PDA

View Full Version : Vick: Legality, Morality, Reality



Edskin
07-31-2009, 07:53 AM
www.edkleese.blogspot.com

“He paid for his mistakes, let the man redeem himself.”

--Prevailing attitude of many fans, media members, and players concerning Michael Vick’s return to the NFL.

I see the world through my own lens. When it comes to judging another human being, I do not take legality into consideration. It matters not to me what the courts say about someone. I believe in paying your debt to society and being punished for your wrongs. However, when I am personally passing judgment on someone, I look way beyond what a judge or jury has to say.

In Michael Vick’s case, I agree that his debt to society has been paid. He did serious jail time. He wasn’t in a cushy minimum-security facility nor was he coddled by the system. He did actual, hard time. It cost him a major chunk of his promising career and millions upon millions of dollars. I do believe that he has paid his dues from a legal and societal aspect.

But again, when it comes to judging another man, legality means nothing to me.

Let’s examine the quote at the top of the page and focus on the word “mistakes.”

To me, a “mistake” is something that can happen to an otherwise good person. Cheating on a test is a mistake. Getting in a bar fight is a mistake. Experimenting with drugs is a mistake.

Torturing an animal? That goes beyond a mistake. That is a glimpse into someone’s true character.

Many people bemoan the fact that Donte Stallworth is probably going to pay a smaller price than Vick. For those that don’t know, Stallworth killed a pedestrian earlier this year while driving intoxicated. He spent less than a month in jail and is currently under suspension by the NFL. Many people don’t understand why Vick is so vilified for what he did while Stallworth seems to receive more sympathy.

It’s really simple: While I think Stallworth’s legal punishment was entirely too lenient; from a personal or moral standpoint, I can see how someone can make that mistake. His actions were not premeditated. His goal that evening wasn’t to kill someone. He had too much to drink and got behind the wheel. I understand how that can happen to an otherwise good person. That is a mistake. It’s a terrible mistake that had tremendous consequences, but it was a mistake nonetheless.

Electrocuting a dog is not a mistake. Slamming a dog to the pavement over and over until it dies is not a mistake. Stringing a dog up on a rope and hanging it is not a mistake. These are premeditated acts of cruelty. I don’t think that otherwise good people can get “caught up” in this kind of behavior. If you are capable of engaging in these activities, then you are the kind of person that I can never understand. The kind of person for whom I have no empathy.

Of course, there is also the “societal” defense for Vick. I’ve heard several times that Vick grew up in rough circumstances where dog fighting was a common activity and part of the local “culture.” While the entire notion is far-fetched, it again does not explain the cruelty and violence. Had Vick simply attended dog fights or owned a few fighting dogs, I might be more prone to accept this “excuse.” But Vick was not an occasional spectator—he was at the center of a ring. He knew everything about the operation and took part in the torture and violence. He knew all about the “rape stands.” And by virtue of the lengths they went to in order to stay out of sight (buildings were all in a wooded area and painted black), he knew it was wrong.

I can see how a kid from a rough neighborhood or a broken home can get caught up in a gang. I can see how that kid can make some bad mistakes and land himself in jail. But I do not believe there is any societal or psychological excuse (aside from abject insanity) that can explain what Vick did.

It’s very easy to say you are sorry once you’ve been caught. But Vick showed no signs of curtailing his operation prior to the authorities busting his property. It sounds as if Vick was guilty of some extremely bad associations, and that many of his longtime “friends” threw him under the bus. Vick certainly wasn’t the only person running the show—and may not have even been the main person running the show, but he’s certainly paid the biggest price. Still, I have no sympathy for the man.

As a die-hard fan of the Washington Redskins, I have feared for months that they might be interested in adding Vick to the roster. I usually don’t get into to judging players’ personal lives—I’m a fan of the team and the off field actions of individuals usually does not concern me. But Vick’s case is different. His actions were so vile and so cruel, that I do not believe I’d be able to put my personal feelings toward him aside and root for him to help my team.

Vick’s destination is still unknown, although it does not appear as if the Redskins are interested. This comes as a great relief to me.

In the end, this has nothing to do with the rights of humans versus the rights of animals. This has nothing to do with paying your debt to society. This has nothing to do with NFL suspensions or whether or not Vick should be allowed to play again. This has everything to do with making a bottom line moral judgment on another man.

From where I sit, I lump Vick with pedophiles and rapists on the moral scale. Not because of the seriousness of the crimes or the effect they have on their victims, but because of what the perpetrators are capable of doing to another living being. If you have it in you to do that to another living creature, I’m not sure true “reform” is possible.

