NFL Should Dump Vick - Page 6

smurfalicious · 07-24-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

he does not work with dogs.

I see the point you're trying to make, but I think you're missing one as well: this has more to do with image and reputation as it relates to the employer, not whether or not Vick works with dogs.

The NFL has made a huge campaign about the image of its players, and thus the respectability of the NFL and the game. If the NFL's idea of maintaining an image requires players to be not felons, stoners, abusers, whatever, and the NFL believes - and can prove - that the image of the league, teams, and/or players would suffer or even be tarnished by the actions of a singular individual within the sport, they may very well be within their right to fire him for a conviction, or even on suspicion of these charges.

Image and reputation are the hardest things to attain and maintain, and even harder to get back once tarnished.

07-31-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurfalicious

I see the point you're trying to make, but I think you're missing one as well: this has more to do with image and reputation as it relates to the employer, not whether or not Vick works with dogs.

The NFL has made a huge campaign about the image of its players, and thus the respectability of the NFL and the game. If the NFL's idea of maintaining an image requires players to be not felons, stoners, abusers, whatever, and the NFL believes - and can prove - that the image of the league, teams, and/or players would suffer or even be tarnished by the actions of a singular individual within the sport, they may very well be within their right to fire him for a conviction, or even on suspicion of these charges.

Image and reputation are the hardest things to attain and maintain, and even harder to get back once tarnished.

LOL!!! So, you suggest that the NFL fire all felons and those found using drugs, illegal substances (so funny!), and prostitutes in any way?
The "image" of the NFL is a group of companies that sponsor and play a sport, reading more into it is just confusing and I have, nowhere, seen any evidence, to support any other fact.
Please show me where it is more than just that.
"Football player"... pretty sure that is their title, right?

As for his contract... has he been found guilty of fighting the dogs?

smurfalicious · 08-01-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

LOL!!! So, you suggest that the NFL fire all felons and those found using drugs, illegal substances (so funny!), and prostitutes in any way

Ummm, no, I didn't suggest that at all. I don't think I gave my opinion on what football players should be suspended for at all. Maybe it's that silly disappearing/reappearing font.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurfalicious

If the NFL's idea of maintaining an image requires players to be not felons, [etc.]... and the NFL believes... that the image of the league... would suffer... they may very well be within their right to fire him...

I was speaking of the legality of a contract, not the type of employment ("football player") involved in this case. A contract can set forth any stipulation the employer wants, as long as it's legal. As a potential employee, you have the right to sign the contract - or not, and thus be bound to the contract - or not. Legally speaking, if you agree to the terms of the contract and sign it, you are bound by the contract terms. It is a fact that Vick is under contract with the NFL. It is a fact that the contract stipulates certain behaviors will result in suspension, fines, and/or expulsion from the league. It is a fact that the NFL is legally allowed to exercise - and in fact is choosing to exercise - its rights under the contract that Vick signed.

It seems to me that you disagree that the NFL should be allowed to stipulate such things in its contracts. If that is the case, then I might agree with you to some extent. But still - the fact remains, Vick agreed to the terms of his contract.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

As for his contract... has he been found guilty of fighting the dogs?

No. I don't believe any literate individual with an IQ above 65 and access to newsmedia believes Vick has been convicted yet since he was just indicted.

Regardless of whether or not you think image is an issue, or I think it's an issue, or anyone else thinks it's an issue, the NFL has made it pretty clear that it is an issue with the league - or else they wouldn't have suspended him for being charged (not convicted) of these crimes.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-01-2007, 08:37 PM

Just find the biggest, meanest dog in the country and have Vick fight it.... winner take all.

Happy Monkey · 07-24-2007, 12:44 PM

Maintaining the image of the NFL is in his contract, and therefore part of his job. Anyone can sue for anything, but he would lose.

yesman065 · 07-24-2007, 03:00 PM

excellent points smurf - not sure about the legality of it all, but I agree in theory. Too bad it will all come down to whether they will lose more money by keepng or firing him. They will most likely play the middle ground and offer up some type of suspension.

smurfalicious · 07-24-2007, 04:10 PM

It's basic contract law, not necessarily my opinion. (For the record, I believe he's guilty, and I believe he's a sick fuck, and I'd love to have a chance to cattle-prod his balls.)

Vick signed a contract. If the contract stipulates he must refrain certain activities, and maybe (definitely) includes a catch-all phrase that would cover all the bases in the event the 'certain activities' are not set out specifically (i.e. must test negative for steroids, weed, opiates, etc.) that leaves it up to the interpretation of a jury should he attempt to sue in the event he is fired as to whether or not his extracurricular activities did, in fact, have negative repercussions on his employer.

