Paying the guy millions not to play, guilty or innocent, seems a bit like he’ll benefit from being an evil bastard. I propose, pay him to sit the year, but if found guilty, he gives the money back.
perhaps - however, there is, as far as I know, no stipulation that an employer may not suspend an employee for a variety of reasons, right? (naturally a union contract will spell out conditions). and such reasons can, and often do, include suspicion of illegal activities. Miss Americas (contest winners that become employees, IIRC) have lost their crowns due to conduct that isn’t even illegal in some cases (Vanessa Williams posing nude).
I’m suggesting that the whole ‘innocent until proven guilty’ thing doesn’t mean that private citizens and corporations are prohibited from any action prior to a finding of guilt.
additionally, it can be argued that a players worth (or lack thereof) is not merely a sum and total of their effectivenss on the field. Certainly popular players (regardless of their skill) increase box office, revenues from marketing etc. Michael Jordon as a baseball player wasn’t one of the best players on the field (understanding, of course, that to get to the field one needs to be heads and shoulders above the general crowd);, but I would venture a guess that while he was a baseball player, that teams revenue increased.
I can see that, and agree with it.
Well, sure. I wasn’t trying to convict Vick before trial.
I meant to be comparing the general assumption that child molesters are difficult to rehabilitate with the question of whether animal abusers might also be difficult to rehabilitate. It seems to me that a characteristic of child molesters which makes rehabilitation problematic is that they simply do not properly empathize with the child – they see the child as a lesser being to be used for their own entertainment and not as possessing sacred rights and dignity.
It strikes me that animal abusers must harbor similar views of their victims.
Sailboat
Has it been mentioned the NFL has a personal conduct policy, and he can be suspended even if he is found not guilty, as long as the NFL is satisified he had even limited knowledge or participation?
The right to suspend Vick will be a matter of interpretation of contractual provisions. The commissioner may risk a lawsuit by Vick if he suspends Vick and Vick is later exonerated (depending on the wording of league conduct clauses). I suspect that is why the commissioner is moving cautiously and seeking a compromise.
Often, conduct clauses are worded such that the employer must have “reasonable grounds” to believe that the employee has committed an act that is detrimental to the employer. I’m not sure an indictment standing alone would constitute “reasonable grounds” to conclude Vick is guilty for purposes of satisfying such a clause.
Vick’s contract involves a lot of money, so liability issues will be considered carefully.
Does anyone know the wording of the League’s conduct policy?
Ah. Here we go.
NFL Conduct Policy. Pertinent parts:
[quote]
[ul][li]It will be considered conduct detrimental for Covered Persons to engage in (or to aid, abet or conspire to engage in or to incite) violent and/or criminal activity. Examples of such Prohibited Conduct include, without limitation: any crime involving the use or threat of physical violence to a person or persons; the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; possession or distribution of a weapon in violation of state or federal law; involvement in “hate crimes” or crimes of domestic violence; theft, larceny or other property crimes; sex offenses; racketeering; money laundering; obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; fraud; and violent or threatening conduct. Additionally, Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL…[/li][li]Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nob contendere [sic] or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner. Such discipline may include a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League. Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a second criminal violation will be suspended without pay or banished for a period of time to be determined by the Commissioner.[/ul][/li][/quote]
And I am assuming that Vick’s contract includes a clause that makes him subject to disciplinary policies implemented by the league.
The above language is surprising, in that it doesn’t include a “reasonable grounds to believe” hedge. Which means that the commissioner is on very thin ice in my view. He’d better be damn sure Vick is guilty of the proscribed conduct if he plans to institute any suspension without pay prior to a verdict. Otherwise, the commissioner, and the league, will be inviting a very large lawsuit.
IMO, the NFL maybe needs better lawyers drafting its policies.
Actually, reading the above language more carefully, I don’t see where suspension is even an option, in the absence of either a conviction or an admission of a criminal violation.
The Falcons have broader options than the commissioner’s office it seems:
Now there’s the sort of hedging language you would expect to find, for the protection of the employer. No need of a criminal conviction or admission for the club to cut Vick loose.
