NFL ban Vick over dog fight case

[king of the world]

damn i hope he does not get banned for life. i dont like what he did but i like watching him play.

[Psycho4Bud]

Actually Blitzed I was talking about the NFL ban....not Vick personally (but there has to be some sadist in there somewhere) My hubby said they banned him because of the betting allegations (against the NFL rules) vs dogfighting (illegal) Does that make sense the way I wrote it? I'm kind of....:stoned:

Betting is part of it but the NFL is starting to crack down on these jocks that think that they are above the law. Stiffer suspensions, etc....... Drunk driving, possession of a firearm, are just a few that have bought some of these boys a vacation.

These people were bringing to bring down the sport with their off the field adventures.....when you are fortunate enough to get a multi-million dollar contract it's a slap in the fact to the league and owners to act like an ass off the field. I'm personally glad their cleaning it up a bit.:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[thcbongman]

I'm glad Vick accepted the plea deal and will be punished by prison.

However, I don't think the NFL should ban him. Let him be punished by the court of law. Let him serve his time, and let him move on. If he rehabilitates, let him on with his career. If he does his cruel actions again, let him be punished by the law again.

The NFL has forgived murders, and criminals of all time. No matter vicks crimes, he did not hurt the NFL directly, only in terms of image. He did not place bets on NFL games (until proven otherwise.) He did not profit illegally using the NFL. He did not use performance-enchancing drugs to cheat. He did nothing to illegally alter the outcome of games. This is what constitutes life-time bans from leagues. Not criminal convictions outside of the spot. I believe this a form of double jeopardy.

If the Atlanta Falcons wanted to cut him, or off the team for conduct that's detrimental to their rules of conduct, then they can chose to. If another team wanted to pick him up, they can chose to. But I believe the NFL is overstepping their boundaries, and suspending him indefinitely as a mere public ploy.

Personally I think hunting, are poaching are equally as demented as dog fighting. You are killing for personal pleasure or gain. But yet, I hear no uproar about it.

The only reason people care is because this guy has a ton of money and plays in the NFL. No one would care otherwise. America is a very unforgiving culture, and this only continues to perpetuate it. People just put someone to the stake with a sense of vengeance, and not for true justice. They want to see him burn. I only want him to be punished within the scope. The NFL banning goes beyond that.

[Rabbit Lion]

I have my own ideas (which are both unorthodox and unconstitutional) about how he should be punished...

you and me both.

[TheDefiler]

thcbongman...I totally agree with what u said. The NFL should only care about things that affect the organization and stay out of peoples personal lives. If someone makes a mistake off the field then it is their responsibility to pay for that crime after being convicted and sentenced in a court of law. It's bad enough being fined and imprisoned but then u lost your livelihood as well? Kinda crappy if u ask me but then again its just the NFL flexing their muscle i guess.

[king of the world]

i think the nfl banned him because of all the publicity. if the media wasn't all up their asses they would have probably gave him a small punishment. but everyone was critizing vick and the nfl, so they had to pull out the big gunz.

[ganjzilla]

i mean does this guy have no class at all?...what a joker...ur gonna make 130 million over the next 10 years not including ur endorsements, clothing and shoe sales...but u throw it away over freaking dog fighting...thats gotta be the dumbest thing ive ever heard...20 grand a fight for something illegal or 13 million a year to throw a damn ball...this dude deserves to go to the psych ward after he gets let outta jail

[KevinFinnerty]

I've got a lot I want to get off my chest on this topic, so bear with me.

It's REALLY sad, and frustrating, and amusing, to see just how many people are practically calling for Michael Vick to be lynched for this whole dogfighting thing. How can you sit there and rationally argue that Vick deserves to be banned from the NFL for life after he serves his (potential) jail sentence and pays his proverbial debt to society? Who is the commissioner to say, "Alright Mike, you're out of jail, but I don't think our nation's legislation is strict enough regarding this matter, so I'm still not going to let you play." I mean, there are millions of people in this country, and ostensibly many players in the NFL, who enjoy going out with high-powered firearms and blowing the brains out of innocent animals who are just chilling in their natural habitats, animals that would have otherwise lived normal lives. You're going to sit there and tell me that this activity is significantly less horrible, if at all, than dogfighting? I'm not saying dogfighting isn't disgusting, or that that there shouldn't be laws against it. What I am saying, however, is that it certainly shouldn't be the sole cause of the premature ending to a man's career.

People love to point to the the cruelty and "inhumanity" (a term I've heard used a lot when discussing the animal abuse which seems a bit oxymoronic, considering animals aren't humans) with which Vick treated those dogs as the reason why this is such a horrible act. However, how can you use the concept of inhumanity in reference to the treatment of animals when we, as humans, kill animals everyday for things like food, clothing, hunting, etc.? Even more to the point, how can you use the concept of inhumanity in reference to the treatment of dogs when organizations like the ASPCA kill THOUSANDS of dogs a year simply for population control? It's just so hypocritical to, on the one hand, treat animals completely like property to be destroyed when a person sees fit, and on the other hand send someone to jail and ruin his career for the way he chooses to treat said property. Until the powers that be, as well as the public, show the same indignation toward all forms of abusing and killing animals (like hunting) as they do towards Michael Vick, all this outrage towards Vick is nothing more than hollow sanctimony.

