The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Sports (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   NFL Should Dump Vick (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=14864)

jester 07-24-2007 04:55 PM

Fresh, while I have not responded personally to anything you have said in the past and don't know if I will respond to anything in the future, depends on what topic is being discussed - I like Football, I grew up in a household where it was watched regularly. However, the way I am interpreting your statement you are suggesting that “race is an issue”, what about this little article from “CLASSIC ESPN”; now this guy didn’t do dog fighting; he did “women” fighting. He’s white, or would you presume to tell me that “culturally” white guys, not black mostly beat women. While this is a somewhat different circumstance, it still doesn’t make it right.

Gastineau, King of Sack
By Mike Puma
Special to ESPN.com

Except;
Mark Gastineau turned self-promotion into an art form with his dance ritual that accompanied quarterback sacks in the early 1980s. His antics played a large part in the NFL making such celebrations illegal in March 1984.
But that didn't stop the New York Jets defensive end, who helped revolutionize the position with his blazing speed. In 1984, Gastineau recorded 22 sacks, an NFL record that stood for 17 years until Michael Strahan broke it in 2001.
The 6-foot-5, 275-pound Gastineau made the Pro Bowl five straight seasons (1981-85) and finished his 10-year career with 107½ sacks, a Jets record that won't be broken anytime soon. He was the most high-profile member of the "New York Sack Exchange," a title given to the Jets' fearsome defensive front that was composed of Gastineau, Joe Klecko, Marty Lyons and Abdul Salaam. The foursome combined for 54½ sacks in 1981.
Off the field, Gastineau was no saint. He used anabolic steroids while playing for the Jets and was convicted for drug possession in 1993. He has a history of domestic violence against women. He served 11 months on Rikers Island for violating probation after assaulting a girlfriend who became his second wife.
In 1988, while still married to his first wife Lisa, Gastineau announced his engagement to actress Brigitte Nielsen, with whom he later fathered a son. But the couple split amongst hushed talk that Gastineau physically abused her. Gastineau later attributed his problems with women to his abuse of steroids.

The thing is, almost every sport has problems. It's getting worse. There doesn't seem to be anyway to "make it better". Decisions are needing to be made. What to do with players who "choose" to make wrong decisions.

jester 07-25-2007 08:48 AM

Just wanted to add one more note - while he didn't get "dismissed" from the team - I do believe that what was done and the things that have happened since - are showing the commissioners that they need to get "some type" of control over their players. It does make the sport look bad - they are representatives of their teams. An animal can't choose to not "get in the ring". I know let's put him in with the dog and we'll see who wins.

freshnesschronic 07-25-2007 09:04 AM

The thing is...everyone keeps saying for him to fight the dog....That's even worse and part hypocritical. Worrying about "inhumane" acts but then you go and do one over and put and jeopardize a human being? So it's not ok for dogs to duke it out, but for a dog to attempt to tear apart another human being, that is reconciled?
Look I don't want to get into this again but I put human interests far ahead of animal interests and I would hate to see a fellow human being injured because of a dog. That would make me want to put that dog down. Just my opinion, you know, humanity over the animal kingdom. Sorry.

Hime 07-27-2007 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic (Post 366398)

I bet you didn't even watch the video I posted about haters.

If it's so important to you that people get your message, don't post a video. I'm sure that I'm not the only person here who is at work and can't exactly play a video, especially one that apparently includes offensive language.

I'm not sure exactly where you get the idea that views on animals are so clear-cut between races. I live in a majority-black city and have met plenty of black people who love their pets, and plenty of white people who laugh at cruelty to animals. Here in DC we even have plenty of black vegans and vegetarians. For instance, the African-American lady who lives across the hall from me has a cat whom she'd clearly do anything for.

I'm sure that there are plenty of people (of all races) who will stand up for Vick because they like to see African-Americans succeeding publicly and don't want to see another black celebrity disgraced. A lot of people of all races felt the same way about OJ Simpson. That doesn't mean that murder isn't seen as a bad thing in the black community, just that people don't want to believe that someone who was thought of as a role model for black children could be a murderer.

And for the record, I am a big football fan and I do watch SportsCenter, and I have no idea where you're getting the idea that Vick is the best player in the league. That explains why Atlanta did so well in the playoffs, right? :rolleyes:

wolf 07-27-2007 06:29 PM

Has everybody gotten their Ron Mexico name?

I'm Phoebe Australia.

jinx 07-27-2007 06:38 PM

Ah thanks wolf, I'm Jojo Georgia.

wolf 07-27-2007 06:47 PM

That is overly cute!

