PDA

View Full Version : Ethics and Football



alphabet
07-28-2009, 11:34 PM
With all the Mike Vick talk, i was wondering about people in football. I always wondered does a persons character matter to the fans? If Player X makes the Fins better but is a complete d bag and has minor legal problems would he be wanted? I can never tell when one outweighs the other.

hdxstunts1
07-28-2009, 11:37 PM
i think what he did was wrong, no doubt about that but if he says hes changed he deserves the second chance and that means with anybody, better to have him with us then against us!

C Maltasanti
07-29-2009, 03:20 AM
With a lot of fans it matters HOW good the player is...unfortunately, if a player is pretty darn good they can get away with a lot more off the field trouble.

JCane
07-29-2009, 03:31 AM
Ethics don't matter to the fans and the fans think it doesn't matter to the people who run the team—but it absolutely does. Even when Michael Vick was in the league, probably more than half of the teams wouldn't have made a move for him if he was on the block. The guy is an incredible athlete. He's fast, elusive, and he can throw the ball 75 yards...with no accuracy whatsoever. Now, he's been out of the league for how long? Think his accuracy improved while in prison? Most fans are blinded by his pure athleticism but fail to see that the guy is riddled with bad judgment and he has a poor work ethic. It's well documented. He surrounds himself with others who have poor judgment (ie: Allen Iverson). And some of us think it's a good idea to put this kind of person—forget player—on a young team such as we have now?

By the way, Atlanta COMPLETELY reconstructed their style of offensive play around Michael Vick's skill in order to be successful. What team today is going to completely reconstruct their offensive philosophy around a QB who has spent the past two seasons in prison and never threw the ball with any kind of accuracy to begin with. Anyone who thinks that Mike Vick steps back into this league and dominates needs to open their eyes.

#1 Fan
07-29-2009, 03:32 AM
i'll root for anybody in a fins uniform. sad but true.

Lord Of Miami
07-29-2009, 03:41 AM
A lot of young people do a lot of dumb things.That's part of being young and very understable,but when you get into being evil that's when teams will pass on you.As of right now 2/3 of the NFL have told Vick No thanks.

I would love for Vick to be blacklisted by all the NFL teams.That would make every player think more about what they are doing.

If a guy is a complete d bag, i don't want him on the Miami Dolphins, but minor legal problems are just that minor.

SRM
07-29-2009, 03:43 AM
I'd say it does.. like I wouldn't want Adam Jones, Chris Henry, or Mike Vick. They're good players but they bring a bad image to the team, and you can't help but have that thought in the back of your head that they could **** up at any moment and get themselves suspended and put that position in a bad situation, which all 3 of them have done so far.

myke1072
07-29-2009, 05:26 AM
Ethics does matter to some of us fans. Get rid of the scumbag players and allow good guys a chance at the NFL.

3rdandinches
07-29-2009, 08:11 AM
Fans get this idea in their head that you "need" this player because of their talent. They forget how there's a tonne of talent out there and you have the choice to build a team with class and dignity.

X-Pacolypse
07-29-2009, 09:41 AM
With all the Mike Vick talk, i was wondering about people in football. I always wondered does a persons character matter to the fans? If Player X makes the Fins better but is a complete d bag and has minor legal problems would he be wanted? I can never tell when one outweighs the other.

Yes it does. I have stated in the past that I would walk away from the Dolphins as a fan if they signed Michael Vick. Thankfully, I don't have to do that. That being said, this team has had it's share of characters over the years. As somebody who takes care of dogs as a part-time job, Vick's actions just disgust me to the core. I couldn't support a team that gives that man a second chance. I just couldn't.

Mcganiel
07-29-2009, 09:53 AM
Vick hopefully won't get a second shot.

