It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:29 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: frank advice
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:51 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4912
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=m ... &type=lgns

Okay, this link got me to pondering...I have a friend who did a little time in jail overseas, and some in club fed here. He is still on probation, and cannot travel. He was featured in 'locked up abroad' his episode is 'caracas'. A great musical talent, and really book smart, just no 'hoss sense at all. HIs parents were pretty upper middle class, he got a Masters in music composition, we founded a band together 20 years ago, even toured europe together last millenium, then he gets busted muling coke. :roll:

He has told me all about how terrible Venezuelan jail was, what it's like in Club Fed and Miami interpol holding facility. Yet, when I tried to hook him up with some work on July 4th, he hosed me and didn't show! I mean, here I am trying to help this guy help himself, and he just continually f*cks up. Its amazing. You would think after all the crap he had been through, blowing off a music gig when he cant travel would be stupid, yet I wasn;t even surprised at all.

After reading this article, it got me thinking about my friend and Vick. Clearly, my buddy served his time but did not learn anything from his ordeal. I would think I would get something out of the whole thing, but clearly my buddy didn't...

What about Vick? Could he be just like my friend, a guy with talent and people making excuses for him his whole life, who serves his time and keeps screwing up? Or, did Vick finally 'see the light' in lockdown? It says here that club fed wasn't what changed this guy, real prison did. My buddy went to a real bad prison, but is the same old dumbass. What about Vick?

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:43 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25775
Location: North Carolina
I'm biased, but if I was in Goodell's shoes, then I wouldn't really trust anything Vick said, which is why I wouldn't be liable to just reinstate him this year. If I'm Goodell, then I have the "Prove It Clause" which is:

I suspend you for this season. And in that time, I'm looking to see some if not all of these things:

1) No arrests. No DUIs, no speeding tickets, not even a jayhawking citation.
2) Pass a number of drug tests.
3) Do you PSAs and some charity work
4) Do your hour long specials on Oprah and the Dog Whisperer
5) Go to gamblers anonymous

And if you can do those things between now and February, then I'll reinstate you.

At this point, my belief has got to be Vick's biggest motivator is money.

As Mr. Silver says, this has the chance to blow up in Goodell's face. After the Pacman Jones incident, I think Goodell has to be choosier now about who he lets back into the league. I know others think that his going to jail was all the proving he needs to do, but I disagree. If I'm an employer and one of my valued employees gets thrown in prison, and then gets out and comes to me looking for his old job back. I'm not going to be able to just give it back to him just because he says he's changed. I'm going to ask him to prove it. Give him 30 days or whatever, to keep his nose clean. Now, it's going to be really hard for him to do that if he's jobless for 30 days. But IMO, if he passes that test, then he proved it. It's messed up, and it's a test designed for him to fail, but that's how you can measure people's true character.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:03 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25775
Location: North Carolina
Two opposing views on the future of Vick from SI.com.

First one is Jim Trotter for letting Vick back into the league:

Vick deserves opportunity to play

Story Highlights
Michael Vick deserves to petition all 32 owners for a job
NFL would be hypocritical if it prevented Vick from playing
Vick's return to league won't lead to loss of fans or sponsors

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... 7/20/vick/

GEORGE DOHRMANN'S OPPOSING VIEW ON VICK

My wife has a huge heart when it comes to animals, dogs in particular. She has given our 11-year-old German Shepherd so many belly rubs that it rolls onto its side when it sees her coming. On hot days she'll put large chunks of ice into Ruby's water pan, and at dinner she'll mix in grilled steak or baked chicken because, in her opinion, dry kibble just isn't good enough by itself.

My wife also is among those who believe Michael Vick should get a second chance in the NFL now that his 23-month prison sentence for bankrolling an illegal dog-fighting operation is over. "Ban him from owning a dog," she told me last weekend. "But let the man earn a living."

Can I get an amen?