(Sorry for the multi-post, but new things keep occurring to me.)
I haven’t waded through all five pages of posts, but I suspect they’re will be some local politicians (including the Commonwealth Attorney) who go down as a result of this. Suffolk isn’t a very big place and the odds that there weren’t payoffs to local officials aren’t great.
spoke, from your link, there is also the following
The way I read this, if you’re charged, but not yet convicted, the league cannot suspend you for that alone. You do have to cooperate with evaluation and counseling, and you cannot be arrested or charged again while under supervision.
I think it’s a fair policy, people do get charged with crimes that they did not commit, and it’s not the NFL Commissioner’s job to decide which charges will hold water and which won’t, especially at such an early stage, when so little is public.
This is also a league wide agreement, individual contracts can have additional language.
And that explains why the Pacman Jones situation is different.
As far as suspending Vick, it would seem to me a proven fact that crimes were in fact committed on property Vick owned. If he had knowledge of it, then by funding the house he was aiding a criminal act, which violates the PC policy.
Is my chain of logic faulty?
There have been convictions already in this? I wasn’t aware that anyone had been convicted of committing any offense (related to this) on Vick’s property.
Obviously no convictions yet, but is there any legitimate excuse for 55 dead pit bulls in your backyard, dogs that clearly had been used in fights?
You misapprehend.
It’s established that crimes were in fact committed – there are dead dogs, abused dogs, and dog-fighting gear. The fact that they haven’t established who the criminals are doesn’t mean no crime was committed. O.J. Simpson wasn’t convicted, but nobody said “Oh then no murders took place, all is well,” and invited Nicole Brown over for tea. She’s still dead.
It’s established that Vick owned the property – a matter of public record.
It’s not established that Vick was present during the known crimes or is guilty of them, although it has been alleged.
But even if Vick is declared innocent, that does not mean that no crimes took place. The state will not suddenly endorse dogfighting, nor will the dead dogs rise from their shallow graves.
Sailboat
I was simply disputing it was a proven fact that crimes were committed on the property. It was the terminology that I didn’t like.
I have no doubt that crimes were committed. I just wasn’t aware it had been proven yet.
Sorry to seem ultra picky, but that doesn’t prove a crime was committed on Vick’s property. While it may establish there were crimes, it says nothing definite about the location of them (unlike Ellis Dee claimed).
“I found these dead dogs and fighting gear and buried them in my back yard.”
“My cousin came to me and said, Michael, you’ve got a big place, you mind if I bury some stuff out back? Then when I was away, he came round. I never dug up what he buried.”
“I’m a dog lover. I run a rescue center for abused dogs. Sometimes we find corpses of dogs and fighting gear abandoned, and we dispose of it to prevent it being used again.”
All shameless, see through excuses. But it hasn’t yet been proven a crime took place on Vick’s property.
Now I’m beginning to doubt that the linked version of the NFL’s rules of conduct is current. (It came from the NFL Players’ Association website).
Here’s an article from April 10 announcing a revision of the rules:
I can’t find the rules, as apparently revised, online. (Anybody?) But evidently, conviction or admission is no longer required to impose a suspension.
Even with the revised rules, though, I would say there’s a legal issue as to whether they can be applied retroactively to Vick’s situation, since his alleged violations occurred before the new policy went into effect.
The league rules do not have the force of laws. It could result in a long and expensive law suit. To say that you will be judged guilty even though you did nothing wrong but were there may be illegal. It reminds me of stores that put up signs saying they are not responsible for damages done in their establishment. It cuts down on suits because people think the signs have legal force. Often they do not.
They are not laws unto themselves, but they do have the force of law (contract law) if they are incorporated by reference into the player’s contract (as I am assuming they are).
The language of the rules (and the contract) will be subject to interpretation (and quite possibly arbitration and/or litigation), particularly if the League suspends Vick prior to conviction.
If league rules are in contradiction to legal rights they are unenforceable.
However with as many dog lovers in the world ,can he ever play pro football anywhere again. He has stirred up emotions and levels of disgust that are unforgivable. He will be picketed everywhere he goes.