Vick reinstated on conditional basis

[zazie]

That I can agree with. I am not sure how much of a case he would have, since he has other options to play football (CFL, UFL, etc.). The NFL is not the only option.

 

While the NFL may be the biggest and best, the commissioner is the ultimate determiner of who gets to play. The owners hired him to do that very job. If an owner or two disagrees with the commissioner, that is their choice. Regardless, the Commissioner is there as long as the owners allow him to be there and if he says that Vick cannot play, Vick does not have much standing legally. Of course, I am not a lawyer, but I would have trouble seeing how the NFL would lose a case like that. Nobody is saying Vick cannot get a job. That does not mean that Vick has a right to whatever job he wants.

I am at a loss to convey the meaning of the ERA to the posters here. Vick would absolutely have standing if the Patriots say they want to hire him and some unelected "official" bars him from that, after a REAL judge has meted out and he has served his real sentence. The owners also have no standing to bar someone from a job.

 

Again, slippery slope, first bar this guy because he killed dogs, then that guy because his mother speaks only Russian.

 

Anyway, lets just leave it off, hopefully the Bills do not want him. Done.

[K-9]

... Nobody is saying Vick cannot get a job. That does not mean that Vick has a right to whatever job he wants.

 

Yes. And that's the key distinction. Good clarification.

 

I'm still not convinced about the Commissioner's power to supercede all. As mentioned earlier, the NFL has been sued, their by-laws and commissioner enforcement of those by-laws notwithstanding, and the league lost. The Al Davis cases are the ones that come to mind most readily.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[zazie]

Yes. And that's the key distinction. Good clarification.

 

I'm still not convinced about the Commissioner's power to supercede all. As mentioned earlier, the NFL has been sued, their by-laws and commissioner enforcement of those by-laws notwithstanding, and the league lost. The Al Davis cases are the ones that come to mind most readily.

 

GO BILLS!!!

You're right. Black guys have the right to work in 7-11, but not to EVERY job, is that your theory.

 

Yes, he has the equal right to EVERY job he may be qualified for.

[KRC]

Yes. And that's the key distinction. Good clarification.

 

That was my point all along.

 

 

 

I'm still not convinced about the Commissioner's power to supercede all. As mentioned earlier, the NFL has been sued, their by-laws and commissioner enforcement of those by-laws notwithstanding, and the league lost. The Al Davis cases are the ones that come to mind most readily.

 

As far as the commissioner, I guess the upcoming Supreme Court case might have an impact on how the NFL is viewed (single entity, etc).

[Mr. WEO]

I am at a loss to convey the meaning of the ERA to the posters here. Vick would absolutely have standing if the Patriots say they want to hire him and some unelected "official" bars him from that, after a REAL judge has meted out and he has served his real sentence. The owners also have no standing to bar someone from a job.

 

Again, slippery slope, first bar this guy because he killed dogs, then that guy because his mother speaks only Russian.

 

Anyway, lets just leave it off, hopefully the Bills do not want him. Done.

 

 

Yes, you are clearly at a loss.....

 

Look, playing for the NFL is not a right. It is a privilege (hard to believe I actually had to type that). If the commissioner says he is banned for life, no court can overturn this decision. This is a private corporation and the Commissioner would be acting under the powers given to him by the owners and agreed upon by the players.

 

Any debt paid to society for his crimes has nothing to do with his status in the league.

 

You don't really believe that a team can just "hire" a banned player, do you?

[KD in CA]

Yes, he has the equal right to EVERY job he may be qualified for.

 

 

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......WRONG (but thanks for your pathetic attempt to invoke race into the discussion). He has a right to be CONSIDERED for every job he may be qualified for. And employers have a wide range of reasons for why they may choose not to hire him over other qualified candidates.

[zazie]

That was my point all along.

 

 

 

 

 

As far as the commissioner, I guess the upcoming Supreme Court case might have an impact on how the NFL is viewed (single entity, etc).

