Vick Indicted

Stautner

New Member
Messages
10,691
Reaction score
1
abersonc;1554832 said:
What you or anyone else at home does dictate is opinion about the NFL - and if Joe or Josephine Q. Public thinks that the NFL is full of dog-fight promoters then they may be less likely to want to be associated with the sport -- and if the casual fan stops watching, advertisers stop giving big bucks, tv broadcast rights sell for less, and gradually, fans start to spend their time watching soccer instead of NFL football.

Court of law makes no difference there.

And that's why the league needs to act.

The law and profits are not the same thing.

Again, you aren't considering the law, and that is a factor. Company's cannot do anything they want at any time in the name of profits.

I'm not saying that makes the law right in all cases - often I think it's pretty goofy to restrict employers as much as the does at times, but this isn't about what I feel about it - it's about what is.

ALSO KEEP ONE THING IN MIND: I never said Vick would have a clear cut case against the NFL, I'm just saying it is a consideration, and the NFL has to be very careful.

Hostile;1554860 said:
I work at a rather large company. There was a guy who worked here who was accused of involvement in a gang rape. He proclaimed he was innocent. The General Manager here fired him anyway because he was worried about how the women who work here might feel.

Turns out he was innocent. He was cleared by DNA and by one of the guilty actually copping a plea and absolving him of any and all culpability.

I applaud the GM here for caring about the women who work here and their feelings. Taking a stand for the right sends a right message. Even if it had been me accused I would have understood why he did it.

I think this is a BS statement - I can't imagine anyone getting falsely accused of a crime, losing their job and their ability to support their family as a result, and being accepting of it.

Knowing you were innocent and knowing you have worked hard for the company and knowing that you have a personal relationship with owners and management, most would want the company to stand byt them.

Bob Sacamano;1554862 said:
it's not even really about public opinion, it's about breaking a contract that you signed, if you go under all the layers, that's what it is, a simple matter of breaking a signed, and thusly, binding contract

Huh? Explain this one.

If you are going back on that deal where the NFL can fire a player for conduct detrimental the the team or the league, that still doesn't fly if it is proven that he didn't actually do anything.

A moral turpitude provision or however this is styled applies to actual ACTIONS that hurt the league - not the mere accusation of actions.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
Stautner;1554880 said:
I think this is a BS statement - I can't imagine anyone getting falsely accused of a crime, losing their job and their ability to support their family as a result, and being accepting of it.

Knowing you were innocent and knowing you have worked hard for the company and knowing that you have a personal relationship with owners and management, most would want the company to stand byt them.
I seriously doubt he liked it.

BTW, I might be able to find the articles about this if I searched. It was news here.
 

iceberg

rock music matters
Messages
34,405
Reaction score
7,932
court date set:

CNN) -- Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick will go before a federal court in Richmond, Virginia, next week on charges that he participated in a dogfighting ring spanning at least nine states, the court said Wednesday.

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick could face six years in prison if convicted.

1 of 2 Vick will attend a bond hearing before U.S. District Judge Dennis W. Dohnal on July 26 before heading to an arraignment in front of U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, according to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Falcons are slated to kick off training camp on the same day.

Vick, 27, and three others were indicted Tuesday on charges of conspiracy in a dogfighting operation that included transporting pit bulls across state lines for illegal prize fights.

If convicted on the federal charges, Vick could find himself behind bars for up to six years, in addition to being fined $350,000, according to the federal court.

According to the 19-page indictment, Vick and his co-defendants are accused of training pit bulls and organizing prize fights in which dogs that weren't up to snuff were executed, sometimes by hanging or electrocution. Watch how the charges could affect Vick's career »

The Falcons star went by the code name "Ookie" and participated in or OK'd the killing of numerous dogs, the indictment states. Vick and his co-defendants killed eight dogs as recently as April, the indictment states.

After Vick was consulted about the canine's condition, one of his co-defendants "executed the losing dog by wetting the dog down with water and electrocuting the animal," the indictment states.

Various other methods were used to kill dogs that fought or tested poorly, including hanging, drowning, shooting, and in at least one case, slamming the dog to the ground, the indictment says.

