NFL will proceed cautiously on Vick

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

explain to me the difference between legally guilty and guilty?

 

[Doomsday101]

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.

True but the Grand Jury found enough evidence to indicte him the NFL does not need any more than that. If he was just accused and the Grand Jury threw it out because of a lack of evidence then I say the NFL would not do anything in this case even if Vick beats the rap there is a good chance he will still face a suspention.

 

[Stautner]

explain to me the difference between legally guilty and guilty?

Wow - you need some work on your elevator because yours isn't getting to the top.

FIRST OF ALL: you were the one who tried to claim victory in your last post by making a distinction between the terms "guilty" and "legally guilty", so it's pretty hypocritcal for you to harp on my use of the same.

SECOND: A guy can be guilty and not be convicted, so that's the difference. In that case I believe the NFL can and should take steps IF THEY CAN PRODUCE A STRONG CASE FOR GUILT, but if they cannot then they are running a risk.


It's not that difficult to understand ....... just try.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Wow - you need some work on your elevator because yours isn't getting to the top.

FIRST OF ALL: you were the one who tried to claim victory in your last post by making a distinction between the terms "guilty" and "legally guilty", so it's pretty hypocritcal for you to harp on my use of the same.

SECOND: A guy can be guilty and not be convicted, so that's the difference. In that case I believe the NFL can and should take steps IF THEY CAN PRODUCE A STRONG CASE FOR GUILT, but if they cannot then they are running a risk.


It's not that difficult to understand ....... just try.

so the NFL has to hire a team of shrinks and get Vick on a polygraph? the NFL isn't, and doesn't have to, build a case, any preponderance of guilt is enough to be deemed as breaking the player conduct policy, and enough to warrant a fine, suspension or termination of contract, as we have seen w/ PacMan, and probably will see again w/ VIck, even if he's not convicted

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

You're claiming someone's trying to make a name for himself.

Who would that be?

The nobody prosecutor you will finally know finally exists when the trial comes to light.

Just like in the OJ trial, no one ever new Marcie Clark or Chris Darden except for their close relatives but now they are big names.

Reminds me of the line in HBO's Rome where Caesar is asked if he had a guy killed and he said "I didn't know the man existed until he didn't".

The Falcons can cut Vick tomorrow if they want, they will have cap problems/hit if they do but NFL contracts aren't guaranteed so no one can stop them. I'm referring to the NFL suspending him based on an indictment.

As for comments about him passing on STDs, if that stopped you from playing in the NFL, would there be anyone left?

 

[LenS]

This is really a mess -- interesting -- but still a mess. Over at Profootballtalk, the host brought up two interesting points. First, these charges involve illegal gambling. That's an area that has gotten big name players suspended before (i.e. Paul Hornung) and the NFL will probably want to start looking at what else Vick might have been betting on. But even if it was just dogs, it's fairly likely that he was hanging out with other illegal gamblers who probably bet on more than dogs. And since the NFL is a huge source of betting, this gets into iffy areas for Vick. The NFL could base a suspension on that alone.

The second PFT host point was that these are conspiracy charges dealing with a five year period of illegal activities. Doesn't that make Vick a repeat offender then? This isn't just one bad night with too much booze, this is years of sustained illegal acts.

OJ . . . hmm, it's interesting to note that the prosecutors and judge who worked on that case ended up with bad reputations as a result of that trial. So I'd say that most prosecutors tend to be very careful before bringing cases against celebrities because the risks are greater. Still, there are complete idiots like Durham's Nifong out there also.

Finally, there was sizeable winnings involved in this -- how about the IRS getting in the act down the road? Though, Vick could have reported the income within his legal dog breeding business to avoid that problem. But I doubt that since it's usually cash being used and wagered.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Darden only looked bad because he had OJ put on a glove that didn't fit.

 

[fortdick]

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

Is there an illegally guilty?

Actually, Goodell has to make a statement with this case. Unless he drops the hammer on Vick for such a heinious crime, his credibility is out the window. How can he claim he is trying to clean up football's image and let Vick stay on the field? That only sends the message that some players are too important to their team to be held accountable.

