows for food, but not dogs?

We're all hypocrites.
Vick wasn't eating the dogs; he was torturing them throughout their life, then killing them if they didn't please him.

But you do raise an interesting point; why is it OK to torture some animals (sport fishing, rodeos), but not others? The simple answer is, it isn't. I personally don't think rodeos or sport fishing or other activities of this nature should be legal. They are cruel and barbaric and serve no purpose other than satisfying a sick, twisted desire within man to feel like a God.

I'm not one of those crazy PETA vegans who thinks animals deserve the exact same rights as people (have you noticed how those people always wear leather Birkenstocks? Oh, the irony...). I recognize the legitimacy of hunting and fishing as a means of consumption (but if you're just shooting something so you can frame it or steal it's tusks, you're a bastard). I eat meat at virtually every meal. I just think that there is a very clear line between justified killing and not. If you are killing an animal to eat it, or because it is diseased (rabies, etc.), then that's acceptable. If you get your jollies from torturing an animal for "sport," then killing it for pleasure, only to be fed to your next animal you torture for sport, then you are a sick, twisted individual.

Michael Vick should be shown just how great a "sport" this really is. Dump him in the ring with some lions and see how he fares.
:|
rodeo animals are not tortured. a LOT of money has been spent to breed and raise those animals and the people who own them and lease them to the rodeo circuit would go sh*t raving mad if any of their animals were mistreated in anyway. do you have any idea how much a rodeo bull or bucking horse cost? the only thing in the arena that gets hurt is the fool who tries to ride them. the bulls and broncs love it just like a reteiver loves fetching ducks.

as far as sport fishing who cares its a fish and gets to live another day.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok? someone who works at a day care center is arrested and accused of molesting a child. Do you wait until that person is convicted before you remove them from their job and cut off their access to other children?

The NFL has an image to protect and there is a LOT of money riding on protecting that image. It is in their best interest to be proactive in a case like this.

And think about it? if the NFL allows Vick to play his presence will overshadow everything that happens on the field. They can?t afford to let this happen.
For once you and I are in complete agreement. This is a PR nightmare for the league in a way that directly affects its legitimate business interests. The heinous nature of these charges will predictably tar everything Vick does this year.

-snip-
.
Your remark above dovetials with the point I wished to make here: The NFL is nothing but an entertainment business. All this bad publicity directly affects their product and will overshadow everything happening on the field (as you say in different words). So, I understand their actions to some extent.

But I think I would have allowed him to practice with the team so in the (unlikely?) event he is not convicted he could go on to play this season. I've never heard of team performing well during the season when the QB misses camp.

Otherwise, while I'm no fan of Vick or even the Falcons, I do think it a shame we have this culture of "guilty until proven innocent".

Yeah, I'm a major dog lover, live in the South and am quite shocked to learn dog fights exist in this day & age. I had absolutely no idea.

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY