The following is an excerpt from a discussion I had regarding Michael Vick. I wasn't planning to do a Vick post but I think this excerpt sums up the two of the three different stances on Vick (the third being that he should be banned for life) rather well. I've truncated the names of the other participants since the goal here isn't to trash any identifiable individuals. This is an edited version, at a certain point two of us (me being one) said some things I don't think we're proud of which were removed by the moderator before I could do the repost.
Roberto Santiago: I'm fine with Goodell's decision regarding Vick. I'd have been fine if Goodel had not handed down any suspension at all. The thing is, Vick wasn't going to be anybody's starter this year anyway so the 6 game suspension really doesn't do anything.
Vick served his time. Now the judgement comes from the owners. If no one wants to deal with the headaches of having him on the team (media attention, fan reaction, QB controversy etc) then he won't get work this year. If I owned a team I might take a chance on him.
As for people calling out Rookie Ben, there was no criminal complaint so there's no investigation. It comes down to finger pointing. She files a law suit a year after it happened after not telling anyone about it? Yeah, sounds like someone's hoping for some hush money.
EA: With regards to Vick, he did his time and it should be done with. Roger Goodell has gotten power-drunk, and full of himself. No one man should have that amount of power in ANY organization. He is the same one whose punishment for a whole team (NE) and a Coach was tantamont to a peck on the wrist, but when it comes to the players he so Mr. Don't-take-mess.
A lot of folks will again like to bypass the fact that there are racial-undertones to these things. Forget about the fact that Roethlisberger's incident was a civil-suit. Imagine that civil-suit was against T.O, Randy Moss, or some other black athlete. Do we honestly thing that the reaction to it woulda been this mellow so far? T.O expressed his view which I think was right, and he is entitled to it. Goodell has basically told a grown man how he should run his life to please HIM before he decides to fully reinstate the man - nonesense. Take a look at the details of this suspension.
Roberto Santiago: TO and Moss have been in trouble with the league (and for Moss the law) many times in the past. Big Ben has not. If TO had Ben's rep then no, I don't think he'd be in trouble for what Ben's involved in.
" Goodell has basically told a grown man how he should ruhis life to please HIM . "
-Not to please HIM, to please the league as a whole, the owners, and the sponsors. If Vick was such a grown man who didn't need any guidance he wouldn't be involved in a multi-year criminal conspiracy. Again, it's not like Vick was going to come back as anyone's starter so the added suspension really is just for show.
Anyone remember this?
"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player who undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player who sits in confidence with a bunch of crooked ballplayers and gamblers, where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball."
Now that's a strong arm commissioner.
EA: It is not to please the league. There are owners as well as players that wanted Vick back with the team, so you saying the actions is the please the league is totally baseless. Vick has been suspended without pay since it was ascertained that he was involved. He has been rediculed, lost playing-time and lost millions of dollars. What else type of punishment should he endure? Before this dog-fighting case, please name the other problem that Vick pose - please name it. Since the reason Ben case gets little or no attention is because of first-time offense, please name Vick's first offense other than this. This suspension is not to satisfy any owners of the league. Any owner that needs a QB of Vick's talent will not hesitate a lick to take him. Satisfy the sponsors? What is that? 5 more games will satisfy them? Did any sponsor say that's what they were looking for?
Not to belittle the offense, but he killed a dog, there people in this society still enjoy their presitge eventhough they killed people, some of them (like some of the Presidents of this country) killed thousands of people. Oh please on the strong-arm commision - my foot. He is only strong when it comes to dealing with players. He's nothing but a kiss-up-kick-down punk.
Roberto Santiago: "There are owners as well as players that wanted Vick back with the team, so you saying the actions is the please the league is totally baseless."
The league is not the players. The league is the owners. As for "baseless" Vick remains unsigned at at least 11 teams have publicly said they don't want him. So where are these owners who want him back?
As for his previous offenses:
In early 2004, two men were arrested in Virginia for distributing marijuana. The truck they were driving was registered to Michael Vick.
In March 2005, Sonya Elliott filed a civil lawsuit against Vick alleging she contracted genital herpes from him in the autumn of 2002, and that he failed to inform her that he had the disease.
November 26, 2006 – After a Falcons loss to the New Orleans Saints in the Georgia Dome, in apparent reaction to fans booing, Vick made an obscene gesture at fans, holding up two middle fingers. He was fined $10,000 by the NFL and agreed to donate another $10,000 to charity.
He is only strong when it comes to dealing with players." -That's his job.