The indictment alleges that the Falcons phenom and his cohorts engaged in other disturbing practices and that a raid on a home in Virginia uncovered items like "breaking sticks" -- used for prying fighting dogs' jaws apart -- and a "rape stand" used to tie down aggressive female dogs for breeding.

Fifty-four American pit bull terriers also were found on the property during the April 25 raid on the Smithfield, Virginia, home formerly owned by Vick, according to the indictment. Smithfield is about 30 miles west of the Norfolk area where Vick grew up.

Vick allegedly paid $34,000 for the home in June 2001, several weeks after the Falcons drafted him. Soon after, he and his cohorts began buying and training pit bulls for a fighting and breeding outfit called "Bad Newz Kennels," according to the indictment.

Details of several fights are included in the indictment, which states that pit bulls with names like "Maniac," "Trouble" and "Junior Mafia" were pitted against each other for pots ranging from $1,000 to $26,000, the indictment states.

The indictment further states that about $112,000 was exchanged over the outcomes of 16 fights featuring dogs owned or handled by "Bad Newz Kennels."

Twice, the indictment states, Vick personally delivered the kitty to the winning dogs' owners. On one occasion around March 2003, Vick handed over a book bag filled with $23,000 to a dog owner who had won two fights that day.

The indictment says the unnamed dog owner is now one of at least three cooperating witnesses in the case against Vick and his co-defendants.

Vick did not immediately comment on the indictment, but he has previously said that he had a kennel operation on the property, but had no involvement in or knowledge of a dogfighting ring.

No arrest warrants have been issued, and Vick and the other defendants -- Purnell Peace, 35, of Virginia Beach, Virginia; Quanis Phillips, 28, of Atlanta, Georgia; and Tony Taylor, 34, of Hampton, Virginia -- have not been taken into custody, said Jim Rybicki, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg.

Vick, a dazzling prospect from Virginia Tech, was taken at the No. 1 spot in the National Football League's 2001 draft. In December 2004, he signed a 10-year contract extension with the Falcons worth a potential $130 million. The deal included a $37 million signing bonus.

Falcons officials said Tuesday they were troubled by the charges against Vick.

"Our club and team will continue to be tested as Michael works through the legal process toward a conclusion," the Falcons said in a statement. "We are prepared to deal with it, and we will do the right thing for our club as the legal process plays out."

The statement added, "We are disappointed that one of our players -- and therefore the Falcons -- is being presented to the public in a negative way, and we apologize to our fans and the community for that."

This is not the first time the highest-paid player in the NFL has been presented in a negative light.

He has been accused of transmitting genital herpes to a woman and using the alias Ron Mexico so he could get treated secretly for the ailment. He earned the ire of his hometown fans after flipping them the bird after a Falcons loss.

He was criticized for missing a chance to speak on Capitol Hill about after-school programs. And earlier this year, authorities investigated Vick after confiscating a water bottle with a secret compartment containing a substance that Miami airport authorities said looked and smelled like marijuana.

A National Football League spokesman said the latest allegations against Vick would be reviewed under the NFL's personal conduct policy.

"We are disappointed that Michael Vick has put himself in a position where a federal grand jury has returned an indictment against him," said spokesman Brian McCarthy. "We will continue to closely monitor developments in this case and to cooperate with law enforcement authorities."
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
Stautner;1554880 said:
The law and profits are not the same thing.

Again, you aren't considering the law, and that is a factor.

the law is not a factor in terms of how the NFL handles their business, how they deal w/ doling out punishments works seperately from the law

Stautner said:
Huh? Explain this one.

you must have missed the huge debate about the player contract

being charged w/ a crime is breaking the player contract, as it casts a negative image on the rest of his peers, and his league
 

Stautner

New Member
Messages
10,691
Reaction score
1
Hostile;1554885 said:
I seriously doubt he liked it.

BTW, I might be able to find the articles about this if I searched. It was news here.


There is one other major difference with your analogy - the crime that man was accused of was the kind of thing that would indicate he is dangerous to be around, and therefore the employer - again to cover himself legally - had to take some steps to protect others because his knowledge of the accusation could end up biting him in the *** if he allowed the guy to be around the women in the office and he did the same thing to one of them.