And, also, I don't how much employment law would really apply here as far as his "rights" with his "employer" - he's under a contract and the contract, as long as it isn't deemed illegal or that any party signed under duress, would supersede over employment law.

jester · 07-24-2007, 04:55 PM

Fresh, while I have not responded personally to anything you have said in the past and don't know if I will respond to anything in the future, depends on what topic is being discussed - I like Football, I grew up in a household where it was watched regularly. However, the way I am interpreting your statement you are suggesting that “race is an issue”, what about this little article from “CLASSIC ESPN”; now this guy didn’t do dog fighting; he did “women” fighting. He’s white, or would you presume to tell me that “culturally” white guys, not black mostly beat women. While this is a somewhat different circumstance, it still doesn’t make it right.

Gastineau, King of Sack
By Mike Puma
Special to ESPN.com

Except;
Mark Gastineau turned self-promotion into an art form with his dance ritual that accompanied quarterback sacks in the early 1980s. His antics played a large part in the NFL making such celebrations illegal in March 1984.
But that didn't stop the New York Jets defensive end, who helped revolutionize the position with his blazing speed. In 1984, Gastineau recorded 22 sacks, an NFL record that stood for 17 years until Michael Strahan broke it in 2001.
The 6-foot-5, 275-pound Gastineau made the Pro Bowl five straight seasons (1981-85) and finished his 10-year career with 107½ sacks, a Jets record that won't be broken anytime soon. He was the most high-profile member of the "New York Sack Exchange," a title given to the Jets' fearsome defensive front that was composed of Gastineau, Joe Klecko, Marty Lyons and Abdul Salaam. The foursome combined for 54½ sacks in 1981.
Off the field, Gastineau was no saint. He used anabolic steroids while playing for the Jets and was convicted for drug possession in 1993. He has a history of domestic violence against women. He served 11 months on Rikers Island for violating probation after assaulting a girlfriend who became his second wife.
In 1988, while still married to his first wife Lisa, Gastineau announced his engagement to actress Brigitte Nielsen, with whom he later fathered a son. But the couple split amongst hushed talk that Gastineau physically abused her. Gastineau later attributed his problems with women to his abuse of steroids.

The thing is, almost every sport has problems. It's getting worse. There doesn't seem to be anyway to "make it better". Decisions are needing to be made. What to do with players who "choose" to make wrong decisions.

jester · 07-25-2007, 08:48 AM

Just wanted to add one more note - while he didn't get "dismissed" from the team - I do believe that what was done and the things that have happened since - are showing the commissioners that they need to get "some type" of control over their players. It does make the sport look bad - they are representatives of their teams. An animal can't choose to not "get in the ring". I know let's put him in with the dog and we'll see who wins.

freshnesschronic · 07-25-2007, 09:04 AM

The thing is...everyone keeps saying for him to fight the dog....That's even worse and part hypocritical. Worrying about "inhumane" acts but then you go and do one over and put and jeopardize a human being? So it's not ok for dogs to duke it out, but for a dog to attempt to tear apart another human being, that is reconciled?
Look I don't want to get into this again but I put human interests far ahead of animal interests and I would hate to see a fellow human being injured because of a dog. That would make me want to put that dog down. Just my opinion, you know, humanity over the animal kingdom. Sorry.

wolf · 07-27-2007, 06:47 PM

That is overly cute!

One of my male coworkers is "Stark Iran."

He won't answer to anything else now.

They're not all on the other side of the door.

Clodfobble · 07-27-2007, 08:00 PM

Tiffany Sweden!!

Shawnee123 · 07-31-2007, 09:51 AM

Victoria Suriname

xoxoxoBruce · 07-31-2007, 05:44 PM

Back to Vick

DanaC · 08-04-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Some black people feel dog fighting is fine. Why? Because that is their culture, raised around rotts and pits for protection in the inner city; opposite from other peoples. Does that make them all inhumane animal torturers?

I seriously doubt that being black has anything to do with it. There are dogfighting rings in the UK and, as far as I know, it tends to be white, working class men who are involved. My guess is, the unifying 'culture' is socio-economic in nature, rather than race. In areas of high deprivation, crime and violence, fierce dogs are desirable. In a climate of economic and social uncertainty, where violence and fear are a common part of life, some people become emotionally calloused.

Fresh, you mentioned cock-fighting in your country of origin: I don't believe this is the same. What you are describing is a sport which has been in continuous existence for hundreds, even thousands, of years. I personally think it is an appalling sport, but I can see the 'cultural difference' argument too. WHat we've been discussing in this thread, however, is not a continuation of something. Dog-fighting is something that has been around for long time, but has been considered culturally unacceptable in the West for many years.