The debate about whether Vick's indefinite suspension should be lifted by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is as tiresome as the speculation about whether Brett Favre will return for another season. Vick has done his time, lost most of his money and been publicly disgraced. His name has been indelibly stained by the admission that he tortured and killed dogs.

Enough is enough. It's time for him to have an opportunity to return to work. Notice I said opportunity.

If Vick knocks on the office door of each of the league's 32 owners and, one by one, is turned away, so be it. He has no one to blame but himself. But to unilaterally prevent the former star quarterback from playing because of fears about how fans or sponsors might react would be hypocritical at best, shameful at worst.

If the NFL can give second chances to gamblers (Art Schlichter), drug traffickers (Tamarick Vanover and Bam Morris) and murderers (Leonard Little) -- yes, I consider killing someone while driving drunk to be murder, even if the law doesn't -- it should give Vick the opportunity to resume his career. It's true that none of the aforementioned transgressions took place on Goodell's watch, but it's also accurate that none of those players, prior to reinstatement, was punished as severely as Vick.

The argument that Vick's return would cause a loss of fans or sponsors is laughable. The NFL is the Gulliver of professional sports leagues. Its game is bigger than any one individual, including Vick. The vast majority of fans just want to be entertained, as we've seen time after time when crowds have cheered wildly when a fallen star has returned and played at an elite level.

Vick isn't the first player to participate in dogfighting and he won't be the last; I'm told there are active players still attending these despicable events. And yet there seems to be this push to make an example out of him. Where was this type of outrage when former members of Congress admitted to being members of a group that committed the same heinous acts on African-Americans that Vick did on some of his dogs?

Vick's actions were repulsive and worthy of strong punishment. However, if he truly has accepted that what he did was wrong, Goodell should heed the words that President Bush said in his 2004 State of the Union address while discussing legislation to help convicted criminals re-enter society.

"America," he said, "is the land of the second chance." At last check Vick is still an American.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:03 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25775
Location: North Carolina
Second one is George Dorhmann's against Vick getting back into the league:

Vick shouldn't be allowed to play

Story Highlights
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell should ban Michael Vick for life
Players have done worse than Vick, but line of tolerance can be moved
The NFL should not overlook Vick's gambling and lying, in additon to dogfighting

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... 7/20/vick/

JIM TROTTER'S OPPOSING VIEW ON VICK

Michael Vick, fresh off a 23-month federal prison sentence for financing and participating in the dogfighting operation known as Bad Newz Kennels, should be banned from the NFL for life.

I say that even though the prevailing opinion among my colleagues at Sports Illustrated and other national voices, like William C. Rhoden of The New York Times, is Vick should be back in the league this season. They have written with conviction that when commissioner Roger Goodell reviews the matter, he should allow Vick's return. Rhoden wrote that Vick earned a second chance "by virtue of his incarceration," and SI.com's Peter King wrote: "I think there is no good reason why Michael Vick ... should not be reinstated to play in the NFL this fall. None."

For the record, I own two dogs: a yellow Labrador retriever and a mutt my wife rescued from a shelter. My stance that he should not be allowed to return to the NFL, however, has little to do with his abuse of animals. It is grounded in a desire for equitable treatment of all individuals, regardless of their athletic ability, and simple economics. Vick's crimes repulse me, but matters of fairness and finances are why, if I were Goodell, I'd meet with Vick later this month and inform him that he is banned from the NFL for life.

Let me start by debunking one common rationale offered in support of Vick's reinstatement: players who have done far worse have been allowed to return to the league. An oft-cited example is Leonard Little, the St. Louis Rams defensive end who killed a woman in 1998 when driving drunk. The NFL suspended him for eight games for violating the league's substance abuse policy, an appallingly light penalty. Then-commissioner Paul Tagliabue erred in his handling of Little's case, which current commissioner Goodell implicitly confirmed when he indefinitely suspended Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth recently for committing the same crime as Little.