Some fans are so receptive of a convicted fellon that has done his so called "time" now being able to return to the NFL. Players have such a huge impact on society and influence on our youngsters that this should not be aloud. ONE THING THAT I DO KNOW IS: If I were arrested for dog fighting I would not be able to return to my job due to the lack of credibility alone. Hopefully all NFL Teams will judge this as any large corporation would and not allow Vick to play. He will kill a Teams Fan Base and owners know it. Keeping a good public image of a team will most likely keep him off most rosters.

dlockz
07-29-2009, 10:00 AM
Ethics don't matter to the fans and the fans think it doesn't matter to the people who run the team—but it absolutely does. Even when Michael Vick was in the league, probably more than half of the teams wouldn't have made a move for him if he was on the block. The guy is an incredible athlete. He's fast, elusive, and he can throw the ball 75 yards...with no accuracy whatsoever. Now, he's been out of the league for how long? Think his accuracy improved while in prison? Most fans are blinded by his pure athleticism but fail to see that the guy is riddled with bad judgment and he has a poor work ethic. It's well documented. He surrounds himself with others who have poor judgment (ie: Allen Iverson). And some of us think it's a good idea to put this kind of person—forget player—on a young team such as we have now?

By the way, Atlanta COMPLETELY reconstructed their style of offensive play around Michael Vick's skill in order to be successful. What team today is going to completely reconstruct their offensive philosophy around a QB who has spent the past two seasons in prison and never threw the ball with any kind of accuracy to begin with. Anyone who thinks that Mike Vick steps back into this league and dominates needs to open their eyes.


I agree with the last sentence but people on this board think White will come in and dominate as a rookie

dlockz
07-29-2009, 10:02 AM
Fans get this idea in their head that you "need" this player because of their talent. They forget how there's a tonne of talent out there and you have the choice to build a team with class and dignity.

So JD Quinn is class and dignity. The NFL is not based on the factors u mention.

GoonBoss
07-29-2009, 10:18 AM
Well, in terms of ethics, the subject tends to be very.......Subjective. Take for instance; The BOR garuntees us a number of rights. Among those is the right against unlawful search and seizure. Often, the cops, knowing they can intimidate lots of people will ask people if they can "Take a look inside" your car. Now, you do it because you are intimidated, but you have waived your 4th ammendment rights by doing so. The officer knows this. Is this unethical? I personally think so. Police officers are supposed to uphold the law, but often will skirt and subvert it at every turn to make an arrest. To them? Perfectly ethical.

Most organizations have ethical standards as guidelines. Fans dont. For me, I have an ethical standard known as my "Once Cent Line". Like if I'm buying a car. Conceptually, the sales guy could keep jacking up the price of the car .01 cent at a time. Eventually, I would say "No sale". He could counter with "It's just one cent more than my last offer." To which I say "One cent too many."

That is my life ethical standard. Should Mike Vick be allowed to play in the NFL? IMO; No.

I know Mike Vick has been involved with the barbaric spectical of dogfighting. It's proven. This alone would not make me say no to re enstatement. Yes, he fought dogs. If you are just bringing the dog to fight another dog, and if one dog loses, he's put down quickly and humanely (Gunshot to head) I still find it abhorrent, but not something ban worthy.

What vick did however, demonstrating callous, unrelenting and IMO unrepentant amoral acts of cruelty towards said animals, not to mention all the dogs that he captured, or had captured and more or less fed to the other dogs.....That's over my one cent line.

Joey Porter, I'm positive, has fought dogs. I do not, however, know the extent of his involvment. I doubt I ever will. I've got no issue with him being able to play in the NFL because I don't know to what extent he is involved. He hasn't crossed my one cent line.

That's the best way I can explain individual ethics.

GoonBoss
07-29-2009, 10:29 AM
So JD Quinn is class and dignity. The NFL is not based on the factors u mention.

No, but it is an organization based on image and preserving that image. DUIs, for better or worse are simply not seen as that serious, as large segments of the population have at one time driven over the legal limit. Again, right or wrong? Subjective I guess.

OTOH, A guy like Vick who engaged in Dogfighting, interstate trafficking of said dogs for the purpose of fighting them, gambleing, and racketeering that has served a jail sentance that in unrivaled in NFL history is held in contempt by many, because he's engaged in activity that most of the general public is not involved in.

dlockz
07-29-2009, 11:23 AM
No, but it is an organization based on image and preserving that image. DUIs, for better or worse are simply not seen as that serious, as large segments of the population have at one time driven over the legal limit. Again, right or wrong? Subjective I guess.

OTOH, A guy like Vick who engaged in Dogfighting, interstate trafficking of said dogs for the purpose of fighting them, gambleing, and racketeering that has served a jail sentance that in unrivaled in NFL history is held in contempt by many, because he's engaged in activity that most of the general public is not involved in.


