: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:06 am  

MD7 wrote:

It seem that only the Celtics are the team from Boston with any morals and honesty.

: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:08 am  

LFCRhino wrote:

:SLEEPY:

It's true though, the City's desperation to compete ad deliver has led to 2 of their major franchises cheating to win and the championships are tainted now, couldn't help you against us though.

18-1

WE STOMPED YOU OUT!

: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:13 am  

MD7 wrote:

It's true though, the City's desperation to compete ad deliver has led to 2 of their major franchises cheating to win and the championships are tainted now, couldn't help you against us though.

18-1

WE STOMPED YOU OUT!

Yes you did what can i say sjit happens
If only Asante samuel had kept hold of the interception ffs

The Pats were the team that got caught I dont think they are the only one, even though I dont agree with what happened I dont think they needed to do it in the first place

: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:40 am  

Ian [77] wrote:

But he was though. He was suspended before he was sent to prison. 2 years is a long time mate - he's 29 years old. If you got vexed and killed someone in your car this afternoon you might be out in a similar time frame.

Indeed that possibly would be the case. I just don't see a suspension while in jail as effective. He couldn't play anyway at that stage and i think that is a cop-out by Goodell if he is claiming that.

At the last count 18 teams have said no to Vick, some obviously haven't commented yet but i would hope stay clear of him, including ourselves. I'd find it impossible to cheer for Green Bay if he was on our team.

I hope he sorts his life out, but not in the NFL.

Personally, and i know he has served his time in jail, i was expecting a minimum of 1-2 year ban from NOW.

In the interest of balance, i think somebody like Stallworth who has actually killed a person should A) have more jail time B) have a longer ban from the NFL than Vick (possibly a life ban).

Ian [77] wrote:

There are certain things that people shouldn't be given a second chance for, I agree with that. But not this. What he did was horrible and disgusting, but he has served his time.

I get that, and that is obviously the difference in people's opinion.

In a number of ways you could argue it is worse than what Stallworth did in killing somebody.

Stallworth accidently killed somebody while drunk, obviously a completely terrible thing (and a worse outcome than Vick's crimes) but the intent was never to drive his car to kill.

Vick intentionally killed dogs, electrocuted them, hung them, drowned them, beat them.

Vick intentionally was one of the leaders of such an operation and intentionally made money off of the operation.

He has then intentionally lied to Goodell about his crimes, intentionally lied to Arthur Blank.

Also, said he didn't think what he did was wrong (what possibe mental state does that indicate?). I'm sure i'm forgiven for being sceptical about his apparent remorse in order to get him back in the NFL.

I'm by no means a dog lover or an animal lover but his crimes were vile, inhumane, disgusting and irredeemable. He simply cannot come back from that IMO.

Part of me wants to see him in the NFL getting absolutely mullered every week by the likes of Jared Allen, Kampman, Polamalu and any dog loving NFL players.

The most likely destination is the UFL and then to latch onto an NFL team when they get an injury.

: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:59 am  

Sammy Stripes wrote:

There had to be at least one!

Ha - ha !!!

: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:06 am  

ST_CONROY wrote:

Indeed that possibly would be the case. I just don't see a suspension while in jail as effective. He couldn't play anyway at that stage and i think that is a cop-out by Goodell if he is claiming that.

At the last count 18 teams have said no to Vick, some obviously haven't commented yet but i would hope stay clear of him, including ourselves. I'd find it impossible to cheer for Green Bay if he was on our team.

I hope he sorts his life out, but not in the NFL.

Personally, and i know he has served his time in jail, i was expecting a minimum of 1-2 year ban from NOW.

In the interest of balance, i think somebody like Stallworth who has actually killed a person should A) have more jail time B) have a longer ban from the NFL than Vick (possibly a life ban).



I get that, and that is obviously the difference in people's opinion.

In a number of ways you could argue it is worse than what Stallworth did in killing somebody.