Still, some take the view that if Little received only an eight-game suspension for killing a woman, how can Vick get a more severe penalty for killing a few dogs?

This presupposes that the league and its fans can't move the line of tolerance. Goodell showed with his early handling of Stallworth's suspension that precedent does not bind him, nor should it. Vick's case is unique, and Goodell should treat it as such.

Vick didn't commit one heinous act; he financed and participated in an illegal operation for years. He is a repeat offender just by the nature of his crimes. In addition to the harm Vick brought upon animals, gambling also occurred at the fights run by Bad Newz Kennels. Vick also lied to Goodell and Falcons owners Arthur Blank when first questioned about his involvement. Violence + gambling + deception = three compelling reasons to banish Vick forever.

Is that fair? I think so, even if it goes against one of the loudest arguments made in favor of Vick's reinstatement: After serving a 23-month federal prison sentence, after losing all of his money, after being publicly humiliated, Vick has paid for his crimes. His debt to society fulfilled, he deserves the chance to rebuild his life via the NFL.

I realize celebrities are treated differently, but no job, especially playing in the NFL, should be considered a fundamental right. At a time when millions of people have lost their jobs, why is it unthinkable to some that Vick, after throwing away his football career, should be forced to ply a different trade than he did before?

To be sure, Vick can find work in football outside the NFL. The new United Football League might pay him $1 million or more a season. He could also get into coaching. Yet those who support his return to the NFL speak as if it would be a failure of the system for him to land anywhere but football's highest peak, that any opportunity short of that would deprive him of a shot at redemption. That is the narrowest view of what constitutes redemption, and it is flat wrong. Would he be insufficiently absolved if he spent the rest of his life working hard at a blue-collar job?

Some believe Goodell should let the market decide Vick's future. Reinstate him and see if a team is willing to sign him. This connects to another reason I believe Goodell should keep Vick out of the league: it's bad for business.

In one online poll, 71 percent of the more than 140,000 respondents replied "No" to the question: "Would you want your favorite team to take a chance on Vick when he gets out of prison?" To the question, "Should the NFL allow Vick back into the league?" people were more divided, with 58.1 percent believing he should be permitted to return and 41.9 percent in favor of a ban. That might appear to be a good sign for Vick -- a majority favored his return -- but Goodell can't be happy knowing that he would appease only 58.1 percent of the league's base if he allowed Vick to return.

A more relevant question, one not asked in the poll, would be: Would you stop supporting the NFL if Vick were reinstated? Among diehard fans the answer would be a resounding "No." Vick or no Vick, they would support their team and play fantasy football. But what about the casual fan or the dog lover who has yet to totally embrace the league and its players? Goodell would lose at least some of those people, and that's not fiscally wise. Sponsors would also have to think twice about supporting the team that signs Vick.

Nothing about Vick's case for reinstatement moves me to the side of those advocating for his return to the NFL. To do so would be to provide preferential treatment to an undeserving athlete, and it would likely tarnish the NFL in the eyes of some fans or would-be fans.

I thank Vick for bringing needed attention to the issue of animal fighting. The Humane Society says 21 new laws have been passed against animal fighting since his arrest in 2007, and increased funding generated by the publicity from the case led to more education and enforcement. I'm glad he paid his debt to society; I wish him all the best in life. But to borrow (and slightly tweak) the works of my colleague Peter King:

I think there is no good reason why Michael Vick should be reinstated to play in the NFL this fall. None.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:48 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6536
Location: Indianapolis IN
I think there should be conditions like Pudge said to prove to the NFL (Goddell)that he is serious about being a clean player. The public will give you a second chance if you show remorse and keep your nose clean.I am not sure Vick by himself can keep clean.He is going to need the right people in his life and when it gets tough rely on those people. The thugs and pretenders who pose as Vick's friends need to be kept out. ?You don't need yes men in your life but people who will set you straight when you get out of line.Alot what celebs endure can be temporary then when your down and out who is there to pick the pieces up?

