NFL will proceed cautiously on Vick

[StanleySpadowski]

To this point the NFL has focused on repeat offenders. Vick hasn't fallen into that category yet even though there were stirrings about his conduct that prompted the Falcons to act last year.

Watch for the pressure to be put on his endorsement deal companies and once they start dropping the ball will be rolling.

I'm having problems figuring out how Vick doesn't qualify as a repeat offender when it comes to bringing a black eye to the NFL.

Let's recap:

The infamous "with weed in hand" picture that circulated

Ron Mexico-to the point that "Mexico" was added to the banned list on NFL jerseys. Knowingly infecting someone with an STD has been prosecuted.

The hidden compartment water bottle.

Flipping off the home crowd including children.

 

[joseephuss]

I'm having problems figuring out how Vick doesn't qualify as a repeat offender when it comes to bringing a black eye to the NFL.

Let's recap:

The infamous "with weed in hand" picture that circulated

Ron Mexico-to the point that "Mexico" was added to the banned list on NFL jerseys. Knowingly infecting someone with an STD has been prosecuted.

The hidden compartment water bottle.

Flipping off the home crowd including children.

You can still get a #7 Falcons jersey with Ookie across the back. Not for long though.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

someone should get a Vick jersey that says "bonehead"

actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea for everyone to buy personalized Vick jerseys w/ not so nice names on the back as protest, but that's JMO

 

[Stautner]

No I didn't I read posts but I responded to that portion of comment only, so yes, it was relevent.

But go ahead and continue to argue over hypothetical situation.

How can it be relevant if even you admit you don't even know the context?

Hell, you just admitted you didn't even know what we were talking about.

 

[Doomsday101]

Matt Houston, Texas: Is Vick the elite and highly visible example that Roger Goodell has been looking for to send his message to the rest of the league?

Roger Cossack: I think it's a combination of things. Vick is the most well known football player to date that's been involved in something this serious. Also the charges are so horrible and so graphic that it's very difficult for Goodell to just ignore them. Remember, due process is something we're given in the constitution, but there is no guarantee of due process in the NFL and the players. They've given Goodell the power to decide what's in the best interestests of the NFL.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

How can it be relevant if even you admit you don't even know the context?

Hell, you just admitted you didn't even know what we were talking about.

I'll admit that. I, sometimes, don't have a clue.

:laugh2:

 

[Stautner]

Tank Johnson wasn't driving under the influence, he was below the legal limit, yet the Bears cut him for that

again, the CBA doesn't require that the league or teams work in conjuction w/ the legal system, a criminal charge, just the charge, is sufficient for a team to cut a player under the CBA

btw, this indictment isn't totally w/o base, of course VIck hasn't been convicted of anything, but there is some forms of evidence

YOU NEED TO READ SLOWLY AND PAY ATTENTION TO AND TRY TO COMPREHEND WHAT I AM SAYING.

I am not saying that the NFL has to work in conjunction with the legal system - I am saying that that the NFL has to consider the legal ramifications of it's decisions so that it's decisions don't bite them on the butt.

 

[Stautner]

I'll admit that. I, sometimes, don't have a clue.

:laugh2:

Hey, at least you aren't trying to argue something when you don't even know the topic.

 

[Stash]

YOU NEED TO READ SLOWLY AND PAY ATTENTION TO AND TRY TO COMPREHEND WHAT I AM SAYING.

I am not saying that the NFL has to work in conjunction with the legal system - I am saying that that the NFL has to consider the legal ramifications of it's decisions so that it's decisions don't bite them on the butt.

I don't think so.

They didn't have to wait for Tank's results for the Bears to cut him.

I don't think the Falcons need to wait in this case either.

And I think the league has given Goodell enough leeway to make the call on a suspension as well.

I'd love to see Vick challenge that decision in court.

 

[Doomsday101]

I tell that Prison football team is looking better all the time. LOL

 

[Stautner]

I don't think so.

They didn't have to wait for Tank's results for the Bears to cut him.

I don't think the Falcons need to wait in this case either.

And I think the league has given Goodell enough leeway to make the call on a suspension as well.

I'd love to see Vick challenge that decision in court.

Tank already had a conviction under his belt - he wasn't on his first strike. They already had grounds to dismiss him before his most recent incident.

 

[Stash]

Tank already had a conviction under his belt - he wasn't on his first strike. They already had grounds to dismiss him before his most recent incident.