EA: No team wanna pick him up and pay him, while knowing he might miss 5 games. Especially, when everything depends ONLY on what the commisioner feels. His job is to be tough with players only? I thought you said he was the commissioner of the League, which in your words mean the owners? When he wants to please the League then the definition covers owners. But if he wants to get tough, the definition covers only players? Are you serious about this? He is the commissioner of the League, which I would thing includes all those under the sphere of the NFL, which includes players, owners, teams, etc.
Now on to your offenses: 1. Someone driving Vick's car, not Vick, and Vick is not in the car, but he is at fault?
2. His private sex-life, mind you his medical history which is covered by HIPAA, was violated and you call that a violation against the League?
Where do you come from with these arguments, dude? And by the way, the difference here which points again to biases, is the fact that this revelation was something sort after by espn journalists.Roethlisberger's incident fell in their lap and they did everything to conceal it. The bias even made CNN.
3. The incident on the field was a League violation, but then we must also include Roethlisberger's violation of the league's personal injury clause when he rode a bike without a helmet. I still see the bias, but I understand that you cannot. My central point surround the punk, Roger Goodell, who is full of himself. Prior to him, such incidents were reviewed by a panel of NFL officials. When he took over, he placed the decision solely in his hands alone. To me that's someone who is drunk with power, and it turnsd out he's bias. Vick did his time and he paid for it more than a 1000 dogs worth. He deserves his chance to redeem himself. Goodell is no God. I am so hoping that his skeletons will come out pretty soon. Trust me it will, he loves attention.
Roberto Santiago: "No team wanna pick him up and pay him, while knowing he might miss 5 games"
-Why not? He's out of shape and wasn't that good a QB to begin with. It's not like he was going to play anyway.
"His job is to be tough with players only? I thought you said he was the commissioner of the League, which in your words mean the owners?"
-You know that he works for the owners right? They hire the commissioner. They hire him to deal with the NFLPA. And what is he supposed to get tough with the owners about? Was Zygi Wilf on a sex cruise? Was Arthur Blank out at the Gold Club making it rain?
"Vick is not in the car, but he is at fault? "
-The league frowns upon it. They always have and that's who he's dealing with.
"His private sex-life, mind you his medical history which is covered by HIPAA, was violated"
-It was not violated. Knowingly giving someone an incurable STD can be a criminal offense. In this case it was a civil complaint and you're misapplying HIPAA. Again it shows a lack of judgment and the league frowns upon it.
Know this, if Ben gets in trouble again they will point back to this civil case and call it a pattern.
FSW: Have to admit Arthur making it rain is somewhat amusing, but Goddell aside, is Vick mentally ready to take on the role of QB right now?
Roberto Santiago: I doubt he's mentally ready and he's certainly not physically ready.
And Vick can't help the Vikings. All he can do is cause more problems for Tavaris Jackson. I've heard mention of him going to the Pats. That could work.
He'd be a threat on third down or in the Wild Cat and an insurance policy on Brady.
The Steelers also have a good history of creative use of athletic backup QBs.
EA: Roberto, I'm seeing the source of your argument and it has no objective basis. So you don't think highly of Vick, cool. It does not mean that it is okay for him to be treated unfairly. All your arguments posits that you do agree that bias is there, and that is what I am saying as well. We differ in the fact that you think that the bias is okay, and I do not think it is okay.
Andy Reid's sons did worst then Vick's friends in that car, and the league did not frown on it as you claim they always frown on things like that. The league in fact supported him. The case with Ben is a civil case as well, and it is criminal if he raped the girl. You are pointing out Mike's incident as if he was convicted, he was not. This is another place in which YOUR bias is apparent. Alas though, you agree with me that he is a kiss-up-kick-down commissioner. He's no tough commissioner.
JFM: I think Godell and the owners are more afraid of bad publicity and what that might do to their bottom line than to do what's right. Vick did his time. He should be able to play with whomever will have him. And if he screws up again.. then kick him the hell out.
Roberto Santiago: "I think Godell and the owners are more afraid of bad publicity and what that might do to their bottom line than to do what's right."
That is what's right. Vick doesn't have a right to play football. If the people who run the game don't want him around then he won't find work. People aren't falling over to sign Marvin Harrison either and he hasn't even been formally charged yet.
If no one wants to hire him to play in the NFL that's their business. Literally, it is their business they run it, they hire and fire. Of course they watch the bottom line, it's not job corps it's a business. No one owes Mike Vick anything.
Roberto Santiago: EA, you're myopic.
If you actually read what I wrote instead of looking for some one to jump you'd see that I said:
-I would have been fine if the commissioner hadn't done anything to Vick
-I would probably sign him if I owned a team.
-He would be good for the Pats or Steelers
Society didn't take anything from Vick. He's a convicted felon. He did this to himself. He chose to be involved in a criminal conspiracy. Society and the NFL don't owe him anything.
