vick ordered not to report to camp

IMO- the Vick and Pac cases are very much alike in the following ways:

1. They both had prior "incidents" that created a negative public perception.
2. They both have had charges/investigations/cases against them that were later dropped.
3. They both have pending charges against them.

There is no doubt that Vick has presently violated the personal conduct policy with this current situation. The league is scrambling to find a way to avoid the huge financial losses associated with Vick's trouble as opposed to the financial osses associated with Pac's. Which, IMO- is the only "real" difference between the two situations from the league's perspective. And it should go without saying- that is what is directing Goodell and the league's decision making.

 

I agree... for what it's worth I don't like the fact that Vick appears to be headed toward a suspension before he even has a chance to defend himself. I don't see any harm in waiting it out and dolling out a harsh punishment once we're all sure it is merited. Goodell is trying to push the line of when and why suspensions are given, IMO. I'm all for a very tough conduct policy. I think Pac should have been suspended his very 1st year, and we might have avoided some of his other behavior. I do think that while Pac has a somewhat more troubling series of incidents, Vick has enough to warrant a comparison... repeated suspicion of drug possession, the Ron Mexico incident is more serious than Pac's spitting incident to me, and there have been 2 incidents with people "associated" with Vick - one involving drugs found in Vick's truck and another involving a theft of a watch at an airport. (See http://www.ajc.com/services/content/news/stories/2007/07/22/vickbio.html )

So with Pacman, even though he hasn't been convicted of anything the position Goodell has taken is that where there's smoke there's fire. Any of those incidents by themselves don't mean anything, but taken all together Goodell is willing to infer guilt... especially when followed with a charge as serious as what Pac and Vick face. So I understand his reasoning, but I disagree with his decision to separate his rulings entirely from the judicial process... after all our legal system is the very process that initiates his scrutiny of a player. I think he needs to monitor the trial and then consult with an NFL panel that will come to it's own verdict/consensus with regards to the merit of disciplinary action. Maybe not for every incident, but at least for any that involve more than a 1 or 2 game suspension. It won't hurt anyone to delay a decision until all the facts are out, but it will hurt players and teams to rush to judgment in an effort to appear tough.

 

This "position" was taken in 2000, as I posted in another thread. It was enhanced to be more strict this year. These rules are posted for everyone to see, and players are aware of them. It clearly states that if you are convicted or CHARGED, you are subject to suspension. If you are a repeat offender, the suspensions get longer. The "innocent until proven guilty" adage does not come into play here. These are the rules of the NFL. Every company is entitled to set their own standards of conduct. I certainly don't make what these guys do, but when I hire on with a company, I am given an employee handbook, just like these guys. If I break a company policy, I pay the consequences, no matter how unfair I might think the guidelines are.

 

OK. But as an employer you have to apply the same standards to EVERY employee to avoid discrimination (not just racial), unfair labor practice, or wrongful discharge liabilities. I believe the INCONSISTENT application of the policy is what many people find troubling with Goodell's administration.

 

In a perfect world, you have two players charged with exactly the same crime, same number of repeated offenses, etc. This is not a perfect world, and there are extinuating circumstances with each incident, so they all have to be dealt with on their own merit. We are also dealing with a new "no tolerance" policy, so new ground is being broken. Right now Goodell appears to be leaning towards a very harsh policy, and if you are one of the first to break it, tough luck for you. You can bet that Pac's suspension got the attention of a lot of other players in the NFL, and that is exactly what Goodell wanted. He is certainly seeing a "bigger picture" than Titans fans. Don't believe he is shedding any tears over Vick either.....he is not the image the NFL wants. Flipping fans off on national TV started his downturn. The momentum is swinging, as I am seeing former players that are now commentators agreeing with these new policies. Pac just happened to be the first bump in the road, along with Tank. As a Titans fan, I know that losing the services of Pac are going to be rough...he was a gamebreaker. At the same time I am sick of seeing his name being shown on the screen every week under NFL Titans news. This season can't get here fast enough.

 

Isn't it Pacman's responsibility to take action if he feels discriminated against, or that he was treating unfairly? And Pacman was the one that dropped the appeal, right? Why do you feel the need to defend Pacman's "unjust" suspension if Pacman himself decided not to fight it? Regardless of whatever "deal" (all theory at this point) was made to drop the appeal, that's still Pac's decision.

The NFL is a business. The NFL is not required to have fair justice as we may think of it, or as may be advertised by our legal system. I'm sure in other business fields, certain employee's maybe treated differently regarding legal situations they find themselves in. It's probably not fair there either, but who said life was fair?

I'm glad Goodell is at least TRYING to clean up the league and not allow lowlife's to make millions in the business of football. I will be upset if Vick is 100% guilty and he receive's no suspension and financial punishment from the league. I will NOT jump to conclusions that just because, by July 25th at noon, there has not been a suspension against him.

I do understand that you are viewing these situations as similar in context to how breaking the law applies to the current NFL conduct policy. However Mike Vick's situation and Pac's situation is NOT THE SAME. They are different.

And, under the conduct policy, each case will be looked at on a case to case basis. I think an argument can be made for Mike Vick not being a repeat offender. Having herpes and being questioned at an airport really doesn't make someone a repeat offender, regardless of how you want to spin it.

 

I'm not trying to spin anything. The league is spinning the story that Vick and Pac's situations are different. Vick has how ever many dogs they found on his property number of prior incidents IN ADDITION to the civil case dropped against him, and the water bottle incident, the other charges mentioned above. Step back for a minute and think this outside of the league message you have heard.

I am fully supportive of cleaning up the league. If Pac is found guilty- he SHOULD be suspended the same as Vick should be. Goodell has essentially told everybody to "let due process occur before judging"- something he didn't do for Pac. Goodell has ordered Vick not to come to camp while the league "investigates"- basically suspending him WITH pay. He didn't do that for Pac.

 

Good. Let him treat Vick the same way he treated Pac. Call him and suspend him for a year.

 

The situations are different. Pacmans situation, Vick's situation, Tank's situation, Chris Henry's, Joey Porter's situation are all DIFFERENT. No matter how you want to look at it (or spin it) each situation is uniquely different.

A civil case DROPPED against him. The water bottle "incident" in which NO CHARGES were ever filed.

"essentially". The truth is none of us know the future and what actions Goodell will take. IF this all Vick gets, and he is found guilty, then I 100% support that Goodell's policy is really messed up. HOWEVER, there is still plenty of time for other actions to be taken, I'm willing to wait and see what happens in the near future.


I ask you again, since Pacman dropped the appeal, why do you argue that Pac's suspension is so unjust, when Pacman is no longer arguing that himself?


I'm thinking, basically, what you would prefer, is specific guidelines that say, one arrest = 2 game suspension. two arrest = 8 game suspension. Three inquiries from the police = 1 game suspension. Personally, I'd rather the "CEO" of the NFL have some type of decision making power, rather than there be specific rules regardless of the circumstances. Guess I'm just a fan of looking at each case individually and based on the specifics of the player and that player's incidents.

 

Patience just isn't your strong suit is it? Matters like these have to be handled in a lengthy process to make sure it is done right. As I posted, suspending Vick for now was just to buy time to get to the crux of it all. This is going to be a VERY serious problem, to the extent Vick may never play in the NFL again. You don't just snap your fingers and say this is the punishment. I don't believe there is any question that Vick is involved in some form or fashion, they are just trying to determine to what extent, before the trial even begins. Before they hand Vick a season suspension, they want to be sure of the facts. If he is found guilty, then watch the sledgehammer fall. Alex pretty much has it spelled out.