How Many Games Should Vick Be Suspended?

Another question I have for those who want call Pacman's situation different from Vick's: In Pacman's case, he has gotten into trouble for multiple separate incidents over time. Right? Now, he still hasn't been convicted of any of them, but there are eye witnesses placing him at the various scenes and his repeated alleged offenses led to a suspension. So, what's the difference here? Vick isn't being accused of one isolated incident. Rather, he is being accused of breaking the law on multiple separate occasions. And there are eyewitnesses placing him at each of the various scenes where illegal activities were being conducted.

So, should the NFL somehow reward the person who gets charged all at once because the Feds do the responsible thing by building a case before charging him over the guy who is just unlucky enough to get caught each time he allegedly breaks the law by the local authorities? I mean, both men are being accused of repeated instances of illegal activity. It's not like Vick is being indicted for one instance of dog fighting. Why are are willing to go easier on the guy whose repeated behavior over the course of 6 six years just happens to get lumped into one indictment?
You have already tried and convicted him. You say eyewitnesses placed him at the scene. You know this because of what you have read in the report but it still has not been proven. I'm not sure what the argument is for having him suspended now and not afterwards. If he is convected of this he will go to jail and the Falcons will let him go. When or if he returns he will then have to wait out his suspension which will probably be a year so he will get what is coming. I think its going to be fun to watch this unfold as he tries to return to pratice next week. It would almost be doing the Falcons and Vick a favor if they suspended him. I'm not supporting Vick at all but feel justic should run its course.

This is called discussion and speculation. Last time I checked thats the whole point of this board. If we used your logic there would be nothing to discuss, debate or speculate on because we would have to wait for things to run their course. If that was the case Matty could just shut down this site and we could all find something else to do.

I understand the concept of message boards, I'm not a dumb Cowboys fan. :)

I just don't get why people are in such a rush to punish without things running their course and was hoping someone would explain why they thought that way.

One thing we can all agree on, I'm glad he's not a Redskin!

The dog fighting stuff is only the tip of the iceberg. The real crux of the issue is that it looks like this dog fighting is part of an interstate gambling ring. Thats the main reason the Feds are involved. The Feds are not the LA district attys office, they dont waste their time on maybe cases. This is a done deal. Vick is finished because I am 100% sure the cousin living at the house has flipped on Vick. He will be the one that tells the tale on the others (including Vick).

Interstate gambling is the reason I'm looking for the "Vote for Lifetime Ban", but I have been unable to locate such. Perhaps the poll needs ammending. Granted, It's not at all like the Pete Rose situation, but just wait until IRS gets it's teeth into this gambling business.

Nice link.
Makes me even more convinced he is a horrible person.
In case you haven't noticed, the NFL did start a program which has consequences for actions like these...so you basically answered your own question of "for what". Your link is what for.

So you want the NFL to legislate morality because you find his actions deplorable? Besides, all those offenses were in the past so the NFL can't retroactively suspend someone for their past actions.

As for his current plight, I'm of the opinion that this is a matter that first needs to clear the court system before any action by the NFL is warranted. If he is convicted or strikes a plea bargain I would expect nothing less than for him to get suspended one or more years.

I'll say it again, the mob needs to get off Vicks nuts.

It's under one indictment, that is the major difference. He is not a 'repeat offender' because this is his first criminal charge.

Pacman has been ARRESTED numerous times. It's an established pattern of illegal behavior. He was warned numerous times by the NFL to stay out of trouble and those situations that breed trouble. He continued to put himself in those predicaments and was justly dealt with.

There is no correlation between Vick's and Pacman's situation.

I get the warned multiple times argument. But I still don't agree that the difference between a guy who allegedly breaks the law numerous times and gets caught each time and a guy who allegedly breaks the law numerous times and doesn't get caught until a few years down the road is really that much of a distinction......at least not in terms of what Goodell's options are. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. To say that "there is no correlation between Vick's and Pacman's situation" is a pretty bold statement, though. If that was true, I don't think this thread would be this long.

You have already tried and convicted him. You say eyewitnesses placed him at the scene. You know this because of what you have read in the report but it still has not been proven. I'm not sure what the argument is for having him suspended now and not afterwards. If he is convected of this he will go to jail and the Falcons will let him go. When or if he returns he will then have to wait out his suspension which will probably be a year so he will get what is coming. I think its going to be fun to watch this unfold as he tries to return to pratice next week. It would almost be doing the Falcons and Vick a favor if they suspended him. I'm not supporting Vick at all but feel justic should run its course.

No, I have not tried and convicted anybody. What I'm saying is the NFL did not wait for a conviction for Pacman to suspend him. Why do they have to wait for a conviction for Vick? I'm simply pointing out the similarities between the two situations and saying that there is an argument to be made that Pacman's situation is at least somewhat precedential here.

duke had their seaon taken from them for nothing. they did nothing wrong.

if he isnt found guilty yet why the hell would you suspend him?

duke had their seaon taken from them for nothing. they did nothing wrong.

if he isnt found guilty yet why the hell would you suspend him?
I found it interesting an article in the Washington Post today kind of touched on this.


"Commissioner Goodell has made a point of disciplining some players prior to them being prosecuted," Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Humane+Society+of+the+United+States?tid=informline ), said in a telephone interview. "In this case, every indication we've gotten is that the NFL intends to wait until the legal process has played out. To us, that would seem to invalidate an independent code of conduct. What do you need a code of conduct for if you're simply going to wait for the courts to act? We believe Michael Vick should be suspended immediately. This set of activities is heinous. It would seem to warrant harsh treatment under a code of conduct."

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071802609.html)

I revise my earlier position to say that I think the NFL should lean towards waiting for a conviction. That just makes a lot of sense, it would avoid punishing those who are innocent. I do, however, believe that those with a serious track record should be void of this luxury, and should face consequences immediately.

Even with all the evidence that is available to the public, the principle behind the issue is clear; without a past history of criminal behavior it's inappropriate to punish a player not yet convicted.

I found it interesting an article in the Washington Post today kind of touched on this.


"Commissioner Goodell has made a point of disciplining some players prior to them being prosecuted," Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Humane+Society+of+the+United+States?tid=informline ), said in a telephone interview. "In this case, every indication we've gotten is that the NFL intends to wait until the legal process has played out. To us, that would seem to invalidate an independent code of conduct. What do you need a code of conduct for if you're simply going to wait for the courts to act? We believe Michael Vick should be suspended immediately. This set of activities is heinous. It would seem to warrant harsh treatment under a code of conduct."

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines (http://washingtonpost.com)

I revise my earlier position to say that I think the NFL should lean towards waiting for a conviction. That just makes a lot of sense, it would avoid punishing those who are innocent. I do, however, believe that those with a serious track record should be void of this luxury, and should face consequences immediately.

Even with all the evidence that is available to the public, the principle behind the issue is clear; without a past history of criminal behavior it's inappropriate to punish a player not yet convicted.

I wonder if your employer should be free to suspend you if you're accused of a hit-and-run with your car.

I wonder if your employer should be free to suspend you if you're accused of a hit-and-run with your car.

If the option is there for him to take leave without pay, do you think that would be the best option for him, the team, and the league?