VICK DA GREAT

[Freak Out]

What kind of probation rules is Vick under? I take it he has community service to do? That would probably stop him from playing for a while.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think you are a sick fuck regardless of culture when you decide to torture an animal, and beat an animal to death because of your own personal gain.

i get dog fighting, what I don't get is the poor fucking treatment of these animals before and after the fight. I guess using the cultureral outlet means that African Americans are sick fucks that love to kick the shit out of dogs. Excuse me, African Americans in the South. Is Virginia even considered the South anymore? Where does the blame get shifted to next? I know you didn't specifically blame the Black Culture for dog fighting, you just said he is conditioned differently. Well I guess it would be an argument if you said that the culture that he was raised in were indifferent to dogs. Not a culture that abused animals.

Yet bullfighting has been practiced openly and accepted as a cultural ritual for a very long time. The bull is openly maimed in a traditional Spanish style bullfight by severing muscle with a lance and inserting barbs into the muscles to keep the bulls head low during the "fight" with the matador. The fight can go on for a long time from the first lancing, with the bull suffering and bleeding profusely before he is killed. Again, all for the entertainment of the spectators.

Instead of one dog maiming another, we have humans maiming a bull. Is it really so different?

Neither form of entertainment is acceptable, or legal here.

Sure, but are our standards necessarily the right standards?

Is it OK to raise dogs, butcher them humanely and eat them? Some people do it, but I suspect most Americans find it reprehensible. Yet we raise, butcher and eat cows without a second thought for most of us.

They do eat the bull afterwards if that makes you feel any better. I don't think Vick, and company ate dogs, at the very least I don't even think they sent them to Korea.

[Fritz]

I think you are a sick fuck regardless of culture when you decide to torture an animal, and beat an animal to death because of your own personal gain.

i get dog fighting, what I don't get is the poor fucking treatment of these animals before and after the fight. I guess using the cultureral outlet means that African Americans are sick fucks that love to kick the shit out of dogs. Excuse me, African Americans in the South. Is Virginia even considered the South anymore? Where does the blame get shifted to next? I know you didn't specifically blame the Black Culture for dog fighting, you just said he is conditioned differently. Well I guess it would be an argument if you said that the culture that he was raised in were indifferent to dogs. Not a culture that abused animals.

Yet bullfighting has been practiced openly and accepted as a cultural ritual for a very long time. The bull is openly maimed in a traditional Spanish style bullfight by severing muscle with a lance and inserting barbs into the muscles to keep the bulls head low during the "fight" with the matador. The fight can go on for a long time from the first lancing, with the bull suffering and bleeding profusely before he is killed. Again, all for the entertainment of the spectators.

Instead of one dog maiming another, we have humans maiming a bull. Is it really so different?

Neither form of entertainment is acceptable, or legal here.

Sure, but are our standards necessarily the right standards?

Is it OK to raise dogs, butcher them humanely and eat them? Some people do it, but I suspect most Americans find it reprehensible. Yet we raise, butcher and eat cows without a second thought for most of us.

They do eat the bull afterwards if that makes you feel any better. I don't think Vick, and company ate dogs, at the very least I don't even think they sent them to Korea.

I don't know why, but I love that line - "butcher them humanely."

[MOBB DEEP]

I don't think that Vick has a woman.

he has a fiance'

[Freak Out]

It looks like Ron could end up playing this year after all.

[pbmax]

Per PFT.com, looks like Vick might get off with a mere 4 game suspension for the whole thing. Amazing.

Not to mention the time he spent in prison and the millions and millions he lost.

Not relevent to any punishment by the NFL. That was the US legal system. He couldn't play anyway while in prison. That's why he lost millions. That's what happens you do illegal things.

Exactly. His legal punishment and financial loss were beyond the control of the NFL. They should not be linked to league discipline whatsoever. Goodell should not feel "sorry" for Vick, and neither should the NFL or any of it's teams or their fans. This is an outrage if Vick is playing football in the NFL by October. Especially considering the hard stance Goodell has taken with other players guilty of lesser crimes.

So the alternative is to pretend Vick has been playing football all along for the last two years? Why must the commissioner of the NFL be mandated to suspend players consecutive to their sentence? Courts can sentence criminals to concurrent terms, why shouldn't a private enterprise?