Incredible! Equal Rights... does that not say it all??????

 

The right to NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.... ie the right to every job.

 

I have to stop really you are just too effing stupid for words.

[KD in CA]

I have to stop really you are just too effing stupid for words.

What you need to do is take a remedial English class since you are currently too uneducated to understand the distinction being made.

 

The right to NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.... ie the right to every job.

The right to "not be discriminated against" IS NOT THE SAME THING as "the right to every job". Things that are different are not the same.

 

 

But please go ahead and keep posting. I love when people get hysterical and start calling others 'stupid' when displaying their ignorance in a public forum.

[KD in CA]

p.s. thank you Simon.

[K-9]

You're right. Black guys have the right to work in 7-11, but not to EVERY job, is that your theory.

 

Yes, he has the equal right to EVERY job he may be qualified for.

 

You're applying and confusing laws pertaining to the mandates of the EEOC. I don't see the relevance to the Vick situation. If denied the right to play in the NFL, he can and should sue as he has a consitutional right to seek redress in the courts. He doesn't have a 'right' to the job as employers may find reasons 'other' than those regulated by the EEOC to NOT employ him.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Ramius]

Incredible! Equal Rights... does that not say it all??????

 

The right to NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.... ie the right to every job.

 

I have to stop really you are just too effing stupid for words.

 

Please answer why every job application i have ever filled out asks if you've been convicted of a crime.

[K-9]

Yes, you are clearly at a loss.....

 

Look, playing for the NFL is not a right. It is a privilege (hard to believe I actually had to type that). If the commissioner says he is banned for life, no court can overturn this decision. This is a private corporation and the Commissioner would be acting under the powers given to him by the owners and agreed upon by the players.

 

Any debt paid to society for his crimes has nothing to do with his status in the league.

 

You don't really believe that a team can just "hire" a banned player, do you?

 

I disagree that once the commissioner has acted that's that. As I've pointed out, the NFL has been sued and lost several times. The by-laws and commissioner's rulings notwitstanding. It's not as cut and dried as "the commisioner has final say."

 

GO BILLS!!!

[The Dean]

That's exactly what he'd do. He'll come in for a few plays a game and run the wildcat. A creative team would line him up in different positions all over the field and utilize his talent. He's not going to come in, 2 years out of the league, and be a standard drop back QB. It's just not going to happen.

 

 

Putting aside Vick's personal character for a moment, I think this is the best Vick can hope for in the NFL. As you note, a creative team would find a way to use him, despite his limitations at QB and his two-year absence from the game.

 

Does anyone really believe the Bills are "a creative team"?

[Mr. WEO]

I disagree that once the commissioner has acted that's that. As I've pointed out, the NFL has been sued and lost several times. The by-laws and commissioner's rulings notwitstanding. It's not as cut and dried as "the commisioner has final say."

 

GO BILLS!!!

Actions of the commssioner regarding punishment have not been challenged. The suits the NFL lost were in regards to anti-trust issues.

 

If the agreed upon (by both the employer and the emplyee/union) conditions for employment termination have been properly followed, a court challenge will not succeed. Unless an employee is being unlawfully descriminated against or was terminated in way inconsistent with the rules agreed upon, no court would ever hear such a case.

[The Dean]

this article explains why the punishment is a lot more harsh than it seems on the surface. Makes some good points.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=4359839

 

 

It does? I must have missed that part.

[Cookiemonster]

LOL.

Skoob, glad you liked, you provide me with LOL's too. Seriously though, your petitioning

is starting to sway my thinking, why would it be so bad, we would have added security

for the glove wearing Mary, and a real wild card there, we could really keep defenses off

balance. As far as punishment goes, he paid his debt to society. We could use the added

publicity, probably generate more fan interest as well, the kind Ralph likes, regional, but

also very much nationally. It might just be the fire that needs set under Trent's butt. Sorry,

I forgot, that the mention of Trent's butt really sends you in to a tizzy.