I t's up to Vick to make this into a good cinderalla story rather than be just another athlete who goes down in flames. When your popular and have money everyone wants to be your friend but when your just another body Vick needs to watch his back at all times.

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:19 am 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6149
Location: Planet Claire
Mike can possibly cull some folks out of his life but you don't get to pick your family and some lifelong friends in essence are family. He didn't seem to comprehend the microscope he was living under before and it is yet to be seen if he will now. This story will make Favre's annual flip flop look like back page news. I think Schultz's AJC article summed it up fairly well....just get it over with. There is no way in the world he can be banned for life so let him get on with his life.

And gus, word is your friend was really worried about ultra sophisticated outside agitators showing up on the 4th and chickened out. :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 9:35 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:27 pm
Posts: 1236
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
A good list, Pudge. I think the gambling thing is being overlooked. This is probably one of the biggest concerns Goodell will have in reinstating Vick. The guy has a track record of gambling and has huge debts. Those are a bad combination. The most damaging thing that can happen to a sports league is the perception that someone is shaving points or tanking games.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:35 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4912
backnblack wrote:
Mike can possibly cull some folks out of his life but you don't get to pick your family and some lifelong friends in essence are family. He didn't seem to comprehend the microscope he was living under before and it is yet to be seen if he will now. This story will make Favre's annual flip flop look like back page news. I think Schultz's AJC article summed it up fairly well....just get it over with. There is no way in the world he can be banned for life so let him get on with his life.

And gus, word is your friend was really worried about ultra sophisticated outside agitators showing up on the 4th and chickened out. :lol:



Yeah, the glass eater and tattoed lady might have freaked him out :mrgreen:

I think the question I was asking and using my buddy as a metaphor is: do you think the 'lightbulb' finally went off for Vick? Will what he has gone through and lost have humbled him? Or, if given a chance to play in the league again, and recouping some of the money and stature he lost, will he do and say all the 'right things' in public, but inside keep thinking 'I was the victim. They made me a scapegoat. I was treated unfairly, etc..'.

Then, the other question is can Vick keep out of trouble, or if given the chance to perform again, will he screw it up? With my buddy, I just realized he is going to be a screwup for the rest of his life, and in his mind and the people around him will continue to make excuses for him, so I wont get burned expecting him to show up anymore. Were still friends, but he goes onto the 'cant call for gig because he's unreliable' list. Vick was on that list for me a long time ago. He would look great and then he would lay down and dissapoint me. He was arrogant and excing to watch, but then he would do something stupid like flip us off, and eventually the dog thing was the coup de grace.

Even if Vick was truly remorseful and humble and really learned some life lessons could he still perform at NFL capacity now?

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:23 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25775
Location: North Carolina
No, fun gus to answer your specific question, I don't think the light bulb has truly gone off in his head. Although I doubt he will say so publically, I'm sure Vick feels like he was railroaded and scapegoated. For a man in his position, I think that would be a nature feeling to have, since a great deal of the public is split on the notion of whether what he did was "that big a deal."

I'm not saying I think Vick will slide back into illegal activities now that he's out of prison, but I have the feeling that the sense of entitlement he held before he went to prison is still there. He'll just try his best to bury it beneath the surface.

It'll be interesting to see his interviews in the future, because he's never been the most eloquent person, which I don't think will help his cause.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:56 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4912
Pudge wrote:
No, fun gus to answer your specific question, I don't think the light bulb has truly gone off in his head. Although I doubt he will say so publically, I'm sure Vick feels like he was railroaded and scapegoated. For a man in his position, I think that would be a nature feeling to have, since a great deal of the public is split on the notion of whether what he did was "that big a deal."

I'm not saying I think Vick will slide back into illegal activities now that he's out of prison, but I have the feeling that the sense of entitlement he held before he went to prison is still there. He'll just try his best to bury it beneath the surface.