Andy Reid's sons are not league employees and Andy Reid was not involved in their crimes. Why punish Reid for his kids? Vick wasn't punished for what his friends did with his car but it shows a pattern.
Big Ben's thing isn't criminal because there's no evidence. She waited a year to file a civil suit. Just like with Vick's accuser in '05. There will be no criminal charge.
"Yo are pointing out Mike's incident as if he was convicted, he was not."
-Do you mean dog fighting? He went to Levenworth. He was convicted.
The fact is felons have a hard time getting back to work in high profile jobs. Mike Vick is being treated just like anyone else.
Oh, as for the "soft" stance towards coaches and owners remember "Spygate?"
"On September 13, for the "use of equipment to videotape an opposing team's offensive or defensive signals,"Belichick was officially fined $500,000 — the largest fine ever imposed on a coach in the league's then-87-year history, and the maximum permitted under league rules. The Patriots were also fined $250,000, and stripped of their first-round selection in the 2008 NFL Draft." -Wikipedia
500K is no joke. A 1st round pick is no joke.
Hey look, more action against coaches:
"On August 31, 2007, Goodell suspended Dallas Cowboys quarterbacks coach Wade Wilson for five games and fined him US$100,000, and suspended New England Patriots safety Rodney Harrison four games without pay, after they admitted the use of banned substances for medical purposes and to accelerate healing, ... Read Morerespectively. The league indicated to Wilson that his more severe penalty was because they held "people in authority in higher regard than people on the field." -Wikipedia
So now that we've put the "soft on owners and coaches" issue to bed I think we can dismiss the "no objective basis" comment.
In fact I may be the only person to post here who has brought actual facts, research, and a working knowledge of both the law and the league to the table. This would make me the sole presenter of objective fact so far today.
EA: Roberto it is good you know about myopia, because that actually applies to you. You argument has been spurious and nothing more. Your facts you brought to the case end up being circular and has no substance whatever to the argument. Remember, you jumped me, not the other way around and I'm okay with that. Oh I actually read what you wrote and found it to still lack an objective basis. Your comment that you would have been fine if Goodell had not handed down anything came on the heels of you stating that you are fine with Goodells FLAWED decision. So that mention is neglible to me and shows nothing about your objectivity. Your other points about Vick going to the Pats or Steelers also shows nothing about your objectivity in our (u & I) discussion because first it is certainly not YOUR insight, and it was in response to Fabunde or another person's comments.
JFM: Roberto, there's nothing objective about Vick's situation. Facts and the law aren't entering into it. It's public perception that's ruling Godell's decision. The NFL doesn't want Peta protesting at every game. I'm a little surprised that the Players Union are being such wusses. You would think they would be filing a grievance on his behalf.
Roberto Santiago: JFM,
You're right facts and law don't enter into it because this is not court. It is based on fear of protest, public perception, etc because it is a consumer driven business. If you want to keep making tons of money don't piss people off. If you look at any convicted felon you'll find that they have a hard time getting work. No one owes Vick job.
Guess what, he's probably not allowed to vote any more either. He can't leave the country. He can't travel out of state without permission from his PO. He can't own a firearm. he can't run for public office. He's a felon. Along with everything that entails.
EA: 1.You find that it is okay to hold Mike Vick accountable for his friends that are not in the NFL. Probably because they used his property. Andy Reid's sons also used his property to commit crimes, not once but twice, even after they were awaiting trial for a previous. We can do without this kind of "objectivity".
2. You agree that Vick's STD case was as similar as Ben's current case, yet you still absurdly hold it against him while looking at Ben's as mere nothing. Well, the girl in Vick's case also never filed a suit till she and Vick were through with the relationship
Roberto Santiago: EA, you're using a lot of big words but you still haven't put together a cohesive point. It is one thing to say my facts are circular, but you have yet to explain how that is or back it up with anything at all. You have yet to actually base any of your comments on anything. I'm all substance, you are a few syntactically odd collections of superfluous vocabulary.
As for who my comments are to, they are to everyone. This isn't a me-you discussion this is an open group discussion.
Finally I didn't jump you. I countered your points with my points.
EA: "Yo are pointing out Mike's incident as if he was convicted, he was not." Regarding this comment, do not try to be smart, cuz so far I haven't found you as that. You know I was refering to Vick's STD case and not the Dog-fighting case. $250,000 and a 1st round draft pick, of which they had two, is a severe punishment for a team? Who the hell is your weedman? He must be good. Cuz only someone with an impaired mind will see that as severe. Oh I forgot it is not weed, you do have myopia. $500,000 thousand for a coach that makes approxy $5mil+ a year is severe? He lost not one week of coaching, and still got to be coach of the year. Are you kidding someone?