The employer's actions were motivated by the nature of the crime and the possible LEGAL repercussions of not taking action.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
Bob Sacamano;1554888 said:
the law is not a factor in terms of how the NFL handles their business, how they deal w/ doling out punishments works seperately from the law



you must have missed the huge debate about the player contract

being charged w/ a crime is breaking the player contract, as it casts a negative image on the rest of his peers, and his league

That is a bit of an overstatement. Sure the NFL has its own sets of rules that they can apply independent of the laws of the land. They tend to work in conjunction with the law and let it be a factor. Even in the Pacman case, they worked with the law for the most part to go along with their specific rules of failure to report arrests.
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
joseephuss;1554899 said:
That is a bit of an overstatement. Sure the NFL has its own sets of rules that they can apply independent of the laws of the land. They tend to work in conjunction with the law and let it be a factor. Even in the Pacman case, they worked with the law for the most part to go along with their specific rules of failure to report arrests.

read the CBA
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
Stautner;1554898 said:
There is one other major difference with your analogy - the crime that man was accused of was the kind of thing that would indicate he is dangerous to be around, and therefore the employer - again to cover himself legally - had to take some steps to protect others because his knowledge of the accusation could end up biting him in the *** if he allowed the guy to be around the women in the office and he did the same thing to one of them.

The employer's actions were motivated by the nature of the crime and the possible LEGAL repercussions of not taking action.

That is a good point. Vick won't pose a threat. He just may be bad for business. That is why sponsors are more likely to pull away from him than the Falcons or the NFL. At least initially. Depending on how things pan out, then everyone may sever ties with Vick.
 

Pats Fan

Benched
Messages
508
Reaction score
0
What is this BS???

So in 1950, 1951, 1951, etc someone was not treated right.

Yep, happens all the time. Is it right. No. Never will be. But most people are adults, not children or animals. When you move into that realm, it says something about you.

This is a very clear cut, VERY clear cut case of animal abuse. Big time, hanging and electrocution for non performers. Just simply being ripped apart if you are good.

OK, so I ask you. You work there. You see dogs being killed every day. And one dog doesn't cut it. So your employer tells you to go out in the back and hang the dog.

Sit well with you???

One of the top QB's in our league. Makes me sick.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
Bob Sacamano;1554900 said:
read the CBA

I am not saying that they can't. I agree with that. They usually don't. They usually wait to see how a case ends up. They don't typically just make their own judgments without that information.
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
joseephuss;1554903 said:
I am not saying that they can't. I agree with that. They usually don't. They usually wait to see how a case ends up. They don't typically just make their own judgments without that information.

I'm just saying that it's written in the CBA that the NFL works seperately from the courts
 

Stautner

New Member
Messages
10,691
Reaction score
1
Bob Sacamano;1554888 said:
the law is not a factor in terms of how the NFL handles their business, how they deal w/ doling out punishments works seperately from the law

This is so nuts is laughable - the law is a factor in how EVERY company, organization etc. conducts its business.

AS for how they deal out punsihments - sure it is separate from the law - I never said otherwise, but it can have legal implications that they have to be aware of and consider. That's my point.

The NFL is not exempt from labor laws.

Bob Sacamano;1554888 said:
you must have missed the huge debate about the player contract

being charged w/ a crime is breaking the player contract, as it casts a negative image on the rest of his peers, and his league

I guess I did miss that, but still I would like to see it in writing where the mere charge, regardless of how baseless it proves to be, is grounds for dismissal.

If I see that I will quickly concede this point to you.
 

godofwar

Member
Messages
182
Reaction score
1
Hostile;1554860 said:
I work at a rather large company. There was a guy who worked here who was accused of involvement in a gang rape. He proclaimed he was innocent. The General Manager here fired him anyway because he was worried about how the women who work here might feel.

Turns out he was innocent. He was cleared by DNA and by one of the guilty actually copping a plea and absolving him of any and all culpability.