The one thing I do not know is what’s in Michael Vick’s head and heart. I have no way of knowing whether or not he is truly sorry what he’s done, or simply sorry he got caught. I have no way of knowing whether or not he’s truly been able to look inside himself and exorcise his demons. And because I’ll never know the answer to those questions, I’ll have to leave the final judgment up to an authority much larger than myself. That is when Vick will find out for certain the magnitude of his “mistakes.”

MJA
07-31-2009, 08:54 AM
I disagree completely with your take on Donte Stallworth. Everyone at this point knows that getting into a car while drunk is wrong, there is no excuse for doing it after you read story after tragic story. The reason I think people downplay DUI is because we are a nation of drinkers, we see Stallworth and we can imagine ourselves in his shoes and therefore we don't judge as harshly as we should.

What Vick did was definitely not a mistake, mistakes don't last for years, but I think he should have a shot at the NFL because this is the National Football League, not the Nice Footballers League. We as a society for some reason expect sports figures to be moral compasses and I don't think thats right.

Also, to put Vick on the same morality level as pedophiles and rapists is borderline nuts. Its inconceivable to put someone killing dogs over someone who rapes human beings, the comparison isn't even close. Its another part of our society that is out of whack, if Vick was killing chickens no one would care; chickens are tasty! However, he killed fido and that was a big no-no and he paid the price for it.

Vick is probably not a good person, but when did being a good person become a requirement to play professional sports? The sports world is filled with people who have questionable morals (Racists, Drug addicts, wife beaters etc...) and its part of what makes sports "human".

Boston Red
07-31-2009, 09:18 AM
I agree that Michael Vick is scum. I also think he should be allowed to return to the NFL if any team will have him. Being scum should not disqualify you from making a living.

Edskin
07-31-2009, 09:30 AM
I disagree completely with your take on Donte Stallworth. Everyone at this point knows that getting into a car while drunk is wrong, there is no excuse for doing it after you read story after tragic story. The reason I think people downplay DUI is because we are a nation of drinkers, we see Stallworth and we can imagine ourselves in his shoes and therefore we don't judge as harshly as we should.

What Vick did was definitely not a mistake, mistakes don't last for years, but I think he should have a shot at the NFL because this is the National Football League, not the Nice Footballers League. We as a society for some reason expect sports figures to be moral compasses and I don't think thats right.

Also, to put Vick on the same morality level as pedophiles and rapists is borderline nuts. Its inconceivable to put someone killing dogs over someone who rapes human beings, the comparison isn't even close. Its another part of our society that is out of whack, if Vick was killing chickens no one would care; chickens are tasty! However, he killed fido and that was a big no-no and he paid the price for it.

Vick is probably not a good person, but when did being a good person become a requirement to play professional sports? The sports world is filled with people who have questionable morals (Racists, Drug addicts, wife beaters etc...) and its part of what makes sports "human".

First of all, we're not talking legal stuff here-- we're talking morality. I do belive that Stallworth was punished too lightly. He made a choice, and his choice cost someone their life. However, on a moral scale, I believe torture is worse than drunk driving-- I find it easier to understand how someone would have too many drinks and drive than how they would torture something.

And I'd be saying the same thing if it was chickens. If I heard someone was taking pleasure in the torture of chickens, I'd feel the same way.

And finally, yes, I think the inner "sickness" that would drive someone to rape or molest is pretty similar to that of the sickness that would drive someone to torture animals-- as a matter of fact, many studies have shown that many serial killers begin by torturing animals. If you are capable of doing that stuff or even just watching it with a certain amount of pleasure, I think you immediately go to the "sicko" list.

Having said all that, I do NOT belive Vick should be banned from the NFL.

Eric_the_Red
07-31-2009, 09:37 AM
Interesting discussion. I agree with BR and think Vick should be able to play football is a team wanted him, but having said that, I wouldn't want it to be my team.

The Stallworth to Vick comparisons are sure to happen, but I don't know how to really compare them. I guess I would rather be around someone like Stallworth that made one tragic mistake instead of Vick who made a series of horrible decisions (not mistakes). But, I think I'd rather have someone torture my dog than hit and kill a family member driving drunk. (Not that either choice is pleasant.)

DTCromer
07-31-2009, 01:57 PM
I think one of the most profound events in my life was when the loudest applause in the movie "Independence Day" was when the dog jumped and avoided the huge fireball from the explosion.

That was the day I realized dogs had more value in this country than humans and the Leonard Little, Donte Stallworth, and Michael Vick stories of the world have made further proof.

Hoosier Red
07-31-2009, 04:34 PM
I think one of the most profound events in my life was when the loudest applause in the movie "Independence Day" was when the dog jumped and avoided the huge fireball from the explosion.