Some of the players suspended by Goodell have not been sentenced to jail time (Pac Man's original suspension). It is clear he does take that into consideration. Does anyone believe that if Pac Man had done a year for the strip club incidents that he would do another year for the NFL?

[Rastak]

Per PFT.com, looks like Vick might get off with a mere 4 game suspension for the whole thing. Amazing.

Not to mention the time he spent in prison and the millions and millions he lost.

Not relevent to any punishment by the NFL. That was the US legal system. He couldn't play anyway while in prison. That's why he lost millions. That's what happens you do illegal things.

Exactly. His legal punishment and financial loss were beyond the control of the NFL. They should not be linked to league discipline whatsoever. Goodell should not feel "sorry" for Vick, and neither should the NFL or any of it's teams or their fans. This is an outrage if Vick is playing football in the NFL by October. Especially considering the hard stance Goodell has taken with other players guilty of lesser crimes.

So the alternative is to pretend Vick has been playing football all along for the last two years? Why must the commissioner of the NFL be mandated to suspend players consecutive to their sentence? Courts can sentence criminals to concurrent terms, why shouldn't a private enterprise?

Some of the players suspended by Goodell have not been sentenced to jail time (Pac Man's original suspension). It is clear he does take that into consideration. Does anyone believe that if Pac Man had done a year for the strip club incidents that he would do another year for the NFL?

I'll take this one PB. Since I've been old enough to understand the concept, I've yet to figure out why the idea of concurrent terms even exists. I beat you senseless and take your wallet. I get sentenced for 2 years for beating the hell out of you. I get 6 months for stealing your money and spending it. I get to serve concurrently. I essentially get nothing for stealing your money. Hell if I just felt like beating the hell out of you and letting you keep your cash it's all the same with the justice system.

[mraynrand]

I'll take this one PB. Since I've been old enough to understand the concept, I've yet to figure out why the idea of concurrent terms even exists. I beat you senseless and take your wallet. I get sentenced for 2 years for beating the hell out of you. I get 6 months for stealing your money and spending it. I get to serve concurrently. I essentially get nothing for stealing your money. Hell if I just felt like beating the hell out of you and letting you keep your cash it's all the same with the justice system.

I agree with you in spirit, but if I recall correctly, there is a distinction. If you beat the hell out of someone AND steal from them, then get cheaged for both - even though you serve concurrently, both offenses are registered. So if you steal another wallet, it counts as a second offense.

[Rastak]

True enough, so it's only a freebie if I don't do it again.

Still strikes me as the dumbest damn thing.

[pbmax]

I'll take this one PB. Since I've been old enough to understand the concept, I've yet to figure out why the idea of concurrent terms even exists. I beat you senseless and take your wallet. I get sentenced for 2 years for beating the hell out of you. I get 6 months for stealing your money and spending it. I get to serve concurrently. I essentially get nothing for stealing your money. Hell if I just felt like beating the hell out of you and letting you keep your cash it's all the same with the justice system.

I understand your concern. But it still doesn't (nor do I think should) apply to a private enterprise. And unlike your example, Vick hasn't committed additional crimes.

I think concurrent sentences exist for the same reason most laws carry a range of recommended incarceration for violations. To be sure the punishment fits the crime according to the jury and judge. Not all crimes charged under similar statutes are identical. Its a tool to shape the penalty.

I think one iron-clad way Goodell can justify this six games (or more) is that Vick lied to both the league and the team. That must carry some weight. But I doubt its the sole reason.

[pbmax]

I'll take this one PB. Since I've been old enough to understand the concept, I've yet to figure out why the idea of concurrent terms even exists. I beat you senseless and take your wallet. I get sentenced for 2 years for beating the hell out of you. I get 6 months for stealing your money and spending it. I get to serve concurrently. I essentially get nothing for stealing your money. Hell if I just felt like beating the hell out of you and letting you keep your cash it's all the same with the justice system.

I agree with you in spirit, but if I recall correctly, there is a distinction. If you beat the hell out of someone AND steal from them, then get cheaged for both - even though you serve concurrently, both offenses are registered. So if you steal another wallet, it counts as a second offense.