Another thing: the people trying to rationalize a lifetime ban for Michael Vick by bringing up gambling are way off base. There is a huge and fundamental difference between gambling on your sport and just gambling period. Vick putting some money on his dogs to win fights in no way compromised the competitive integrity of the NFL. Also, it's ridiculous to say that betting on his dogs could have led to him developing a debt with a bookie and indirectly led to him shaving points or something. By all accounts Vick was wagering like $20,000 or $30,000 tops on these dogfights, a laughably small amount compared to the size of his salary. In fact, it only takes a bit of common sense and a little knowledge of how sports betting works to understand that there's next to zero chance of an athlete in the big three sports (NFL, NBA, MLB) shaving points considering how much money they make, how much risk it involves, and how much a bookie would have to pay the athlete to make it worthwhile for him, considering that there is a relatively low limit to how much you can wager on any given game; it's simply not feasible, although college sports are a different story altogether. The bottom line is that, even though I don't have an exact copy of the NFL's policy regarding gambling in front of me, I know it would be against the spirit of the policy to punish a guy when he never did anything to actually affect the competition in the NFL in any way. As a side note, if you still think Michael Vick's gambling makes him deserving of a lifetime ban, what would you say about the portion of the NFL's players (sizable, according to many, many reports) who wager huge amounts playing Texas Holdem and other card games? I can assure you that there's a lot more money being put on card games among football players, and other pro athletes, than $20,000-$30,000.

...and now I'm off my soapbox. Thank you for your time

[TallCoolOne]

I've got a lot I want to get off my chest on this topic, so bear with me.

It's REALLY sad, and frustrating, and amusing, to see just how many people are practically calling for Michael Vick to be lynched for this whole dogfighting thing. How can you sit there and rationally argue that Vick deserves to be banned from the NFL for life after he serves his (potential) jail sentence and pays his proverbial debt to society? Who is the commissioner to say, "Alright Mike, you're out of jail, but I don't think our nation's legislation is strict enough regarding this matter, so I'm still not going to let you play." I mean, there are millions of people in this country, and ostensibly many players in the NFL, who enjoy going out with high-powered firearms and blowing the brains out of innocent animals who are just chilling in their natural habitats, animals that would have otherwise lived normal lives. You're going to sit there and tell me that this activity is significantly less horrible, if at all, than dogfighting? I'm not saying dogfighting isn't disgusting, or that that there shouldn't be laws against it. What I am saying, however, is that it certainly shouldn't be the sole cause of the premature ending to a man's career.

People love to point to the the cruelty and "inhumanity" (a term I've heard used a lot when discussing the animal abuse which seems a bit oxymoronic, considering animals aren't humans) with which Vick treated those dogs as the reason why this is such a horrible act. However, how can you use the concept of inhumanity in reference to the treatment of animals when we, as humans, kill animals everyday for things like food, clothing, hunting, etc.? Even more to the point, how can you use the concept of inhumanity in reference to the treatment of dogs when organizations like the ASPCA kill THOUSANDS of dogs a year simply for population control? It's just so hypocritical to, on the one hand, treat animals completely like property to be destroyed when a person sees fit, and on the other hand send someone to jail and ruin his career for the way he chooses to treat said property. Until the powers that be, as well as the public, show the same indignation toward all forms of abusing and killing animals (like hunting) as they do towards Michael Vick, all this outrage towards Vick is nothing more than hollow sanctimony.

Another thing: the people trying to rationalize a lifetime ban for Michael Vick by bringing up gambling are way off base. There is a huge and fundamental difference between gambling on your sport and just gambling period. Vick putting some money on his dogs to win fights in no way compromised the competitive integrity of the NFL. Also, it's ridiculous to say that betting on his dogs could have led to him developing a debt with a bookie and indirectly led to him shaving points or something. By all accounts Vick was wagering like $20,000 or $30,000 tops on these dogfights, a laughably small amount compared to the size of his salary. In fact, it only takes a bit of common sense and a little knowledge of how sports betting works to understand that there's next to zero chance of an athlete in the big three sports (NFL, NBA, MLB) shaving points considering how much money they make, how much risk it involves, and how much a bookie would have to pay the athlete to make it worthwhile for him, considering that there is a relatively low limit to how much you can wager on any given game; it's simply not feasible, although college sports are a different story altogether. The bottom line is that, even though I don't have an exact copy of the NFL's policy regarding gambling in front of me, I know it would be against the spirit of the policy to punish a guy when he never did anything to actually affect the competition in the NFL in any way. As a side note, if you still think Michael Vick's gambling makes him deserving of a lifetime ban, what would you say about the portion of the NFL's players (sizable, according to many, many reports) who wager huge amounts playing Texas Holdem and other card games? I can assure you that there's a lot more money being put on card games among football players, and other pro athletes, than $20,000-$30,000.

...and now I'm off my soapbox. Thank you for your time

Ever heard of Pete Rose?