When will we stop hearing about Pacman's off-field incidents

Jonathan S. · Post by **Jonathan S.** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:08 am

Reported on the radio this morning was that the NFL Office and Commisioner Goodell were going to wait until the criminal process played itself out with the Michael Vick situation; apparently, to save face it was noted that Vick is a first offender.

Well, what do you guys think?

Double standard? It's Goodell's first problem with a star of the league. Is he really a first offender? What does that mean? Apparently it would mean that he has given the league a black eye (according to the League Office); however, hasn't he done this before? He did flip off his own fans last year. He also had that "hidden container" incident at the airport.

Post by **wolfe** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:46 am

I think a dog-fighting operation is more complicated than night club brawls or drug busts. I would expect Vick to be suspended but not immediately. Jones wasn't suspended until weeks after his incidents.

Jonathan S. · Post by **Jonathan S.** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:58 am

No emphasis was placed upon due or criminal process when Jones was suspended. He wasn't even indicted in Las Vegas when he was suspended.

Agitator · Post by **Agitator** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:04 am

and they say that the dog fighting has been going on for the last 6 years....

just because they found out about it now, it doesn't mean he has only done this one time.

i'm going to be pissed if they say he is a first time offender.

Post by **wolfe** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:05 am

Give it time. He'll be suspended. Remember this is a federal indictment. They don't hand them out without doing their homework.

Jonathan S. · Post by **Jonathan S.** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:10 am

You're right Jeffrey; however, there is the appearance of a double standard.

Post by **wolfe** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:19 am

Jones' Vegas incident was in February and he was suspended in April. Give it time.

Jonathan S. · Post by **Jonathan S.** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:33 am

Yes, you are right; however, Jones was not indicted in Las Vegas before he was suspended.

bilyeuofbaxter · Post by **bilyeuofbaxter** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:22 am

What about repeat offender don't you understand. Also, you say Jones' suspension was unfair because there was no due process. Yet you want the same treatment for Vick? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Jonathan S. · Post by **Jonathan S.** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:29 am

No, you seem to be forming an opinion for me, and you're not doing very well. I haven't stated that Vick shouldn't be given due process. I've posed a question to those of you who participate in this forum.

I asked what you thought. Not what you think I think. So, rather than waste time responding to what you think I am thinking, how about delivering your own opinion or none at all.

Once again, I haven't stated that Vick doesn't deserve due process. What don't you, David, understand about due process? As for repeat offender, what did Jones get convicted of other than giving the league a tarnished image? Vick has done the same, repeatedly. So, is there a double standard?

And again, if you can't form an opinion other than stating what you believe my opinion is, then don't bother participating.