[K-9]

Actions of the commssioner regarding punishment have not been challenged. The suits the NFL lost were in regards to anti-trust issues.

 

If the agreed upon (by both the employer and the emplyee/union) conditions for employment termination have been properly followed, a court challenge will not succeed. Unless an employee is being unlawfully descriminated against or was terminated in way inconsistent with the rules agreed upon, no court would ever hear such a case.

 

It doesn't matter what the suits were about only that the NFL's by-laws were challenged and they lost.

 

Look, I doubt Vick's case EVER gets that far. Why do you think the commissioner re-instated the likes of Little in St. Louis, PacMan Jones, and on and on? Because, if he had tried to ban them for life, they would most certainly be challenged. And many people agree the NFL would have lost in court.

 

This is a moot point. Goodell suspended Vick to make sure he won't overshadow the opening day of the new season. I don't see the suspension going beyond a couple weeks and nowhere NEAR the six it may extend to. That's why Goodell's language is specifically vague in the ruling.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

I'm not seeing the constitutional angle. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, he has no constitutional claim in any court. The NFL is not a state actor, and therefore it can't violate your constitutional rights. He might have some claim under state law or Title VII, though I can't fathom what sort of claim he could bring; there's no "discrimination on the basis of criminal history" claim.

 

I agree. I'm just saying he has the right to sue. I'm not saying a court will find merit in a case. I'm not saying he won't have a hard time constructing one to be heard in the first place. Just that he has a right to file a lawsuit if he feels he has suffered damages as a result of league action. Kinda like the Clarrett case. Yes, it was eventually overturned by a higher court but he challenged the NFL by-law regarding the requirement for a players' high school class to be three years removed before a player could become eligible.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[The Senator]

You do have the right to play in the nfl if any team wants you. Constitutionally.

 

You are the real moronic inferno. Not worth discussing with you anymore as you clearly cannot grasp even the simplest concepts.

 

Who does employ you, I wonder? Man...

I believe I do have a constitutional right to vote, yes? Unless, of course, I am - like Michael Vick - a convicted felon.

 

Vick has no 'right', constitutional or otherwise, to play in the NFL, period - and the level of ignorance displayed in this thread by certain individuals professing knowledge of constitutional rights and the law is highly amusing. Even more amusing is the arrogant condescension they project while demonstrating their own ignorance.

 

Vick already had a job in the NFL and, through his own actions and consequences, forfeited that job. Discrimination does not apply, or even exist, in this case. In addition to Vick's egregious violations of the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy, the NFL specifically does not allow its players to be involved in any form of gambling, and even first-time offenders risk being banned for life. Therefore, the NFL is well within their legal rights and boundaries should they choose to ban Michael Vick for life.

 

BTW, armchair lawyer - when an employee is justifiably terminated 'for cause', companies can and often do state that an employee is not eligible for rehire. Vick's extremely fortunate that Goodell has given him an opportunity to redeem the career that Vick himself threw away as a result of his barbaric behavior.

 

There you go.

[yall]

Vick, the recidivist scumbag...what's up next for the guy? Killing cats?

Honestly, what he did was cruel to animals, but he spent time in jail for it, and there are a ton of NFL players who commit equally as cruel crimes against human beings who don't go to jail or get suspended by Goodell (e.g., domestic abuse).

 

That said, I agree with you that Florence's quote is a slap in the face to TE. I would think a new guy on a team who is a really long shot to make it would keep his mouth shut.

 

Recidivism:

 

1. repeated or habitual relapse, as into crime.

2. Psychiatry. the chronic tendency toward repetition of criminal or antisocial behavior patterns.

 

Aside from the litany of crimes involving dog fighting, conspiracy, and gambling, let's not forget the illegal drug charges as well as the 'Ron Mexico' nonsense.

 

He pretty much has shown himself to be a career criminal.