It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:28 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:19 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4374
Location: Vancouver, WA
I suspect that Friday will put this discussion and most "guilt until proven innocent" discussions to rest. All signs seem to be pointing towards a plea bargain on Friday.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:24 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25550
Location: North Carolina
BirdBrain wrote:
From the very first post concerning the Dogfighting allegations you have been in denial Pudge.

So my post about the Wonderlic shows me in denial? Oh so believing that Vick would have wiggled out of the local charges (which he did) shows my denial? I don't think so. In fact, my first viewpoint of this issue proved to be true.

BirdBrain wrote:
As far as you saying that my bias concerning Vick bleeds over into whether i think he is guilty or not, here is my first real comment on the case. Notice that i said then that this wasn't about Vick's on the field problems, but the fact that this is a serious accusation, which should be rather easy to prove.

Clearly from your initial comments, you suspected Vick of being guilty all along and when the federal indictment was handed down, it only confirmed your suspicions. I cannot prove what rattles around in your head. I just have a suspicion that had this been Matt Schaub in his place, that there would have been a lot of BirdBrain posts saying things like, "Hey guys, let's not jump to conclusions. Nothing has been proven in court yet."

Now I'm sure you'll have a snappy comeback like saying that Schaub didn't have a series or sequence of behavior that suggested that he was capable of such an act, while Vick did. I just don't think it's a coincidence that you are one of the few people that have been consistently of the mindset that Vick will get what he deserves which in your eyes always seemed to be punishment, and also one of the people that has been most critical of Vick for a long time.
BirdBrain wrote:
As you can see by this post by you in May, it was you who said that nothing major would come from it, not I. I always maintained that something would come from it, from the very start.

I was inferring from this statement made earlier in this thread:
BirdBrain wrote:
hat was his one huge opportunity to get help, to bring the league and the NFLPA to his rescue. I will always believe that somehow the charges would have stayed local, vick would have plead guilty and paid a fine with some sort of probation. Him showing early contrition and offering up his help in exposing dogfighting would have satisfied the PETA people. But the "deny...deny and deny some more", along with the obvious obstruction of justice by the Bad Newz Bears Local DA (Poindexter)...led the FEDS and the NFL to get involved.

Now clearly you are saying something would have come of it. But you're also implying that this thing would have eventually washed over, and imagine you're also implying that had Vick taken this action, there was a chance he could still be playing football this season.

Now clearly something would have came of it from your comment, but that something would have been relatively minor compared to jail time and what has ensued since July. It would have only been enough to merit a few paragraphs on Vick's Wikipedia page a lot like what has occurred with Ray Lewis and Jamal Lewis. Marks on their career, but neither player will be remembered for them.

BirdBrain wrote:
The league could not have taken any other course of action concerning the case, once the indictment came down. There is no railroading going on here,just a process of implementing a new conduct policy approved by the NFLPA and even by Vick himself.

I disagree. The league could have easily decided to wait until something occurred in the case (as it seems to be doing now) instead of implementing their policy of erasing Vick's connection to the league within days of the indictment came down. Would it have been the right decision? I don't know, and I don't care.

How is banning the sale of Vick's jersey a necessary action? I'm well aware that it was Reebok that "made" that decision, but we all of course know that it's a move that wouldn't have been made without the league's input.

How is canceling the televising of the NFL QB Challenge a necessary action? I'm sure Josh McCown was disappointed that perhaps the 2nd best achievement of his career (1st probably being that 4th qtr. win vs. Minnesota a few years back), will now flutter away into oblivion.

When a person is under investigation it's not a normal and necessary reaction to ban/destroy all documents, etc. that indicate a connection between that person and your company/organization.

It's very apparent to anybody that looks at the facts/issues that the league was pre-disposed to suspending Vick as soon as the indictment came down. Was that a normal reaction? Perhaps. Clearly the rest of the world seems to agree that an indictment equates to guilt. But rather than taking a step back and re-examining the issue in a fair way, The Warden AKA Roger Goodell decided that he was going to suspend Vick, and it was only a matter of time before they gathered the necessary evidence. The Conduct Policy started out as a thing that would allow the Commish to suspend Pacman Jones and Chris Henry. Now it has morphed and stretched into something that has allowed him to suspend Michael Vick. And when the next thing happens, it will be modified and stretched again to allow him to suspend the next guy. It's a very vague rule that basically gives Goodell Selig-like powers in the "best interest of football."

Chalk it up as just wording by reporters, but it's interesting to see that when they are mentioning special investigator Eric Holder, they are saying things like "his job is to find out if the league can suspend Vick."

But frankly, I guess it's not Goodell I have a beef with. Probably the more criminal aspect of this is how apparent the lack of a backbone Gene Upshaw has.

I'm no lawyer or adept at labor agreements. But despite the union agreeing to the conduct policy, doesn't the fact that it is not part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement mean that Upshaw and the NFLPA can resist this thing a lot more than they have?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

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: