RIP. good boy
9 Likes
Godspeed Frodo!
What a handsome old man face.
It seems like yesterday that those dogs were rescued.
IMO, Vickās actions personally abusing and killing dogs, as well as financing the large operation where dogs were treated horrifically, fully merited the almost 2 years that he spent in jail. Not sure the jail time was enough.
The NFL and surrounding industry has a short memory for even horrendous scandal and useful people have a way of getting back in the boat. āGive it a year,ā as one commentator remarked about a different situation.
Vick is working now as a frequent guest commentator on several of the prolific NFL talk shows and podcasts. Heās well-spoken and offers cogent comments. He is basically reconstituting his image as a high-earning media presence in the NFL.
No one ever mentions the dogs. Rarely someone will allude to his comeback from a troubling period of his life, or whatever euphemism.
Vick earned many $10ās of millions as a quarterback in the NFL, but all of that money is long gone. His financial life has been one long disastrous turmoil with several lawsuits and at least one bankruptcy. He is in chronic need of money (large amounts) and for that reason alone Iām sure he will continue to pursue a media career. Especially in the currently expanding and lucrative market for NFL commentary.
The NFL media seems to feel the dogs are no longer relevant. I guess their audience hasnāt held them accountable.
7 Likes
the NFL does not care if the players sell drugs, beat up wives or shoot peopleā¦
4 Likes
Well, to be blunt though, why would they care? Itās not a service organization. Itās a sport that is watched by lots of men who sell drugs, beat their wives, shoot people and fight dogs.
(I mean, among other respectable people, of course.)
Itās not in the NFLās business interests to police their athletes aside from cheating in the game. Michael Vick served his time; people still like him, and apparently heās good at game commentary.
Of course I personally think heās a horrible person, but he doesnāt work for me.
3 Likes
My first thought of a response to your question was - because the viewing audience cares and people have lost their media jobs for a lot less.
But then you make another good point. Clearly the sports viewing audience does not care so why should the people hiring him.
2 Likes
Yeah I have nothing good to say about Vick. Glad the dogs that were saved got to finish their lives in peace with love
But they canāt use PEDs, because that Sets A Bad Example For Our Youth. SMDH.
Also, you forgot to list rape. #BenRapistberger
1 Like
And child abuse.
There are at least two active players who have been investigated, in one case charged (I believe) with abusing their own children. In one case allegedly resulting in a toddlerās broken arm, although that was not proven sufficient to charge. The incidents were well-publicized at the time.
And that is just the high-profile players that we know about.
Some of the abuse allegations (especially if there is video of it) do cost a player playing time, which can severely cut into their total performance-based income potential. Some players were forced out of one team - only to turn up on the roster of another. But they still have guaranteed income while they are actively on an NFL roster. And sometimes if they arenāt.
And domestic abuse, even when documented by police and courts. It takes a viral video for the NFL to fully bring that home to a star player.
There just arenāt that many human beings who can do what the top players do. The NFL is reluctant to lose those that can do, for almost any reason.
Yep, and Jameis Winston, who went on to be a starting QB for two different teams, still active.
Although neither one was ever charged or prosecuted.
But do you think an employer should fire/penalize an employee for an investigation, especially if there wasnāt enough evidence to charge them?
I feel like if my employer did this (public entity) it might be grounds for a lawsuit.
Iām not condoning abuse (or any of the other terrible things above), but itās not necessarily an employerās role to penalize employees who are accused of, or commit a crime. Iām curious, now, what would happen here if someone was charged with child abuse, for example. Would they lose their job? Unless they were working with children, I donāt think so.
Iām glad Iāve never had to make that decision.
It is more of an overall character issue, from an employment perspective. Many employers will not hire a convicted felon who has served their time, even if the crime has nothing to do with the nature of the work (although some will).
The NFL has postured that they are no longer keeping proven abusers in their league. It has cost a few players their careers - but were they just sacrificial lambs (or not-lambs)? Because thatās never happened to a player at the top of their game, that I know of.
In 2014 after Ray Rice was arrested for knocking his fiance out cold in an elevator, on CCTV, the NFL tightened procedures and policies considerably. Rice was technically terminated from the NFL, but at the time he was nearing the end of his career anyway, was not on any teamās roster and was likely to soon retire.
For a time at least the NFL made a point that players could lose their careers for proven domestic abuse, based on the NFLās investigation, not police charges. And predictably the result was that families were more reluctant to report abuse in fear of loosing the income.
An exception is the recent departure of head coach Jon Gruden who for decades was one of the most influential and recognizable people in football. The problem was some outrageous language and characterization in emails from 10 years ago. Have noticed many commentators are carefully circumspect in their remarks, because Iāll bet a lot of people around football have said similar just due to the culture of the game.
Just in the last week or two head coach Urban Meyer was fired after less than one season at the pro NFL level. There were a lot of problems with his brief tenure, but one that was hard to overcome was a viral video of his conduct at a bar with a young woman not his wife who was approaching him in an un-circumspect way. He seemed to be behaving inappropriately, although if it matters the young woman clearly initiated contact and was encouraging him. That incident is not why he was fired, but it did make it far easier to fire him. And itās making it harder for him to return to his media role (although as they say, āgive it a yearā).
If it matters, getting kicked out is almost always for people on the downside of their careers. A young, able, effective player may be sidelined for a time, but it is extremely rare that they are kicked out altogether.
As said above, they wouldnāt be hired by many employers if this were on their record before their employment began, even if it has nothing to do with the job. So why would an employer keep them if they are charged with it while employed?
And yes, at most workplaces that I am personally aware of, the person would be fired after being charged with child abuse. Absolutely.
Depends on the state ā but usually private employers have āat willā employment. Either side can terminate the employment with or without cause with two weeks notice (or severance pay). There is little chance they can be successfully sued. (Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything, but it wonāt necessarily be successful).
The rules can change for larger employers, and private employers with government contracts, and government employers, all of which have more limits placed on what they can do and the process to do it. Iām not sure if they can fire for child abuse, but for a range of certain types of charges, it is possible that they can. They probably donāt have to continue employment with newly convicted burglars, rapists, drug dealers and swindlers, among other things, even if the person is not headed for jail (which would definitely end employment). Abusers may be on that list.
People can be fired for other things, including wildly inappropriate public behavior that is an embarrassment to the employer.
In this day and age, it is not just the impact on the employeeās ability to do the job or not. It is also the public image of the employer AND maintaining a comfortable workplace for the employees generally. These days many employees will not want to be required to work with someone who is a known abuser (or a known criminal of other types).
Part of this ācancelā attitude toward proven abusers is intended to put pressure on people inclined to abuse to not do it, to get help before an incident, or get help if there are ongoing problems. To protect their employ-ability and earning potential, even if the abuser doesnāt care about the damage they are doing to their family.
And in all honesty these policies also tend to put pressure on families not to report abuse, because the family could lose the abuserās income.
I was honestly shocked that the Raiders fired Henry Truggs III immediately after he killed a young woman and her dog, driving 156 mph at twice the alcohol limit.
Wonder if they felt they had to follow through after the Jon Gruden thing.
They did miss Henry at the next game and after, he was a major producer. But 156 mph? I doubt there is an ordinary road anywhere in the U.S. where something really bad wouldnāt happen at that speed.
Regardless of what the football team did about him, I have a feeling Henry is looking at jail time for that. Not enough Raiders goodwill in the world for something that extreme. Maybe the Raiders figured they could just get it all over with and look better at the same time.
1 Like