That was the day I realized dogs had more value in this country than humans and the Leonard Little, Donte Stallworth, and Michael Vick stories of the world have made further proof.

I think you're talking about apples and oranges though aren't you? I mean Donte Stallworth did something he shouldn't have and it led to someone's death. Obviously had he been thinking it would have led to someone's death he wouldn't have done it.

Leonard Little is an interesting case just because he seemingly shows no remorse and has in fact gotten an additional DUI in the time since.

But it's not like they were torturing humans. I think it's torture vs. accidents that are the comparison here.

Edskin
07-31-2009, 06:01 PM
Every psychological profile about serial killers and sociopaths says that an early indication of this future behavior is the abuse or torture of animals.

The people that turn this into a "people care more about dogs than people" argument simply aren't paying attention to the discussion.

MJA
07-31-2009, 06:33 PM
But Vick hasn't taken the next step to that, I can only judge him for what he has done. What he has done, currently, is not on the same level as a rapist or serial killer.

George Foster
07-31-2009, 10:41 PM
I find this whole Vick story amazing...I really do. I guy gets drunk and kills another person...not a dog...but a human and he gets 30 days in jail. Vick kills some dogs and he loses EVERYTHING and maybe a career. Does anybody find this totally messed up. I mean really.

We kill hundreds of thousands of cows, chickens, and pigs everyday in this country for food and clothing. This does not take into account hunters that hunt for sport and trophies.

I want to say right off the bat, I'm a meat eater and I don't mind hunting as long as you eat what you kill. Can someone explain to me, the difference between a guy that hunts, mounts a grizzly bear and what Vick did? They both killed an animal for sport...right??? with a gun....right??? Why is a pit bull dog so much more valuable than a grizzly bear, or a wild turkey that you mount?

One guy gets a trophy and a pat on the back from his buddies and the other loses millions of dollars, 2 years of his life, and a career. This is one screwed up country.

Edskin
07-31-2009, 11:57 PM
I find this whole Vick story amazing...I really do. I guy gets drunk and kills another person...not a dog...but a human and he gets 30 days in jail. Vick kills some dogs and he loses EVERYTHING and maybe a career. Does anybody find this totally messed up. I mean really.

We kill hundreds of thousands of cows, chickens, and pigs everyday in this country for food and clothing. This does not take into account hunters that hunt for sport and trophies.

I want to say right off the bat, I'm a meat eater and I don't mind hunting as long as you eat what you kill. Can someone explain to me, the difference between a guy that hunts, mounts a grizzly bear and what Vick did? They both killed an animal for sport...right??? with a gun....right??? Why is a pit bull dog so much more valuable than a grizzly bear, or a wild turkey that you mount?

One guy gets a trophy and a pat on the back from his buddies and the other loses millions of dollars, 2 years of his life, and a career. This is one screwed up country.

Man, you did not read my post or the details of the Vick case, did you? If so, I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion.

You do understand that Vick participated not only in all aspects of dogfighting (including cruelty, money laundering, gambling, etc.) but that he was also directly involved with the ritualistic torture of injured dogs or dogs that failed to perform.

No one is saying that a dog's life is more valuable than a human life. What we're talking about here is morality, motivation....looking inside people and what they are capable of doing.

I'm not a fan of sport hunting one bit....but I do believe there is a huge difference between shooting an animal dead and slowly torturing it until it dies.

And while I do eat beef, I'd be appalled if I found out a meat packing plant was drowning the cows or beating them against the ground until they died.

The difference between Stallworth and Vick is premeditation and intent. I believe drunk drivers that kill people should be deal with harshly in regards to the legal system; but from a moral standpoint, I can understand that mistake much more than someone who engages in acts of torture for their own pleasure.

kpresidente
08-01-2009, 09:33 AM
The people that turn this into a "people care more about dogs than people" argument simply aren't paying attention to the discussion.

Especially when you consider that if Vick had done to people what he did to those dogs, he'd be executed as one of the most brutal multiple-murderers in history.

jimbo
08-01-2009, 11:36 AM
Also, to put Vick on the same morality level as pedophiles and rapists is borderline nuts. Its inconceivable to put someone killing dogs over someone who rapes human beings, the comparison isn't even close. Its another part of our society that is out of whack, if Vick was killing chickens no one would care; chickens are tasty! However, he killed fido and that was a big no-no and he paid the price for it.


No offense, but I think this type of thinking is really out of whack.

Chickens are born, raised, and killed for human consumption. How can anyone compare that to picking up a badly wounded dog and trying to kill it by throwing it up against a wall? Someone like Vick who was that involved in dog fighting, was in it for the blood sport and the violence of it.....not to feed him and his family.