Still back to the question is JD Quinn a representation that so many want to act like football players are.


We want to make Vick as the worst person on earth but a guy that has basically risked killing multiple people multiple times its really no big deal.
If people want to be be all upstanding on Vick fine but I find most of them hypocrites when they give a guy like Quinn a pass. Like Stallworth he is now public enemey number one but truly is JD Quinn any differant except lucky.


Another note of hypocrisy is that noone seems to mind that Vick is working with a boys and girls club but god forbid he play the holy grail known as football. Personally I see the NFL for what it is and its not some great community organization its a money making entity that does like any smart business and does some community work.

I wonder how many of the hyprocrites that dont want Vick in the NFLan say these things .

1.Never watched Tyson fight after he was convicted.
2.Never watch a hollywood movie because an actor got in trouble.
3.Never Watch Roy Jones fight. He is an admitted cockfighter.
4.Never watch the Yankees play because thier owner is a convicted felon that was pardoned by a president many years after he was found guilty. Steinbrenner is huge in charity work but of course since he was a felon he should never have been given a chance.

GoonBoss
07-29-2009, 01:46 PM
Still back to the question is JD Quinn a representation that so many want to act like football players are.


We want to make Vick as the worst person on earth but a guy that has basically risked killing multiple people multiple times its really no big deal.
If people want to be be all upstanding on Vick fine but I find most of them hypocrites when they give a guy like Quinn a pass. Like Stallworth he is now public enemey number one but truly is JD Quinn any differant except lucky.


Another note of hypocrisy is that noone seems to mind that Vick is working with a boys and girls club but god forbid he play the holy grail known as football. Personally I see the NFL for what it is and its not some great community organization its a money making entity that does like any smart business and does some community work.

I wonder how many of the hyprocrites that dont want Vick in the NFLan say these things .

1.Never watched Tyson fight after he was convicted.
2.Never watch a hollywood movie because an actor got in trouble.
3.Never Watch Roy Jones fight. He is an admitted cockfighter.
4.Never watch the Yankees play because thier owner is a convicted felon that was pardoned by a president many years after he was found guilty. Steinbrenner is huge in charity work but of course since he was a felon he should never have been given a chance.

I don't see JD Quinn as any sort of a moral dilema. He made a series of bad choices due to a physical and mental addiction to alcohol. He is, rightly, in AA now. As well he should be. It doesn't make right or excuse what he did. He was sick, made bad choices, and paid for them. If he backslides, he's probably out of the NFL.

Stallworth is seen as he's seen. I think you are overstating it. He did not make a willful choice to get drunk for the express purpose of killing a man. While he made the call to drink, and, then made the call to drive, he did not make the call to intentionally injure someone. His actions, though, bring with them a consequence. He has made his deal, and, will suffer whatever Goodell hands down as a work related suspension.

The hyprocrite argument is silly and completely invalid. Many people out there don't beleive Vick should play, but won't stop watching football because of it. There is nothing hyprocritical about it. Just because one believes he should not play does not mean that they are wrong by watching a team that he plays on. Nobody is without wrongdoing, but I feel safe in saying that though I have not struck my wife, and think people that have are reprehnsible, I'm not a hyprocrite for cheering for them to do well when it is to my benefit to do so. I would be a hyprocrite if I wished him ill for beating his wife, when I too was a spousal abuser.

Same with movies and actors. I may think the guy should never be allowed to make another movie, but it doesn't mean that I'm a hyprocrite for watching one of his movies. I'm not going to not watch a movie with a scumbag in it when other actors I like may be in the movie.

While I personally think cockfighting is wrong, as it artificially creates a combative environment...But it's a far cry from dogfighting IMO. I have raised dogs and chickens both. It is not natural for dogs to react with dealy force towards each other arbitrarially. They'll bicker and, get in some scuffles over who's the alpha dog, but for the most part that's it. I know that for a fact in my over a decade of experience with raiseing multiple dogs together that are mainly tossed in together as adults that this is true.