One of my male coworkers is "Stark Iran."

He won't answer to anything else now.

They're not all on the other side of the door.

Clodfobble 07-27-2007 08:00 PM

Tiffany Sweden!!

Shawnee123 07-31-2007 09:51 AM

Victoria Suriname

xoxoxoBruce 07-31-2007 05:44 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Back to Vick

rkzenrage 07-31-2007 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurfalicious (Post 367527)
I see the point you're trying to make, but I think you're missing one as well: this has more to do with image and reputation as it relates to the employer, not whether or not Vick works with dogs.

The NFL has made a huge campaign about the image of its players, and thus the respectability of the NFL and the game. If the NFL's idea of maintaining an image requires players to be not felons, stoners, abusers, whatever, and the NFL believes - and can prove - that the image of the league, teams, and/or players would suffer or even be tarnished by the actions of a singular individual within the sport, they may very well be within their right to fire him for a conviction, or even on suspicion of these charges.

Image and reputation are the hardest things to attain and maintain, and even harder to get back once tarnished.

LOL!!! So, you suggest that the NFL fire all felons and those found using drugs, illegal substances (so funny!), and prostitutes in any way?
The "image" of the NFL is a group of companies that sponsor and play a sport, reading more into it is just confusing and I have, nowhere, seen any evidence, to support any other fact.
Please show me where it is more than just that.
"Football player"... pretty sure that is their title, right?

As for his contract... has he been found guilty of fighting the dogs?

smurfalicious 08-01-2007 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage (Post 370237)
LOL!!! So, you suggest that the NFL fire all felons and those found using drugs, illegal substances (so funny!), and prostitutes in any way

:confused: Ummm, no, I didn't suggest that at all. I don't think I gave my opinion on what football players should be suspended for at all. Maybe it's that silly disappearing/reappearing font. :rolleyes: :lol:


Quote:

Originally Posted by smurfalicious
If the NFL's idea of maintaining an image requires players to be not felons, [etc.]... and the NFL believes... that the image of the league... would suffer... they may very well be within their right to fire him...

I was speaking of the legality of a contract, not the type of employment ("football player") involved in this case. A contract can set forth any stipulation the employer wants, as long as it's legal. As a potential employee, you have the right to sign the contract - or not, and thus be bound to the contract - or not. Legally speaking, if you agree to the terms of the contract and sign it, you are bound by the contract terms. It is a fact that Vick is under contract with the NFL. It is a fact that the contract stipulates certain behaviors will result in suspension, fines, and/or expulsion from the league. It is a fact that the NFL is legally allowed to exercise - and in fact is choosing to exercise - its rights under the contract that Vick signed.

It seems to me that you disagree that the NFL should be allowed to stipulate such things in its contracts. If that is the case, then I might agree with you to some extent. But still - the fact remains, Vick agreed to the terms of his contract.


Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage (Post 370237)
As for his contract... has he been found guilty of fighting the dogs?

No. I don't believe any literate individual with an IQ above 65 and access to newsmedia believes Vick has been convicted yet since he was just indicted.

Regardless of whether or not you think image is an issue, or I think it's an issue, or anyone else thinks it's an issue, the NFL has made it pretty clear that it is an issue with the league - or else they wouldn't have suspended him for being charged (not convicted) of these crimes.

xoxoxoBruce 08-01-2007 08:37 PM

Just find the biggest, meanest dog in the country and have Vick fight it.... winner take all.

smurfalicious 08-02-2007 09:44 PM

A good read, well worth the effort.

DanaC 08-04-2007 09:28 AM

Quote:

Some black people feel dog fighting is fine. Why? Because that is their culture, raised around rotts and pits for protection in the inner city; opposite from other peoples. Does that make them all inhumane animal torturers?

I seriously doubt that being black has anything to do with it. There are dogfighting rings in the UK and, as far as I know, it tends to be white, working class men who are involved. My guess is, the unifying 'culture' is socio-economic in nature, rather than race. In areas of high deprivation, crime and violence, fierce dogs are desirable. In a climate of economic and social uncertainty, where violence and fear are a common part of life, some people become emotionally calloused.

Fresh, you mentioned cock-fighting in your country of origin: I don't believe this is the same. What you are describing is a sport which has been in continuous existence for hundreds, even thousands, of years. I personally think it is an appalling sport, but I can see the 'cultural difference' argument too. WHat we've been discussing in this thread, however, is not a continuation of something. Dog-fighting is something that has been around for long time, but has been considered culturally unacceptable in the West for many years.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.