And let em in ?
I'm speaking of Michael Vick . He'll be sentenced soon and I'm just wondering what you folks think about whether or not the NFL should let him back in ??
I've heard several interesting debates on the topic and although this isn't exactly a political question , it does skirt the political arena based upon your leanings of left or right . I could've asked in 'U.S. Football' or 'Polls and Surveys', but you guys are the smartest group out of any on Y/A .
Would you 'Open the door. . . and let him in' ?
Me ? . . . Well if I were in charge of the NFL , I would consider protecting my brand and my business. . . so the answer is a resounding NO !!
2007-08-25 03:26:23 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Patrick - I suggest you do some research . The judge is allowed to know all the details from sworn statements of his cohorts . So the fact that he's pleading guilty on smaller charges will not preclude the judge from considering the entire picture . The judge is also well-known for going beyond minimum guidelines and plea agreements .
But I asked whether the NFL should let him back in or not . I think your opinion is short-sighted and based upon celebrity and money . Nevermind the fact that one has to be crazy to think he'll play next year . He'll likely still be in prison .
2007-08-25 03:39:55 · update #1
A lot of good things are done by 'Star' NFL players for the inner city children. These same children look up to the 'Star' players with hopes for their future.
I can only hope that the NFL will look beyond it's own financial matters to understand what a big influence these players are on children.
In answer to your question...No I would not let him back into the NFL. Just because he entered a plea...that doesn't mean he's not guilty of the rest of the charges. Also doesn't mean he's not innocent either. He has admitted to the dogfighting charges...and that's just wrong.
Sorry....I would love to see him tossed out for life...I love my football and I don't want that associated with it....and of course I love my Lab and Newfoundland.
He may be a good player...but the rules of life are a bit more important than the rules of the NFL.
2007-08-26 06:40:19 · answer #1 · answered by Nibbles 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We definitely had a lot of publicity in Cincinnati about the new NFL rules surrounding legal problems, role models, and what will result in suspensions with the problems a small number of Bengals have caused over the last couple years. When the new commissioner put his committee together to see what action the league should take he picked the Bengals Head Coach Marvin Lewis and WR T J Houshmandzadeh. From comments in the local papers and media the NFL is now looking at playing as a privilege that players have to earn and continue to earn both through their talents on the field and their conduct off the field. In light of this the horrible, barbaric acts of Michael Vick, his earlier run in with a possession charge, and the public outcry that is getting louder each day I do not see Vick returning to the NFL especially if his sentence is 3 to 5 years which some legal experts are noting.
2007-08-25 04:11:13 · answer #2 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The NFL should not let Vick play again. But the NFL is a big money business and Vick is big money. So who knows what they will do in the future. Far as I'm concerned, the convicted NFL players, and any other sport, should loose their multi-million dollar contracts and not be allowed to play.
Why should pro-athletes get away with serious crimes? Some of these guys are guilty of murder, several DUIs, and battery & asualt yet they still get to play and make a stupid amount of money. Maybe the leagues should take their salaries and donate 3/4 of it to charities related to the crimes they have commited or another charity if the leagues want these athletes to play. At least then, these guys wouldn't get the money.
2007-08-25 04:21:54 · answer #3 · answered by Margaret K 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't let him back in, but I would bet money he WILL be back in,depending on how much time he spends in jail.
There are a couple of lesser known people who were convicted of manslaughter who are playing in the NFL. Not to mention 100 other guys who have been convicted of domestic abuse for beating the hell out of their wives and girl friends. If they don't let him back in, it will send the message that the life of an animal is more important than the life of a human.
I'm not sticking up for the guy, I have never liked him going back to his college days, but it IS a very interesting argument.
2007-08-25 03:57:53 · answer #4 · answered by BAARAAACK 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What Michael Vick did was despicable, but if the NFL does not ban him for life, and if he is in good enough shape once released some team will give him a second chance. I'm guessing the Raiders.
2007-08-25 03:40:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, he will not be allowed back into the arena of football in any capacity. He violated the morals and ethics clauses of his contract. In any event, what he is pleading guilty to is an extremely touchy subject in this country. People treat their animals as family members and what Vick is supposedly going to plead guilty to, to many, is heinous crimes commited on the innocent. To a vast group, it would be like allowing a murderer back to work among the untainted and not just that, in a highly visible spectator sport, not only watched here in the US but in at least 70 countries world wide. If the NFL wanted to lose its stature and its bottom line, the millions if not billions of dollars generated, they would let him back in. I cannot see them jeopardizing that bottom line for any one.
He can find redemption in some other arena just not in the NFL, where children look up to these athletes and aspire to be like them.
The plea filed by Vick acknowledged bankrolling gambling on the dogfights, but denied placing bets himself or taking any of the winnings. He admitted that dogs not worthy of the pit were killed ``as a result of the collective efforts'' of himself and two co-defendants. This last part of the plea is the key to keeping him out of the NFL permanently. He basically admits to having caused the death of animals. It also defies incredulity that he expects people to believe he financed gambling but did not place one measly bet. Most people are not that gullible.
2007-08-25 03:30:05 · answer #6 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No!! He shouldn't be let back in the NFL. Our youth looks up to football players and like it or not they are role models. I do not want to watch my children cheering on an animal killer. Nor do I want to see an animal killer making millions playing football.
2007-08-25 04:13:55 · answer #7 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
All this talk of never playing in the NFL again is stupid (not that what he did is not). After serving his time, he will play in the NFL again. I have said from the start- that is what the plea deal is all about. If you have seen the reports, you would see that the plea deal clearly states that he did not engage in any illegal gambling, or profit from any of the illegal gambling that was done. This was the key!!!
If he had pled guilty to any gambling, the NFL would have had grounds to dismiss him permanently. Since he did not, the NFL will probably suspend him for a set period, then he will be allowed to return after serving his time.
Anyone who sais nobody would sign him is naive. He is an exciting player who brings fans to the stadium. He is also a young man with several more productive playing years in him.
Wait and see- Vick will play again, and probably as soon as next season. It is not about personal opinion, it is about the law.
2007-08-25 03:33:16 · answer #8 · answered by Patrick B 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
No! Absolutely not. Dahmer did this to dogs. Very cruel, and what would be next, babies, and small children? He should pay dearly for what he has done. People will not forgive that easily. The NFL would be stigmatized if they let him back in.
2007-08-25 04:10:08 · answer #9 · answered by Moody Red 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes I'd open the door of the slammer shove him in lock him up and throw away the key, what he did was sadistically cruel, and no one in their right mind will touch him with a barge pole, "IF" he ever gets out of prison.
2007-08-25 03:46:51 · answer #10 · answered by ~Celtic~Saltire~ 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