Personally, I think Vick does deserve a second chance because that's how our society works. But at the same time, I hope no NFL team gives him that chance, the same way I feel about Stallworth, Pacman, etc. I'd highly doubt that I'd be able to walk back into my job if I had committed similar acts.

Matt700wlw
08-01-2009, 04:47 PM
I have no problem with Vick being allowed back in the NFL...he did his time according to the law.

However, why is somebody like Odell Thurman still suspended? The question is more about principle than football.

kpresidente
08-02-2009, 01:50 PM
No offense, but I think this type of thinking is really out of whack.

Plus, people that make this argument act like all he did was kill one dog, not torture then kill the 25-30 or so that he actually did (while laughing in the background).

If Vick had raped 25-30 women/children, or a more direct comparison, tortured and killed 25-30 people, does anybody think we'd be having a discussion about him getting re-instated into the NFL?


No.

Nobody is even remotely making the argument that a dog's life is worth as much as a persons, but Vick apologists have to resort to such strawmen to distract you from the brutality of what actually happened.

MJA
08-12-2009, 11:48 AM
Plus, people that make this argument act like all he did was kill one dog, not torture then kill the 25-30 or so that he actually did (while laughing in the background).

If Vick had raped 25-30 women/children, or a more direct comparison, tortured and killed 25-30 people, does anybody think we'd be having a discussion about him getting re-instated into the NFL?


No.

Nobody is even remotely making the argument that a dog's life is worth as much as a persons, but Vick apologists have to resort to such strawmen to distract you from the brutality of what actually happened.

What he did was brutal, my point is that our society puts a high value on the life of a dog. If he had been throwing chickens against the wall and cock fighting, the outrage would not have nearly been as fever pitched.

Also, of course Vick would not be in the NFL if he killed 25-30 people because they are people and not animals.

I don't really get your line of reasoning here, you compare Vick killing 25-30 dogs to him hypothetically killing 25-30 humans and then proceed to say that no one is making the argument that a dogs life is worth as much as a persons, despite the fact that you just equalized them in your previous statement.

DTCromer
08-12-2009, 06:30 PM
Especially when you consider that if Vick had done to people what he did to those dogs, he'd be executed as one of the most brutal multiple-murderers in history.

I thought Clinton Portis had the most profound statement of anyone, anywhere regarding the Vick situation after it happened.

Again, we're talking about dogs that were trained to kill. . .not little labs sitting at home waiting for their owners to come home. People in the ghetto get pitbulls for a reason.

And comparing chickens to dogs is comparable. Pedro Martinez admitted to engaging in cock fighting and no one really cared because it was legal in the Dominican. Everyone here cared about the dogs not because it was illegal, because they're dogs. Somehow, dogs became almost human-like to many people in this country when in fact they're no better than a turtle or deer.

DTCromer
08-12-2009, 06:32 PM
What he did was brutal, my point is that our society puts a high value on the life of a dog. If he had been throwing chickens against the wall and cock fighting, the outrage would not have nearly been as fever pitched.

Also, of course Vick would not be in the NFL if he killed 25-30 people because they are people and not animals.

I don't really get your line of reasoning here, you compare Vick killing 25-30 dogs to him hypothetically killing 25-30 humans and then proceed to say that no one is making the argument that a dogs life is worth as much as a persons, despite the fact that you just equalized them in your previous statement.

Exactly, dogs in this country = cows to the Hindus. Why? I don't know. Just because you have a nice little lab at home who waits for you everyday doesn't mean all dogs are cute and cuddly as him. Some dogs actually kill people. . . and are trained to do so.

Jack Burton
08-14-2009, 12:43 AM
I agree that Michael Vick is scum. I also think he should be allowed to return to the NFL if any team will have him. Being scum should not disqualify you from making a living.

McDonald's is always hiring.
Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right. Plenty other ways to make a living.

MJA
08-14-2009, 08:31 AM
McDonald's is always hiring.
Playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right. Plenty other ways to make a living.

Why is the NFL a privilege? I don't consider any job to be a "privilege", NFL players work extremely hard for their money (Weight room, film room, practice etc....).

kpresidente
08-14-2009, 09:55 AM
I don't really get your line of reasoning here, you compare Vick killing 25-30 dogs to him hypothetically killing 25-30 humans and then proceed to say that no one is making the argument that a dogs life is worth as much as a persons, despite the fact that you just equalized them in your previous statement.

What's so hard about it?

If Vick had done what he did to people, he'd have been executed.


Since NOBODY is saying anything remotely like that, then NOBODY is equalizing humans and dogs.

Really, it ain't rocket science.