I applaud the GM here for caring about the women who work here and their feelings. Taking a stand for the right sends a right message. Even if it had been me accused I would have understood why he did it.

I hear what you're saying. On one hand I agree that situations like that deserve swift, decisive action. On the other hand, I have experience with the consequences (not first hand mind you).

A relative of mine is in a management position. One of his female employees accused a male employee of sexual harrassment. She took her claim to my relative, who took the responsible actions up the chain of command. However, no one was suspended or fired until the veracity of the claims could be concluded. This angered the female employee, who in turn, filed a sexual harrassment suit against my relative. He ended up being suspended, as did the other male employee, while the HR dept conducted their investigation.

As it turns out, the claims were false (her story changing some over time). By the time my relative was reinstated, his reputation was in the toilet. He had been stigmatized. Another female manager refused a transfer there because she didn't want to work with someone who didn't respect women.

Of course that wasn't reality, but that was the perception. It was alll due to a false claim made by someone who was just mad at another employee.
 

Stautner

New Member
Messages
10,691
Reaction score
1
Bob Sacamano;1554905 said:
I'm just saying that it's written in the CBA that the NFL works seperately from the courts

Now your being plain goofy - the NFL and the CBA between the NFL and NFLPU can't just declare the NFL exempt from the court system.

The courts CAN slap the NFL hard if they determine they have acted illegally.
 

iceberg

rock music matters
Messages
34,405
Reaction score
7,932
godofwar;1554908 said:
I hear what you're saying. On one hand I agree that situations like that deserve swift, decisive action. On the other hand, I have experience with the consequences (not first hand mind you).

A relative of mine is in a management position. One of his female employees accused a male employee of sexual harrassment. She took her claim to my relative, who took the responsible actions up the chain of command. However, no one was suspended or fired until the veracity of the claims could be concluded. This angered the female employee, who in turn, filed a sexual harrassment suit against my relative. He ended up being suspended, as did the other male employee, while the HR dept conducted their investigation.

As it turns out, the claims were false (her story changing some over time). By the time my relative was reinstated, his reputation was in the toilet. He had been stigmatized. Another female manager refused a transfer there because she didn't want to work with someone who didn't respect women.

Of course that wasn't reality, but that was the perception. It was alll due to a false claim made by someone who was just mad at another employee.

lies suck and i hate liars.

which is why i hate vick so much.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
Stautner;1554898 said:
There is one other major difference with your analogy - the crime that man was accused of was the kind of thing that would indicate he is dangerous to be around, and therefore the employer - again to cover himself legally - had to take some steps to protect others because his knowledge of the accusation could end up biting him in the *** if he allowed the guy to be around the women in the office and he did the same thing to one of them.

The employer's actions were motivated by the nature of the crime and the possible LEGAL repercussions of not taking action.
Backlash is still backlash though. Whether it is internal because of fear or external because of revulsion.
 

Stautner

New Member
Messages
10,691
Reaction score
1
Hostile;1554919 said:
Backlash is still backlash though. Whether it is internal because of fear or external because of revulsion.

Backlash is backlash, sure, but that is still different from legal ramifications.
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
here you go stautner

Appendix C - Section 15. Integrity of Game

Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players....
....or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commisioner to be detrimental to the league or professional football, the Commisioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or terminate his contract



you see anywhere in here that the player has to be deemed guilty in a court of law in order to be suspended or cut? and this is in the old CBA, in the new one, you don't have to be convicted of a crime, you could plead no-contest and still be open for a suspension, I took liberty saying a criminal charge could get you suspended, since it's not expressely written, but don't you think a criminal charge is impairing the honesty and integrity of the game, which would be deemed detrimental?

and again, Tank Johnson wasn't convicted of any crime, yet was still cut, you can spin it all you want, but Goodell doesn't need to see a guilty verdict to be well within his rights to suspend a player, or a team be within their rights to cut one
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
Stautner;1554930 said:
Backlash is backlash, sure, but that is still different from legal ramifications.
Not really. The only legal ramification of the company letting them go is "is it without good reason?" I'm not talking about the crimes being equal. I'm talking about pre-emptive action being taken before a verdict is announced.
 
Top