Stallworth accidently killed somebody while drunk, obviously a completely terrible thing (and a worse outcome than Vick's crimes) but the intent was never to drive his car to kill.

Vick intentionally killed dogs, electrocuted them, hung them, drowned them, beat them.

Vick intentionally was one of the leaders of such an operation and intentionally made money off of the operation.

He has then intentionally lied to Goodell about his crimes, intentionally lied to Arthur Blank.

Also, said he didn't think what he did was wrong (what possibe mental state does that indicate?). I'm sure i'm forgiven for being sceptical about his apparent remorse in order to get him back in the NFL.

I'm by no means a dog lover or an animal lover but his crimes were vile, inhumane, disgusting and irredeemable. He simply cannot come back from that IMO.

Part of me wants to see him in the NFL getting absolutely mullered every week by the likes of Jared Allen, Kampman, Polamalu and any dog loving NFL players.

The most likely destination is the UFL and then to latch onto an NFL team when they get an injury.

Where do you stand on RL players who assault,bottle and grab peoples genitals? Do they deserve long bans as well or do they get instantly forgiven?

: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:37 am  

MD7 wrote:

Where do you stand on RL players who assault,bottle and grab peoples genitals? Do they deserve long bans as well or do they get instantly forgiven?

Honestly Mark, and i've said this a number of times, he should have been given a ban. I'd personally have given him a one year ban.

: Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:51 am  

ST_CONROY wrote:

In a number of ways you could argue it is worse than what Stallworth did in killing somebody.

Stallworth accidently killed somebody while drunk, obviously a completely terrible thing (and a worse outcome than Vick's crimes) but the intent was never to drive his car to kill.

Vick intentionally killed dogs, electrocuted them, hung them, drowned them, beat them.

Vick intentionally was one of the leaders of such an operation and intentionally made money off of the operation.

He has then intentionally lied to Goodell about his crimes, intentionally lied to Arthur Blank.

Intention is utterly irrelevant where drink driving is concerned.

If you get into a car under the influence of alcohol, then you are putting people's lives in danger. He meant not have meant to kill him, but by getting in the car at all he is behaving incredibly irresponsibly.

The circumstances of Stallworth's case are unfortunate, but he took a conscious decision to get into that car. Had he not done so, the guy wouldn't have been killed.

: Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:55 pm  

Ian [77] wrote:

Intention is utterly irrelevant where drink driving is concerned.

Drink driving in itself has no intention based answer, your correct, but drink driving causing death would look at the intention of the defendant.

Ian [77] wrote:

If you get into a car under the influence of alcohol, then you are putting people's lives in danger. He meant not have meant to kill him, but by getting in the car at all he is behaving incredibly irresponsibly.

I totally agree with the sentiment that if you drive drunk and injure somebody it is your fault entirely. A completely inconsiderate and irresponsible act, without even looking at any potential crashes/injuries to other external people.

However there is a massive difference between drinking and driving with the sole intention of getting to your destination and drinking and driving with the intention of hurting/killing somebody.

Ian [77] wrote:

The circumstances of Stallworth's case are unfortunate, but he took a conscious decision to get into that car. Had he not done so, the guy wouldn't have been killed.

Yes, of course, but i was looking at his intention.

My point was simply that in killing the dogs Vick had perfectly clear intentions, he knew what he wanted to do and excecuted (pun slightly intended) it perfectly. In a number of ways his crime is as bad/worse than Stallworth.

: Sun Aug 02, 2009 12:24 pm  

Derrick Mason has an even shorter "retirement" than Favre http://www.nfl.com/trainingcamp/story?i ... nfirm=true Richards is superman! wrote: That my hopes in the fantasy league over Not anymore

Derrick Mason has an even shorter "retirement" than Favre http://www.nfl.com/trainingcamp/story?i ... nfirm=true Richards is superman! wrote: That my hopes in the fantasy league over Not anymore