I also know from over 10 years of raiseing poultry, that Roosters fight. It's what they do. It's thier instinct to do it. They are wired for these things only;

1. Screwing
2. Eating
3. Fighting

Very little else. If you take a rooster and drop him in a cage with another rooster they will fight until one is dead or they are separated. Note that hens also will do this if the other hens are not of the established group. This is why I don't see cockfighting in the same light as dogfighting. I rank it up there with abusive treatment of animals, which I don't condone nor support, but it's a far cry from the purposeful torture of a sentient being.

I don't think there is anything hyprocritical about it. Vick showed a clear and deliberate sense of enjoying tortureing animals. I understand that dogfighting is a cultural issue, but if the dog can't fight or is useless? Put him down quickly. A .22 to the back of the head isn't going to make any more noise than what has been generated already by the fight. No...Vick enjoyed the torture of other living things. That makes him a seriously disturbed and abhorrent person.

dlockz
07-29-2009, 02:14 PM
I don't see JD Quinn as any sort of a moral dilema. He made a series of bad choices due to a physical and mental addiction to alcohol. He is, rightly, in AA now. As well he should be. It doesn't make right or excuse what he did. He was sick, made bad choices, and paid for them. If he backslides, he's probably out of the NFL.

Stallworth is seen as he's seen. I think you are overstating it. He did not make a willful choice to get drunk for the express purpose of killing a man. While he made the call to drink, and, then made the call to drive, he did not make the call to intentionally injure someone. His actions, though, bring with them a consequence. He has made his deal, and, will suffer whatever Goodell hands down as a work related suspension.

The hyprocrite argument is silly and completely invalid. Many people out there don't beleive Vick should play, but won't stop watching football because of it. There is nothing hyprocritical about it. Just because one believes he should not play does not mean that they are wrong by watching a team that he plays on. Nobody is without wrongdoing, but I feel safe in saying that though I have not struck my wife, and think people that have are reprehnsible, I'm not a hyprocrite for cheering for them to do well when it is to my benefit to do so. I would be a hyprocrite if I wished him ill for beating his wife, when I too was a spousal abuser.

Same with movies and actors. I may think the guy should never be allowed to make another movie, but it doesn't mean that I'm a hyprocrite for watching one of his movies. I'm not going to not watch a movie with a scumbag in it when other actors I like may be in the movie.

While I personally think cockfighting is wrong, as it artificially creates a combative environment...But it's a far cry from dogfighting IMO. I have raised dogs and chickens both. It is not natural for dogs to react with dealy force towards each other arbitrarially. They'll bicker and, get in some scuffles over who's the alpha dog, but for the most part that's it. I know that for a fact in my over a decade of experience with raiseing multiple dogs together that are mainly tossed in together as adults that this is true.

I also know from over 10 years of raiseing poultry, that Roosters fight. It's what they do. It's thier instinct to do it. They are wired for these things only;

1. Screwing
2. Eating
3. Fighting

Very little else. If you take a rooster and drop him in a cage with another rooster they will fight until one is dead or they are separated. Note that hens also will do this if the other hens are not of the established group. This is why I don't see cockfighting in the same light as dogfighting. I rank it up there with abusive treatment of animals, which I don't condone nor support, but it's a far cry from the purposeful torture of a sentient being.

I don't think there is anything hyprocritical about it. Vick showed a clear and deliberate sense of enjoying tortureing animals. I understand that dogfighting is a cultural issue, but if the dog can't fight or is useless? Put him down quickly. A .22 to the back of the head isn't going to make any more noise than what has been generated already by the fight. No...Vick enjoyed the torture of other living things. That makes him a seriously disturbed and abhorrent person.

The whole act of creating a dog to fight is torture from feeding gunpowder to using bait animals and so on. He is no differant from any other dogfighter except he got caught.

The differance between dogfighting and cockfighting is people dont give a damn about a chicken.

I see pure hypocrisy on this issue unless they have stopped watching boxing or boycott movies with felons in them. Football is a sport based in violence and to act like these guys should be the cream of society is baseless.

As for JD Quinn illness or whatever he makes a conscience choice to drive while drunk and got caught three times. He has had multiple chances to play the sport and has continually messed up but nobody has a problem with this. Vick did wrong and was punished. I can think of no dogfighter that lost as much as he has. We have no clue what drew him to dogfighting.