Benihana
08-14-2009, 10:12 AM
Bengals made the first offer to Vick

http://twitter.com/Jay_Glazer/status/3307378636

WMR
08-14-2009, 10:36 AM
I thought Clinton Portis had the most profound statement of anyone, anywhere regarding the Vick situation after it happened.

Again, we're talking about dogs that were trained to kill. . .not little labs sitting at home waiting for their owners to come home. People in the ghetto get pitbulls for a reason.

And comparing chickens to dogs is comparable. Pedro Martinez admitted to engaging in cock fighting and no one really cared because it was legal in the Dominican. Everyone here cared about the dogs not because it was illegal, because they're dogs. Somehow, dogs became almost human-like to many people in this country when in fact they're no better than a turtle or deer.

You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the facts of this situation.

Vick didn't just kill pits that didn't perform. He and his thug friends would also gather other breeds of dogs and toss them in to be slaughtered by their pits as some twisted form of "training."

Chickens are NOT comparable to dogs. If you can't see the difference between a turtle, a chicken, and a dog then I've really got to wonder about you...

WMR
08-14-2009, 10:37 AM
I find this whole Vick story amazing...I really do. I guy gets drunk and kills another person...not a dog...but a human and he gets 30 days in jail. Vick kills some dogs and he loses EVERYTHING and maybe a career. Does anybody find this totally messed up. I mean really.

We kill hundreds of thousands of cows, chickens, and pigs everyday in this country for food and clothing. This does not take into account hunters that hunt for sport and trophies.

I want to say right off the bat, I'm a meat eater and I don't mind hunting as long as you eat what you kill. Can someone explain to me, the difference between a guy that hunts, mounts a grizzly bear and what Vick did? They both killed an animal for sport...right??? with a gun....right??? Why is a pit bull dog so much more valuable than a grizzly bear, or a wild turkey that you mount?

One guy gets a trophy and a pat on the back from his buddies and the other loses millions of dollars, 2 years of his life, and a career. This is one screwed up country.

This post is 100% wrong. Again, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the facts of the Vick case.

texasdave
08-14-2009, 11:23 AM
Vick didn't just kill pits that didn't perform. He and his thug friends would also gather other breeds of dogs and toss them in to be slaughtered by their pits as some twisted form of "training."

They had an article on dog fighting in the paper down here that expounds upon this.
One method of "gathering" dogs to be helpless sparring partners, so to speak, is to drive through neighborhoods looking for dogs of the appropriate size and then stealing them.
Fenced yard, no problem. They would leave the gate open so when it was discovered the owners would think that the dog just ran off. Dogs, as a general rule, just don't run off. Have you seen Lucky? I guess they were being humane since it is better to think that your dog ran off and might come back than to think it was being mauled to death in a training session. That is not even the worst part. A good fighting pit bull is worth a lot of money. And they can't take any chances having their dogs get hurt in these training sessions. So they take poor Lucky and secure it's snout so it can't bite back or they grind down Lucky's teeth so its bites will be ineffective.

But, hey, it's just a dog, right?

Jack Burton
08-14-2009, 12:20 PM
Why is the NFL a privilege? I don't consider any job to be a "privilege", NFL players work extremely hard for their money (Weight room, film room, practice etc....).

It's a privilege to get the opportunity to make millions of dollars for playing a game. You think it isn't?

Hoosier Red
08-14-2009, 01:37 PM
It's a privilege to get the opportunity to make millions of dollars for playing a game. You think it isn't?

Any specific job could be considered a privilege. It just depends on the perspective. Think being a janitor's a privilege? If not, do you think some guy laid off from his factory looking for a way to feed his family would?

Does it matter how much money he makes? What's the dollar figure for it being a privilege as opposed to a right? How much is Michael Vick entitled to make?

Captain Hook
08-15-2009, 04:27 AM
They had an article on dog fighting in the paper down here that expounds upon this.
One method of "gathering" dogs to be helpless sparring partners, so to speak, is to drive through neighborhoods looking for dogs of the appropriate size and then stealing them.
Fenced yard, no problem. They would leave the gate open so when it was discovered the owners would think that the dog just ran off. Dogs, as a general rule, just don't run off. Have you seen Lucky? I guess they were being humane since it is better to think that your dog ran off and might come back than to think it was being mauled to death in a training session. That is not even the worst part. A good fighting pit bull is worth a lot of money. And they can't take any chances having their dogs get hurt in these training sessions. So they take poor Lucky and secure it's snout so it can't bite back or they grind down Lucky's teeth so its bites will be ineffective.

But, hey, it's just a dog, right?

When it's put this way I have a hard time defending Vick.I have a Lab that I along with my whole family love very much and if something like this were to happen it would make me sick beyond belief.