It'll be interesting to see his interviews in the future, because he's never been the most eloquent person, which I don't think will help his cause.



Years ago when I worked @ WGST as a lowly board op, I sat in on an interview with a man wrongly convicted for rape. He was later released when DNA evidence was introduced. A white lady wrongly accused him at a lineup, he had priors, jury trial, 25 years. He served like 18 years of it. Whe he was released, he was not bitter. I was just amazed. I know I would have been. But, he didn't want to sue anyone, did not hold a grudge against the white woman, and said 'I may have not committed this specific crime, but I was heading in that direction.'

Instead, he was just happy to be out and was at peace. It was truly amazing. He had learned forgivness in jail. Really remarkable guy.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:07 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25775
Location: North Carolina
Not that surprising. 18 years is a very, very long time to let anger and resentment fester. 18 months definitely, but there's no way you could keep your sanity if you remained pissed for 18 years.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:39 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4912
Pudge wrote:
I'm biased, but if I was in Goodell's shoes, then I wouldn't really trust anything Vick said, which is why I wouldn't be liable to just reinstate him this year. If I'm Goodell, then I have the "Prove It Clause" which is:

I suspend you for this season. And in that time, I'm looking to see some if not all of these things:

1) No arrests. No DUIs, no speeding tickets, not even a jayhawking citation.
2) Pass a number of drug tests.
3) Do you PSAs and some charity work
4) Do your hour long specials on Oprah and the Dog Whisperer
5) Go to gamblers anonymous

And if you can do those things between now and February, then I'll reinstate you.

At this point, my belief has got to be Vick's biggest motivator is money.

As Mr. Silver says, this has the chance to blow up in Goodell's face. After the Pacman Jones incident, I think Goodell has to be choosier now about who he lets back into the league. I know others think that his going to jail was all the proving he needs to do, but I disagree. If I'm an employer and one of my valued employees gets thrown in prison, and then gets out and comes to me looking for his old job back. I'm not going to be able to just give it back to him just because he says he's changed. I'm going to ask him to prove it. Give him 30 days or whatever, to keep his nose clean. Now, it's going to be really hard for him to do that if he's jobless for 30 days. But IMO, if he passes that test, then he proved it. It's messed up, and it's a test designed for him to fail, but that's how you can measure people's true character.



what about going to a titty bar your first free night with AI? :lol:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:27 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:27 pm
Posts: 1236
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
fun gus wrote:
what about going to a titty bar your first free night with AI? :lol:

No crime in that, per se, but it does show a lack of good judgment. Considering the egg on his face from Pacman's titty bar adventures, it's not a good way to endear yourself to the commish.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:38 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4912
Happ wrote:
fun gus wrote:
what about going to a titty bar your first free night with AI? :lol:

No crime in that, per se, but it does show a lack of good judgment. Considering the egg on his face from Pacman's titty bar adventures, it's not a good way to endear yourself to the commish.



where is Ghandi Dungy when you really need him? I see a bat signal in the sky with an old wooden cross in the middle!

Dungy : "Mike, since your so f*cking stupid son, here is a list of places NOT to be seen in until you meet with Goodell:

strip club
casino
dog track
dog show
Ricky Williams pad
Neverland Ranch

here are some places to be seen :

church
rescuing dogs from burning building
boys and girls club
Orlando

understand, Einstein?"

MV " shooot. I loves me some Mike Vick. Ookie go now to da club'.


what a collosal dumbass. :roll:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: frank advice
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:42 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25775
Location: North Carolina
I think we all understand that given what Mike has endured over the 20 months his overwhelming desire to have beautiful snatch in his face. But Pacman did ruin strip clubs for everybody. Mike, at least wait until after you meet the Commish to go to the strip club.

For the record, Vick's agent did deny that he was out stuffing 10-dollar bills into g-strings.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... trip-club/

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  


cron