Not one person has come come and said he should not be working at the boys and girls club but god forbid he play football. Personally that shows where our priorities are as people and its not a good place. So guess the ladder of the best of society starts at the NFL and works itself down.

dlockz
07-29-2009, 02:27 PM
dogfighting is a much bigger problem than most people realize because law enforcement have higher priorities . Vick can do alot of good to make a dent in dogfighting from his infamy. This is from the human society. making Vick dissappear does nothing to save dogs.


http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/07/michael-vick.html

GoonBoss
07-29-2009, 02:27 PM
The whole act of creating a dog to fight is torture from feeding gunpowder to using bait animals and so on. He is no differant from any other dogfighter except he got caught.

The differance between dogfighting and cockfighting is people dont give a damn about a chicken.

I see pure hypocrisy on this issue unless they have stopped watching boxing or boycott movies with felons in them. Football is a sport based in violence and to act like these guys should be the cream of society is baseless.

As for JD Quinn illness or whatever he makes a conscience choice to drive while drunk and got caught three times. He has had multiple chances to play the sport and has continually messed up but nobody has a problem with this. Vick did wrong and was punished. I can think of no dogfighter that lost as much as he has. We have no clue what drew him to dogfighting.

Not one person has come come and said he should not be working at the boys and girls club but god forbid he play football. Personally that shows where our priorities are as people and its not a good place. So guess the ladder of the best of society starts at the NFL and works itself down.

Perhaps people dont give a damn about chickens. I do. I'm not creul to my chickens at all. They live in a coop, but I've seen what chickens in egg processing plants live in as well, so I know from whence I speak. I also don't create an environment for my chickens to fight either....But again, it's not a social issue, it's a matter of the animals in question. Domesticated dogs do not fight to the death by nature. Roosters do.

I fail to see any hypocriscy in the situation with Vick at all. Now if there are people that have fought dogs out there that are saying he should be banned from football..Yes, then you have a point. Other than that, you are completely off base and wrong.

Some people expect athletes to be the cream of society due to thier visibility and position. That probably isn't fair, but it's just how it is. I don't think anyone is saying Vick shouldn't be allowed to play football. It's just that he should be barred from admitance to the company that happens to provide the best football product.

I don't think it's unreasonable to bar somone who's served almost 2 years in prison on federal and state charges from playing football. After all, how many are there in the NFL?

dlockz
07-29-2009, 02:46 PM
Perhaps people dont give a damn about chickens. I do. I'm not creul to my chickens at all. They live in a coop, but I've seen what chickens in egg processing plants live in as well, so I know from whence I speak. I also don't create an environment for my chickens to fight either....But again, it's not a social issue, it's a matter of the animals in question. Domesticated dogs do not fight to the death by nature. Roosters do.

I fail to see any hypocriscy in the situation with Vick at all. Now if there are people that have fought dogs out there that are saying he should be banned from football..Yes, then you have a point. Other than that, you are completely off base and wrong.

Some people expect athletes to be the cream of society due to thier visibility and position. That probably isn't fair, but it's just how it is. I don't think anyone is saying Vick shouldn't be allowed to play football. It's just that he should be barred from admitance to the company that happens to provide the best football product.

I don't think it's unreasonable to bar somone who's served almost 2 years in prison on federal and state charges from playing football. After all, how many are there in the NFL?


Then if hes the only one why make it a rule at all and why make it two years. The problem with a rule like this , is there is no reason for it. If Vick was the danger to society that some people want to act like , he would be banned already. George Steinbrenner was a felon and went on to do alot of great things for charity and the tampa bay area.

Seriously Im as big a doglover as anybody on this board but living in some of the areas and places where I grew up I have a clearer understanding of the dogfighting culture. I despise everything about it but Im not saying everyone invloved is a soon to be pschopath.

If Vick was a pedophile, a murderer or a rapist I would have no problem with any punishment but people make bad decisions and I dont think the NFL is so important that he should not be allowed back in.

GoonBoss
07-29-2009, 02:52 PM
Then if hes the only one why make it a rule at all and why make it two years. The problem with a rule like this , is there is no reason for it. If Vick was the danger to society that some people want to act like , he would be banned already. George Steinbrenner was a felon and went on to do alot of great things for charity and the tampa bay area.