I hate to do it though but I have to say that there is a huge difference between a human life and the life of a dog.I'm not going to attempt to set the difference myself but the laws we live by have and I'm ok with that.He has served his time and should be able to do what ever it is he does.I'm just glad the Packers didn't sign him.

Yachtzee
08-15-2009, 01:36 PM
Any specific job could be considered a privilege. It just depends on the perspective. Think being a janitor's a privilege? If not, do you think some guy laid off from his factory looking for a way to feed his family would?

Does it matter how much money he makes? What's the dollar figure for it being a privilege as opposed to a right? How much is Michael Vick entitled to make?

Everyone has a right to a fair wage for the work they do, but no one has the right to demand a job in a particular field of work. It's moot now that he's been signed by the Eagles, but Vick does not have a right to demand employment in an industry that chooses to exclude him based on his own conduct. In my field, if I had done what Vick had done, my career would be over. I'd be looking for that janitor job because my license would be permanently revoked. Doesn't matter if I had served my jail time or not. Employers are allowed to make employment decisions based on a candidate's conduct which may show a lack of judgment or moral compass.

Matt700wlw
08-16-2009, 07:35 PM
I'd love reactions to the 60 minute piece on him...

I don't think he's going to do this again, but that doesn't mean he regrets it.

I'm also not against him being allowed back in the NFL....he, according to the law, did his time...

15fan
08-17-2009, 10:49 AM
He looks like he's surrounded himself with a tremendous PR team. The first interview is the easy one when you have 18 months to prepare for it.

Occasionally I still see someone sporting a Vick jersey & just shake my head. Most, though, have already been replaced by Matt Ryan jerseys.

flyer85
08-17-2009, 11:08 AM
Why I am not surprised the Bengals wanted to sign him.

I hold no malice toward Vick but I have no sympathy either. He did it all to himself. I wonder if he ever cried for the dogs he tortured.

MJA
08-17-2009, 12:10 PM
At this point, its impossible for Vick to show the contrition that Goodell wants to see so badly. If he said he was sorry, people would say he is lying. If he donated to PETA, people would have said he was just smartly investing a little money to possibly make a lot of money.

What people don't want to hear is that contrition is built over time. We won't know if Vick is really sorry until 2-3 years down the line, not 2-3 days.

Eric_the_Red
08-17-2009, 12:28 PM
The fact that Tony Dungy has invested so much time and energy into Vick, as well as the fact that Dungy is still standing beside Vick, speaks volumes to me.

flyer85
08-17-2009, 12:52 PM
The fact that Tony Dungy has invested so much time and energy into Vick, as well as the fact that Dungy is still standing beside Vick, speaks volumes to me.it speaks volumes about Dungy. He is trying to help redeem a person and help them straighten out there life. A lot of people tried to help Vick along the way and he ignored the advice and instead chose his home boys.

How contrite Vick is will become apparent over a period as years(as MJA pointed out) because we have no idea what is really in his heart ... and that will be defined by his deeds not by his words.

So Mike a good place to start would be to voulnteer at the local humane society.

Eric_the_Red
08-17-2009, 01:27 PM
it speaks volumes about Dungy. He is trying to help redeem a person and help them straighten out there life. A lot of people tried to help Vick along the way and he ignored the advice and instead chose his home boys.

How contrite Vick is will become apparent over a period as years(as MJA pointed out) because we have no idea what is really in his heart ... and that will be defined by his deeds not by his words.

So Mike a good place to start would be to voulnteer at the local humane society.

Yes, and IMO if Dungy had any impression that Vick was honestly trying to turn his life around and make some sort of amends, then he wouldn't be counseling him.

flyer85
08-17-2009, 01:31 PM
Yes, and IMO if Dungy had any impression that Vick was honestly trying to turn his life around and make some sort of amends, then he wouldn't be counseling him.I doubt Dungy expects Vick to change instantly, it takes time and that is what Dungy is investing. IMO it is a case where Vick said yes to Dungy when he asked if he wanted his help. Now whether that was done for the PR benefits or out of true repentance is something that only time will time, it is too early to tell by any of us and most likely by Dungy as well.

Deepred05
08-21-2009, 04:24 AM
Has anyone here ever attended a dog fight or cock fight? I can tell you that I attended one some 30 odd years ago. I don't think they were even illegal then. Authorities were more interested in the illegal gambling going on than the cruelty to the dogs. I know that cock fights were only made illegal ten years ago in Arizona. This fella that I knew who fought the dogs only came under intense scrutiny when four of these dogs got loose one day and killed a little girl. You would be shocked at how normal these guys were, and how well they blended into society. They reminded me a lot of farmers. Animals were their tools, nothing more nothing less. Anyone who has been around horse racing, or even show horses, has the same attitude. If they ain't makiing money, they gotta be put down.

jimbo
08-22-2009, 02:08 PM
Anyone who has been around horse racing, or even show horses, has the same attitude. If they ain't makiing money, they gotta be put down.