As far as being proven guil;ty in a court of law, professional sports is exempt from normal labor laws. Ask the Chicago Black Sox after Judge Landis booted a third of the team out of baseball after they awere acquitted. Sure that was in the 1920's, but the ssame principles apply today.

Goodell has to prove he means what he says. I, for one, would love to get his e-mail address and flood him with public opinion. I imagine that 90% of Americans want to see this kind of criminal conduct eradicated. Michael Vick must be made an example of because of who he is. Not allowed to escape becasue of who he is.

 

[LenS]

Sorry, but the prosecutors messed up more than that. Their boss stupidly let the trial be moved downtown, away from where OJ actually lived. They never mentioned the OJ's aborted run in the Bronco -- trying to flee is very admissible and relevant in a trial. They allowed the defense to throw off a juror for supposedly wanting to write a book -- of course, she didn't, but all the other jurors did. They presented clear cut DNA evidence is such a sloppy manner that they undercut their own arguments. They stupidly did the glove trick and they never noted that OJ was obviously stretching his hand out to make the glove seem too small. They stupidly let the defense waste all that time on the red herring of Detective Fuhrman using racial epithets in the past. I could go on. The prosectors were inept, both individually and collectively.

 

[fortdick]

The nobody prosecutor you will finally know finally exists when the trial comes to light.

Just like in the OJ trial, no one ever new Marcie Clark or Chris Darden except for their close relatives but now they are big names.

So O.J. was only prosecuted so that Marcie Clark or Chris Darden could make names for themselves?

 

[Stautner]

so the NFL has to hire a team of shrinks and get Vick on a polygraph? the NFL isn't, and doesn't have to, build a case, any preponderance of guilt is enough to be deemed as breaking the player conduct policy, and enough to warrant a fine, suspension or termination of contract, as we have seen w/ PacMan, and probably will see again w/ VIck, even if he's not convicted

Your sense of logic is about as developed as a trained puppy....... well maybe one with minimal training.

Where did I say anything even remotely close to a suggestion that the NFL needed to hire shrinks and perform a polygraph?

It must have been very uncomfortable when you pulled all of that out of your backside.



TRY AGAIN - READ ...... THINK ......COMPREHEND!

I have told you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ....... (get the picture?)

I am not saying the NFL has to build an entire legal case that can verified in a court of law.

I am not saying he has to be convicted in a court of law.

I am not saying the NFL has to tie itself to what the legal system does with Vick.



WHAT I AM SAYING is that the NFL is bound by the same laws regarding labor pratices that the rest of the United States is .......

and just as ANY employer has to be careful to provide due process and be certain that the grounds for termination are legitimate and verifyable, and that they aren't acting prematurely and without sufficient evidence to act, the NFL is bound by the same standard.

 

[Stash]

Prediction: Michael Vick has thrown his last wobbly, off-the-mark pass in the NFL.

 

[Stautner]

Prediction: Michael Vick has thrown his last wobbly, off-the-mark pass in the NFL.

Frankly, I hope you are true, I just think that the NFL is going to tread lightly on this.

The public outcry is the one thing that may end up forcing the NFL to take action before they really want to or feel comfortable doing it though.

 

[BouncingCheese]

All I am saying is that the hypocrasy is ridiculous. Here we have Tank Johnson being waived from the team and suspended for eight games, and in one his DUI incident he was under the limit. Pacman Jones has been suspended for the entire season and possibly more for a crime and charges that have yet to be levied upon him.

What seems to be happening is that Goodell is punishing players that tarnish the teams and game of football or something along those lines. But at the same time Michael Vick has done worse than both of these guys under those regulations. I would much rather have a guy who goes to strip clubs and a guy who had a dui in my league than a guy who had a house full of fighting dogs and all of the other terrible things that go along with dog fighting.

This is obvious that this is another example in sports of the " Dwayne Wade/ Kobe Bryant" fan favorite preferential treatment going on here. Vick is a face of this league, and fans love him. Those other guys are pretty innocuous other than to real football fans prior to the charges. Vick should be suspended soon if everything is supposed to be even-handed compared to Pacman and T. Johnson IMHO. Because if not Goodell and the NFL are a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Stash]

Frankly, I hope you are true, I just think that the NFL is going to tread lightly on this.