The incarceration and record of the charge are also only two parts of the penalty. Fines can be assessed for both incidents. And probation, house arrest or parole options can be affected by the second charge. I strongly doubt conviction on a second charge carries as little weight as the example suggests.

[Rastak]

Not bad points PB. I'm not sure I agree but it caused me to pause and consider.

[Patler]

So if a player tears up his knee in TC, goes on IR and then commits some punishable offense while on IR. Should his suspension be served while he can't play anyway? It would take his money away from him, which he would get on IR.

Or, more on point, he is on active duty (doesn't happen now, I know, except for Academy grads) but commits a suspendable offense. Should his time an active duty be applied to his suspension?

To my way of thinking, his NFL suspension should be applied during a period in which he was eligible and available to play. Vick was not available to play while incarcerated, so any suspension warranted should apply after he comes back.

BTW - suspensions are usually for a given number of games, and players whose suspension span their Bye week actually serve an extra week to get in the requisite number of games. Vick just had a super long bye!

[pbmax]

So if a player tears up his knee in TC, goes on IR and then commits some punishable offense while on IR. Should his suspension be served while he can't play anyway? It would take his money away from him, which he would get on IR.

Exactly what do you see as the point of a suspension? Aside from the public remonstration, how does it affect the player? Do most die a little on the inside not being part of the team? Perhaps, but to find that group, you might need a battery of psychological examinations. I think the far more common reaction is to miss the money, which the Commish can get at no matter when the suspension is applied. The other factor is the effect of not having the player on the team. A postponed suspension would increase that negative effect on the team. Which entity should be punished more?

Suspending the player while on IR (not limiting it to IR time but including it) might be more effective than postponement. It won't just cost him salary (or recoverable bonuses) but it would also remove him from the team's training complex. Meaning he might have to foot the bill personally to rehab. My answer would be that if you do this while on IR, it will cost you double the cash and loss of access to NFL facilities.

And if any of these hypothetical crimes involve even the suspicion of drug abuse, the player, regardless of status, could be moved up a Stage in the Drug Policy. And that could cost you additional games (as you mentioned byes don't count in the Drug Policy) and additional scrutiny of your output.

Or, more on point, he is on active duty (doesn't happen now, I know, except for Academy grads) but commits a suspendable offense. Should his time an active duty be applied to his suspension

Given the circumstances, I am not sure this would even make the news. Wahle was dropped from his team for a positive drug test. He was drafted in the supplemental draft and missed no time. If the player is under contract, the options above would be available. If he was simply on the reserve list, no action would be taken. There would be no money to recover.

[Patler]

So if a player tears up his knee in TC, goes on IR and then commits some punishable offense while on IR. Should his suspension be served while he can't play anyway? It would take his money away from him, which he would get on IR.

Exactly what do you see as the point of a suspension? Aside from the public remonstration, how does it affect the player? Do most die a little on the inside not being part of the team? Perhaps, but to find that group, you might need a battery of psychological examinations. I think the far more common reaction is to miss the money, which the Commish can get at no matter when the suspension is applied. The other factor is the effect of not having the player on the team. A postponed suspension would increase that negative effect on the team. Which entity should be punished more?

Suspending the player while on IR (not limiting it to IR time but including it) might be more effective than postponement. It won't just cost him salary (or recoverable bonuses) but it would also remove him from the team's training complex. Meaning he might have to foot the bill personally to rehab. My answer would be that if you do this while on IR, it will cost you double the cash and loss of access to NFL facilities.

And if any of these hypothetical crimes involve even the suspicion of drug abuse, the player, regardless of status, could be moved up a Stage in the Drug Policy. And that could cost you additional games (as you mentioned byes don't count in the Drug Policy) and additional scrutiny of your output.

Or, more on point, he is on active duty (doesn't happen now, I know, except for Academy grads) but commits a suspendable offense. Should his time an active duty be applied to his suspension

Given the circumstances, I am not sure this would even make the news. Wahle was dropped from his team for a positive drug test. He was drafted in the supplemental draft and missed no time. If the player is under contract, the options above would be available. If he was simply on the reserve list, no action would be taken. There would be no money to recover.

Well, if its just the money as you seem to suggest, why not do as they did with Barnett and just fine them all the appropriate pay for the number of games, but just let them play?