I've been around horse racing in one aspect or another and have to say that your impression is just plain false.

While horse racing isn't perfect and there are unfortunate instances where owners or trainers do not make decisions that are in the best interest of the horse, it is not as common as you implied. In harness racing, in which I am a part of, many retired horses end up being adopted as riding horses, sold to the Amish to pull buggies, or some even retired to farms.

Just this past week I was starting races at the State Fair of West Virginia and an owner there retired his 12 year old trotter to a farm nearby so that he can live out the rest of his life running around in a pasture. "Putting it down" never was an option for the owner. It just doesn't happen like you imply.

Didn't mean to get this thread off-topic, but I just felt like I had to defend the sport that I dearly love.

flyer85
08-24-2009, 06:12 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4419868


Tony Dungy, the former NFL coach who has served as a mentor to Michael Vick of late, addressed a photo this weekend that shows the Eagles' quarterback drinking in a Philadelphia airport bar.

"Michael, you can't do that," Dungy said to SI.com.

Vick was seen in the recent New York Post photo drinking vodka and pineapple juice.

It wasn't immediately clear when the photo was published whether Vick was violating conditions mandated by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

In a letter to Vick upon his reinstatement July 27, after a two-year prison sentence for his participation in a dogfighting ring, Goodell wrote that "prohibitions regarding drug and alcohol use" were included.

But an Eagles spokesman, in an e-mail to The Philadelphia Inquirer, confirmed it was OK for Vick to drink alcohol, that it was "not in conflict with terms of his probation or reinstatement with the NFL."

TC81190
08-25-2009, 08:16 PM
Because drinking had so much to do with dog fighting...

Some people need to get off their moral pedestal when it comes to athletes (Tony Dungy, in this instance.)

MJA
08-25-2009, 08:25 PM
Because drinking had so much to do with dog fighting...

Some people need to get off their moral pedestal when it comes to athletes (Tony Dungy, in this instance.)

Yea the alcohol think surprised me. Nothing in Vick's case had to do with alcohol so why should he have to abstain from it?

RedsBaron
09-17-2009, 06:37 AM
I noticed a brief article in my local paper this morning that said that Vick's Eagle jersey is the fourth best selling NFL replica jersey.

redsfandan
10-01-2009, 05:06 AM
Vick, Nike sign new deal
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Michael Vick is back with Nike two years after the company severed ties over the quarterback's involvement in a dogfighting ring.

"Mike has a long-standing, great relationship with Nike, and he looks forward to continuing that relationship," his agent, Joel Segal, said Wednesday.

Segal would not reveal terms of the agreement. Nike declined a request for comment.

The deal was announced during a panel discussion at the Sports Sponsorship Symposium by Michael Principe, the managing director of BEST, the agency that represents Vick.

The endorsement is the latest step forward for Vick as he seeks to rehabilitate his career and his image after serving 18 months in federal prison. On Sunday, Vick played his first regular-season game since December 2006.

"It is quite evident that athletes that run afoul of the law are by no means relegated to obscurity when it comes to pitching products," said David Carter, a professor of sports marketing at the University of Southern California.

Vick signed with the Philadelphia Eagles on Aug. 13. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell gave him his full reinstatement Sept. 3, saying he could return to the field in Week 3.

Vick participated in 11 plays, accounting for 30 total yards, in the Eagles' 34-14 win over the Kansas City Chiefs, as Philadelphia tries to use him in a variety of ways as a backup.

Nike, which signed Vick as a rookie in 2001, terminated his contract in August 2007 after the Atlanta Falcons star filed a plea agreement admitting his involvement in the dogfighting ring. At the time, Nike called cruelty to animals "inhumane, abhorrent and unacceptable" and halted release of his fifth signature shoe, the Air Zoom Vick V.

Back when Vick first signed with the Eagles, Carter had said he was "too toxic for most companies to even consider taking a chance on him." What's changed? As Carter noted Wednesday, there has been little backlash to the quarterback's return to the NFL.

Protests have been limited, and the Eagles' sponsors have stood by them. That experience could make companies less wary about adding Vick as an endorser, though the biggest determinant might be no different from any other athlete: how well he performs on the field.

Retailer Dick's Sporting Goods said earlier this month that it wasn't carrying Vick's Eagles jersey in any of its 300 stores as a business decision.