Let us be frank bro, there is absolutely no insight and objectivity in the facts you brought up. My responses to you have been quick off the doom, while you have scoured around to pick up news clippings. The funny thing about it is that they are not supporting your points - that is if you are claiming that there is no bias.
Roberto Santiago: EA, you're not really processing my comments.
1. Again, Vick is showing a pattern. Andy Reid had some bad luck with his kids. I just re-read some of the articles about the Reid kids, nothing indicates it was Andy Reid's cars.
2. What I said is Vick has shown a pattern and Ben has not. IF Ben gets in trouble again they will look back to his current situation and say "There's a pattern." Ben had better watch his step in the future.
EA: I have countered the substance of all your clippings without having to scour the web. That you name the dates does not mean there is any substance to your argument, it just meant that you found a clipping from somewhere. Quite often, lemmings like you that have not point, tend to inject ad hominem in these arguments and I usually try to guide your type back to the substance of the argument. In this case, I won't. You give your appraisal of me, well here is my appraisal of you. You are one of two kinds of lemmings. More than likely, you are the kind of lemming that probably grew up impoverished, but with some luck and mediocre work, you find yourself fortunate now. So all of a sudden, the world is level to you - because you got lucky. Or you are the kind of lemming. You grew up priviledge and have had daddy's spoon in your mouth the whole damn time, and lack real-life experiences. Either way, your insights protray lack of objectivity and lack of intellect.
Roberto Santiago: "My responses to you have been quick off the doom"
-Indeed. and that's my point. You bring nothing except what's in your tiny malformed little brain. You haven't backed up anything, you have no understanding of business, sports leagues, or reading for content.
That I bring up facts at all is the only measure of objectivity. You've brought up nothing. You've got nothing. You said Goodell never punished any coaches or owners and I gave you several examples. Now all you can say is they're not good enough? And you're obsessed with Andy Reid because you know my other arguments are rock solid.
The fact is you've presented nothing. It's easy to tear someone down when you've been not only wrong, but ignorant on top of that. Coming "quick off the doom" isn't something to be proud of.
EA: Go back my friend and look at your arguments, you have used the big words that lack any meaning. I stated there were biases in the system and that Goodell's power is unchecked. You have yet to counter my points that there are biases in the system, or that Goodell's power is not unchecked. You go and pick up news clippings that only highlight the same biases that I'm talking about. And no, stop being a liar, you countered every patterned I mentioned regarding Ben. You can't counter all the patterns, and then try to claim that you still accept them. They work for someone that is unable to see the nothingness of your arguments, but not me. Also, while the overall discussion is with everyone, clearly you and I are having a separate discussion. Probably you may need to read clippings again to orient yourself. Also, there are responses from you that were to my points, and responses to the points of others. I focus on your responses that are to my points so I can respond to you.
Roberto Santiago: Let's break it down "off the doom"
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim,"
-I've brought a ton of facts to the table. You've brought nothing but attacks on me and misinterpretations of nearly everything else. (BTW the league doesn't have a "personal injury policy" some acts are forbidden in individual player contracts negotiated with individual teams, not the league)
"rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
-Bring some facts son!
Dude, What does this even mean?
"And no, stop being a liar, you countered every patterned I mentioned regarding Ben. You can't counter all the patterns, and then try to claim that you still accept them"
Try again, in English this time.
But you're not focusing on my points, you're focusing on me. You think you're clever hurling insults but all it does is reinforce the fact that you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Here's the thing. You can disagree with Goodell's decision. That's fine. I can not care either way (which was my original point). But the bottom line is that no one owes Vick anything. He does not have a right to play football.
omething Fabunde touched on but no one else has mentioned:
Can Vick actually help a team win right now?
Conventional wisdom seems to say "no." He hasin't played or been in a real conditioning program for 2 years. You don't just roll out of bed and play in the NFL. He's got to gethis timing down, learn a new system that will not be tailored to him like the falcons offense was and get used to being hit again.
Remember, Jamal Lewis went to jail for 2 months and had a bad year coming back.
Also we're talking about a guy who has never had a season in which he completed 60% of his passes, thrown for 3,000 yards and has had only one year with a QB rating above 78. The fact is he wasn't a great passer to begin with and now he's rusty. It's entirely possible that the suspension will help him by not having any pressure to come in and start right away.
After this the conversation petered out. I think the point here is that if you're the type of person who is proud of the fact that your opinion is completely un-researched and based solely on what you have rattling around in your "doom" you probably shouldn't get into too many debates.