Seriously Im as big a doglover as anybody on this board but living in some of the areas and places where I grew up I have a clearer understanding of the dogfighting culture. I despise everything about it but Im not saying everyone invloved is a soon to be pschopath.

If Vick was a pedophile, a murderer or a rapist I would have no problem with any punishment but people make bad decisions and I dont think the NFL is so important that he should not be allowed back in.

Well, as I said before; I would not hire him at my company, and I don't think that Goodell should be compelled to hire him back into his. Nobody is saying that vick couldn't work in widget making (If I owned a wigit plant) and noone is saying he shouldn't be able to play football..Just not necessarially at his company of choice.

What i think would be hyprocritical is for someone to say that they wouldn't hire him at thier company, but insist that Goodell should let him back in the NFL.

dlockz
07-29-2009, 02:59 PM
Well, as I said before; I would not hire him at my company, and I don't think that Goodell should be compelled to hire him back into his. Nobody is saying that vick couldn't work in widget making (If I owned a wigit plant) and noone is saying he shouldn't be able to play football..Just not necessarially at his company of choice.

What i think would be hyprocritical is for someone to say that they wouldn't hire him at thier company, but insist that Goodell should let him back in the NFL.



It all depends on the so called company. The NFL is not the same as a company.I just dont get thats its ok for him to do menial work but the NFL is so much above him. If I owned a football team and needed a qb I would consider vick. Goodall is doing the right thing, its now up to each individual owner to decide of they want vick in thier organization. Some owners will agree with you and some wont. Thats much better than Goodall being the moral authority for the entire NFL. He is not god. I dont know if I would sign Vick. I would sit down and talk with him if I was interested and if he sounded like he had his stuff together maybe I sign him.

So u would hire him to make widgets or not lol.

GoonBoss
07-29-2009, 03:35 PM
It all depends on the so called company. The NFL is not the same as a company.I just dont get thats its ok for him to do menial work but the NFL is so much above him. If I owned a football team and needed a qb I would consider vick. Goodall is doing the right thing, its now up to each individual owner to decide of they want vick in thier organization. Some owners will agree with you and some wont. Thats much better than Goodall being the moral authority for the entire NFL. He is not god. I dont know if I would sign Vick. I would sit down and talk with him if I was interested and if he sounded like he had his stuff together maybe I sign him.

So u would hire him to make widgets or not lol.

Goodell certainly is not god, but he is charged by the owners and empowered by the players to make the descisions that are right for the NFL. I think he would have been perfectly within his rights to ban Vick. I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't be allowed to play football again. There are plenty of football service providers out there. He could make plenty in the CFL and would probably be very suited to thier game.

What has come to pass has come to pass, and it's water under the bridge. i certainly hope the Dolphins would not sign him. I'm not terribly happy with the JD Quinn signing either. I guess we'll see what happens.

PhinzN703
07-29-2009, 04:52 PM
With all the Mike Vick talk, i was wondering about people in football. I always wondered does a persons character matter to the fans? If Player X makes the Fins better but is a complete d bag and has minor legal problems would he be wanted? I can never tell when one outweighs the other.

If you were to ask me which I preferred:

A: The Dolphins winning the Super Bowl which results in 200 dogs being killed via dogfighting

or

B: the 200 dogs staying alive but the Dolphins never win the Super Bowl again...

I'd choose B every time. Football is big time for me but not more than the life of people/animals.

dlockz
07-29-2009, 06:15 PM
If you were to ask me which I preferred:

A: The Dolphins winning the Super Bowl which results in 200 dogs being killed via dogfighting

or

B: the 200 dogs staying alive but the Dolphins never win the Super Bowl again...

I'd choose B every time. Football is big time for me but not more than the life of people/animals.


Well im sure nobody wants dogs killed. Its not that clear cut with the Vick situation. He has vowed to work with the ASPCA to work to help work against dogfighting so maybe some good can come out of a bad thing. Its not like Vick invented dogfighting. I know some people just want him to die but there can be no stronger spokesman against dogfighting than Michael Vick at this time. A dead Michael Vick doesn't change one mind on dog fighting. There are quite a few other players that fought dogs and Vick just happens to be the one that actually did time for it.