But Paul Swangard, managing director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at University of Oregon, isn't surprised that Nike re-established its relationship with Vick.

"Nike has a history of supporting athletes. I think they are supporting an athlete who still garners attention," Swangard saud. "This is about Michael Vick as the athlete not Michael Vick the prisoner. ... When he is inside the lines of the field he is an exciting football player and that's what a brand like Nike can tap into."

Vick signed a $1.6 million deal with the Eagles, with a team option for the second year at $5.2 million. He was once a corporate star -- holding multimillion dollar deals to market everything from sneakers to sports drinks. But those millions are long gone.

In July, Vick filed for bankruptcy protection while serving his sentence, saying he owed between $10 million and $50 million to creditors.

To Carter, Nike likely made a calculated business decision that the benefit of sales tied to Vick outweighed any potential public outrage.

Vick must still have some selling power if the company is getting behind him, he said. "Nobody understands their consumer and has their finger on the pulse of their consumer like Nike does."

redsfan1966
10-01-2009, 08:44 PM
Nike has just waffled regarding Vick....apparently they are only providing "product" to Mr. Vick, not signing him to an endorsement deal....

Chip R
10-02-2009, 05:06 PM
Even if Nike did re-sign Vick, what's the big deal? He's paid his debt to society. Would we have been upset if Nike decided to have Josh Hamilton endorse their product?

cincrazy
10-03-2009, 12:05 AM
Even if Nike did re-sign Vick, what's the big deal? He's paid his debt to society. Would we have been upset if Nike decided to have Josh Hamilton endorse their product?

I think that's a bit different. Hamilton was a drug abuser and abused his own body. Vick took pleasure in taking the life of living, breathing things. I'm not saying killing a dog is the equivalent of killing a person, but it takes one sick SOB to do it. If I hit a dog with my car, I feel awful. And this is a man that drowned them, beat them, hung them, electrocuted them, etc.

I have no problem with his return to the NFL. But on the same hand, I won't feel sorry for him because of any hurdles he has to jump over. He's just simply not a good person. He wasn't then, and I highly doubt he's changed that much now deep down inside.

Yachtzee
10-03-2009, 12:32 AM
I think that's a bit different. Hamilton was a drug abuser and abused his own body. Vick took pleasure in taking the life of living, breathing things. I'm not saying killing a dog is the equivalent of killing a person, but it takes one sick SOB to do it. If I hit a dog with my car, I feel awful. And this is a man that drowned them, beat them, hung them, electrocuted them, etc.

I have no problem with his return to the NFL. But on the same hand, I won't feel sorry for him because of any hurdles he has to jump over. He's just simply not a good person. He wasn't then, and I highly doubt he's changed that much now deep down inside.

Nike probably looks at it from the perspective that he's still an exciting football player that a lot of high school kids look up to for his play on the field. That being said, if I were Nike, I'd probably treat him like he were on probation. I'd see if he's still hanging around the people he hung around with when he got in trouble. If he's truly learned his lesson, he'll distance himself from the people and the culture that encouraged him to get involved in dog fighting and seek out positive influences in his life. If he's still hanging around those people, he's much more likely to get in trouble again.

Chip R
10-03-2009, 10:49 PM
I think that's a bit different. Hamilton was a drug abuser and abused his own body. Vick took pleasure in taking the life of living, breathing things. I'm not saying killing a dog is the equivalent of killing a person, but it takes one sick SOB to do it. If I hit a dog with my car, I feel awful. And this is a man that drowned them, beat them, hung them, electrocuted them, etc.

I have no problem with his return to the NFL. But on the same hand, I won't feel sorry for him because of any hurdles he has to jump over. He's just simply not a good person. He wasn't then, and I highly doubt he's changed that much now deep down inside.


I see your point but Hamilton kept drug dealers in business and God only knows what he did to get money to buy crack. These are people who would have no problem selling crack to kids. What Vick did was horrible but he also has paid his debt to society. I don't feel sorry for him and I have no idea what kind of a person he was or is. If he hasn't changed then we'll find out soon enough. It doesn't matter to me whether Nike or any other company has him endorse their products but I will not be outraged if they do. Don't people deserve second chances?

mth123
10-04-2009, 12:11 PM
I'm late to this thread and think the origial post is right on. Vick's actions were pre-meditatied and cruel beyond belief. I have much less respect for the NFL since Vick is back in there. I consider Tony Dungy to be a high quality human being and he has taken Vick under his guidance to try and rehabilitate the man. I hope he's successful. I still think what Vick and his kronies did was heinous and inexcusable. In my mind his debt to society will never be repaid. Some actions don't deserve second chances. IMO, this is one of them. They should have thrown away the key.