Would you claim that this is Vick's 'first strike'?

 

[joseephuss]

Would you claim that this is Vick's 'first strike'?

His first big strike. Sure he has been in bad situations, but not enough to warrant an arrest. There are levels. There is a difference in a picture of him circulating around with a supposed joint and getting pulled over with a joint in the car. So, yes this is his first real strike. It ain't a good one, either.

 

[Stash]

His first big strike. Sure he has been in bad situations, but not enough to warrant an arrest. There are levels. There is a difference in a picture of him circulating around with a supposed joint and getting pulled over with a joint in the car. So, yes this is his first real strike. It ain't a good one, either.

This is my point.

It's hardly the first time he's embarrassed the Falcons franchise, just like it wasn't Tank's first time embarrassing the Bears.

The Bears got fed up and I think the Falcons will too.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

YOU NEED TO READ SLOWLY AND PAY ATTENTION TO AND TRY TO COMPREHEND WHAT I AM SAYING.

I am not saying that the NFL has to work in conjunction with the legal system - I am saying that that the NFL has to consider the legal ramifications of it's decisions so that it's decisions don't bite them on the butt.

what legal ramifications when it's well within their rights?

btw, PacMan hasn't been convicted of any crimes and he's out a year

 

[joseephuss]

This is my point.

It's hardly the first time he's embarrassed the Falcons franchise, just like it wasn't Tank's first time embarrassing the Bears.

The Bears got fed up and I think the Falcons will too.

The Bears got fed up because they finally realized Tank was never going to change. Did he really do something wrong? Not by legal standards since he was within legal limits. But Tank can't afford to be playing so close along the edge. He was in a position where he needed to do things cleaner and better than his peers. That is what he told everyone he was going to do and he learned in jail. The Falcons may finally realize this as well.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

The NFL better dot all the "i" and cross the "t"'s in this case.

 

[Stautner]

His first big strike. Sure he has been in bad situations, but not enough to warrant an arrest. There are levels. There is a difference in a picture of him circulating around with a supposed joint and getting pulled over with a joint in the car. So, yes this is his first real strike. It ain't a good one, either.

Would you claim that this is Vick's 'first strike'?

IF PROVEN GUILTY - this will be Vick's first legal strike, yes.

Now, if you want to start firing every player that ever flipped the bird at the fans, then so be it ..... I personally don't consider that the same category.

what legal ramifications when it's well within their rights?

btw, PacMan hasn't been convicted of any crimes and he's out a year

On the other thread you provided a portion of the CBA which clearly said they can take action against a player who is GUILTY OF things that embaress or are detrimental to the league .......

Considering that he isn't GUILTY OF this crime just yet, your own quote dooms you.

GUILT is the standard, not merely an accusation, so you shot yourself in the foot.

As for Pacman, I believe he has plea bargained charges in the past and has admitted wrongdoing - if Vick admits to any wrongdoing then I would agree the league should suspend him.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

On the other thread you provided a portion of the CBA which clearly said they can take action against a player who is GUILTY OF things that embaress or are detrimental to the league .......

Considering that he isn't GUILTY OF this crime just yet, your own quote dooms you.

GUILT is the standard, not merely an accusation, so you shot yourself in the foot.

As for Pacman, I believe he has plea bargained charges in the past and has admitted wrongdoing - if Vick admits to any wrongdoing then I would agree the league should suspend him.

hey smart guy, OLD CBA

the NEW CBA says you don't have to be found legally guilty

"While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values upon which the league is based, and is lawful.
"Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime."

 

[Stautner]

hey smart guy, OLD CBA

the NEW CBA says you don't have to be found legally guilty

"While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is responsible, promotes the values upon which the league is based, and is lawful.
"Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a crime."

GEEZ - you aren't even reading before responding despite the fact that I ahve pleaded with you to do it.

I didn't say that the CBA says LEGALLY GUILTY, I said it says GUILTY.

Not the same thing. You are trying to wiggle out of this by claiming I am saying things I am not.

The point is that being ACCUSED and being GUILTY (whether LEGALLY GUILTY or not) are not the same thing, and as I said many times, the NFL has to be very careful before taking action because if he isn't guilty, legally or otherwise, then they could face ramifications.

AS I SAID BEFORE - YOUR OWN QUOTE USES THE WORD GUILTY AS THE STANDARD, NOT ACCUSED.