08-01-2007, 08:37 PM	#4
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Just find the biggest, meanest dog in the country and have Vick fight it.... winner take all. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

07-24-2007, 12:44 PM	#5
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Maintaining the image of the NFL is in his contract, and therefore part of his job. Anyone can sue for anything, but he would lose. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

07-24-2007, 04:10 PM	#7
smurfalicious Tool. Not the band - you are one. Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 501 Northlake Blvd., North Palm Beach FL Posts: 329	It's basic contract law, not necessarily my opinion. (For the record, I believe he's guilty, and I believe he's a sick fuck, and I'd love to have a chance to cattle-prod his balls.) Vick signed a contract. If the contract stipulates he must refrain certain activities, and maybe (definitely) includes a catch-all phrase that would cover all the bases in the event the 'certain activities' are not set out specifically (i.e. must test negative for steroids, weed, opiates, etc.) that leaves it up to the interpretation of a jury should he attempt to sue in the event he is fired as to whether or not his extracurricular activities did, in fact, have negative repercussions on his employer. And, also, I don't how much employment law would really apply here as far as his "rights" with his "employer" - he's under a contract and the contract, as long as it isn't deemed illegal or that any party signed under duress, would supersede over employment law. __________________

07-27-2007, 06:47 PM	#11
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	That is overly cute! One of my male coworkers is "Stark Iran." He won't answer to anything else now. They're not all on the other side of the door. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

07-31-2007, 09:51 AM	#13
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Victoria Suriname __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

07-24-2007, 03:00 PM	#6
yesman065 Banned - Self Imposed Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,847	excellent points smurf - not sure about the legality of it all, but I agree in theory. Too bad it will all come down to whether they will lose more money by keepng or firing him. They will most likely play the middle ground and offer up some type of suspension.

07-24-2007, 04:55 PM	#8
jester why so serious Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,712	Fresh, while I have not responded personally to anything you have said in the past and don't know if I will respond to anything in the future, depends on what topic is being discussed - I like Football, I grew up in a household where it was watched regularly. However, the way I am interpreting your statement you are suggesting that “race is an issue”, what about this little article from “CLASSIC ESPN”; now this guy didn’t do dog fighting; he did “women” fighting. He’s white, or would you presume to tell me that “culturally” white guys, not black mostly beat women. While this is a somewhat different circumstance, it still doesn’t make it right. Gastineau, King of Sack By Mike Puma Special to ESPN.com Except; Mark Gastineau turned self-promotion into an art form with his dance ritual that accompanied quarterback sacks in the early 1980s. His antics played a large part in the NFL making such celebrations illegal in March 1984. But that didn't stop the New York Jets defensive end, who helped revolutionize the position with his blazing speed. In 1984, Gastineau recorded 22 sacks, an NFL record that stood for 17 years until Michael Strahan broke it in 2001. The 6-foot-5, 275-pound Gastineau made the Pro Bowl five straight seasons (1981-85) and finished his 10-year career with 107½ sacks, a Jets record that won't be broken anytime soon. He was the most high-profile member of the "New York Sack Exchange," a title given to the Jets' fearsome defensive front that was composed of Gastineau, Joe Klecko, Marty Lyons and Abdul Salaam. The foursome combined for 54½ sacks in 1981. Off the field, Gastineau was no saint. He used anabolic steroids while playing for the Jets and was convicted for drug possession in 1993. He has a history of domestic violence against women. He served 11 months on Rikers Island for violating probation after assaulting a girlfriend who became his second wife. In 1988, while still married to his first wife Lisa, Gastineau announced his engagement to actress Brigitte Nielsen, with whom he later fathered a son. But the couple split amongst hushed talk that Gastineau physically abused her. Gastineau later attributed his problems with women to his abuse of steroids. The thing is, almost every sport has problems. It's getting worse. There doesn't seem to be anyway to "make it better". Decisions are needing to be made. What to do with players who "choose" to make wrong decisions.

07-25-2007, 08:48 AM	#9
jester why so serious Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,712	Just wanted to add one more note - while he didn't get "dismissed" from the team - I do believe that what was done and the things that have happened since - are showing the commissioners that they need to get "some type" of control over their players. It does make the sport look bad - they are representatives of their teams. An animal can't choose to not "get in the ring". I know let's put him in with the dog and we'll see who wins.

07-25-2007, 09:04 AM	#10
freshnesschronic Professor Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,555	The thing is...everyone keeps saying for him to fight the dog....That's even worse and part hypocritical. Worrying about "inhumane" acts but then you go and do one over and put and jeopardize a human being? So it's not ok for dogs to duke it out, but for a dog to attempt to tear apart another human being, that is reconciled? Look I don't want to get into this again but I put human interests far ahead of animal interests and I would hate to see a fellow human being injured because of a dog. That would make me want to put that dog down. Just my opinion, you know, humanity over the animal kingdom. Sorry.

07-27-2007, 08:00 PM	#12
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Tiffany Sweden!!

07-31-2007, 05:44 PM	#14
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Back to Vick Attached Images __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)