The public outcry is the one thing that may end up forcing the NFL to take action before they really want to or feel comfortable doing it though.

Agreed.

I think the public outcry and the circus-like atmosphere which will now surround Vick will force the Falcons to keep him off the field.

Whether they ultimately cut him, suspend him, or simply pay him to stay away, I don't think he'll see the field again.

 

[fortdick]

WHAT I AM SAYING is that the NFL is bound by the same laws regarding labor pratices that the rest of the United States is .......

and just as ANY employer has to be careful to provide due process and be certain that the grounds for termination are legitimate and verifyable, and that they aren't acting prematurely and without sufficient evidence to act, the NFL is bound by the same standard.

Actually, they are exempt from most labor laws because of the antitrust exemption. The draft is a perfect example of that exemption. Salary cap is another.

The MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)between the NFLPA and the NFL is the binding law with regards to the hiring and firing on players. If Federal law was the controlling factor, the Fair Labor Standards Act would apply and players would get overtime for playing on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

They can do what they want to him because of the MOU.

 

[Stautner]

Agreed.

I think the public outcry and the circus-like atmosphere which will now surround Vick will force the Falcons to keep him off the field.

Whether they ultimately cut him, suspend him, or simply pay him to stay away, I don't think he'll see the field again.

This is something I really haven't delved into - the conversation has been so much about how the NFL will or should react that I haven't even discussed how the team will or should react.

The team is in a little bit of a tricky situation - they want to show the entire team that they will stick by them as much as they can, and Vick is kind of the signature player for the team (not always a great signature, even on the field), but they have to consider the pressure from the fans and media - and eventuallly the NFL itself has to be involved.

Probably the best thing they could do is keep Vick on the payroll, but say he will not play pending further investigation or some other such BS.

It's a delay tactic to be sure, but it shows the public and media they aren't just ignoring it, it shows support of Vick's rights, and it probably takes a little heat off the NFL as a whole.

 

[Stash]

This is something I really haven't delved into - the conversation has been so much about how the NFL will or should react that I haven't even discussed how the team will or should react.

The team is in a little bit of a tricky situation - they want to show the entire team that they will stick by them as much as they can, and Vick is kind of the signature player for the team (not always a great signature, even on the field), but they have to consider the pressure from the fans and media - and eventuallly the NFL itself has to be involved.

Probably the best thing they could do is keep Vick on the payroll, but say he will not play pending further investigation or some other such BS.

It's a delay tactic to be sure, but it shows the public and media they aren't just ignoring it, it shows support of Vick's rights, and it probably takes a little heat off the NFL as a whole.

That's their best course of action in my opinion.

I think it's the best all-around compromise at this point.

If he's ultimately vindicated, he won't have lost money he's entitled to.

And if he is ultimately found guilty, the Falcons could seek repayment at that time.

 

[Stautner]

Actually, they are exempt from most labor laws because of the antitrust exemption. The draft is a perfect example of that exemption. Salary cap is another.

The MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)between the NFLPA and the NFL is the binding law with regards to the hiring and firing on players. If Federal law was the controlling factor, the Fair Labor Standards Act would apply and players would get overtime for playing on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

They can do what they want to him because of the MOU.

Drafts and salary caps are traeated as necessary to the function of the league - being able to fire people without cause is not.

Just as the Bell companies couldn't fire people without cause before the breakup, neither can the NFL.

The anti-trust exemption is not an all encompassing exemption from labor laws.

 

[Stautner]

That's their best course of action in my opinion.

I think it's the best all-around compromise at this point.

If he's ultimately vindicated, he won't have lost money he's entitled to.

And if he is ultimately found guilty, the Falcons could seek repayment at that time.

My thoughts stray a little from yours at this point.

I don't necessarily think they should wait for a conviction unless there is just so much uncertainty about the facts that the team can't reach a comfort level that they can act on. Ideally they would make a determination about his status sooner, based on becoming comfortable with the evidence, or if it's the case, the lack of evidence, and come to a conclusion well before the courts do.

The exception would be if this case gets the "rocket dockett" treatment I've been hearing about that might get the case before a judge in less than 90 days - if that's the case it might be best for the team to hold off on definitive judgement until then.