A Bit OT : UD sacks Vick

[Archive]

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H.)

Upper Deck cut Vick from its soon-to-be released set. They can do what they want I have no problem with that.

However, I wonder what it says about the collectors that Vick (who has only been charged) is so abhorrent for allegedly organizing and sponsoring dog fights that he gets preemptively eliminated.

Remember other high profile players in other major sports have been charged with crimes (and despised) but were included in card sets. Off hand I think of Kobe Bryant although there are many others (see: Cincinatti Bengals, for example). Kobe who was charged with a crime that I -- and our legal system -- consider quite a bit more serious than involvement in dog fighting : sexual assault.

Kobe was not convicted after the charges were dropped. However, I think as many people thought Bryant was guilty at the outset as think Vivk is guilty now. Is dogfighting more repellent to the collecting community than rape?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070728/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_vick_upper_deck_4;_ylt=Athev.zKAb5lZ3VzAvGL_m0 E1vAI


If Leon and co. want to cut this one I understand -- no hard feelings. I think its my only OT to date.

[Archive]

Posted By: Turner Engle

I think that was a great move by Upper Deck. I also just read that Nike suspended his shoe contract, while Reebok took his jersey off of the market so it could no longer be sold in stores.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad

Whatever happened to the phrase: innocent until proven guilty?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken McMillan

Do you remember is school when you told the teacher that the dog ate your homework? I believe that these would be the cards issued with dog bite holes in them?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. The companies are free to employ, or not employ, whomever they choose. They likely saw continued association with Vick as detrimental to their bottom line and thus cut him adrift. Though I would like to think they dumped him on principle.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

A million dollar contract with Nike is not a right. There's nothing in the constitution that says Nike has to give a contract to anyone. Fair or unfair, it's a given that Nike gives a contract to an athlete based on 'image.' That's why John McEnroe (big mouth American) got paid more than Ivan Lendl (boring Czech), Maria Sharapova (long legged blonde) more than Lindsey Davenport (plain jane). That's why Vick was paid more that better performing quarterbacks. I'm sure Vick knew he was being paid for his image.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Dale

who in their right mind would want this guy representing them right now.....oh yea - topps - I forgot

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad

Let's learn from history shall we, and not hang Vick just yet!

[Archive]

Posted By: Turner Engle

Does anybody remember Jayson "Shotgun" Williams? What ever happened to him?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Bob and David are right: Vick is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, not in the eyes of his advertising partners who are in the business of image.

As for Jayson Williams, he was acquitted of the most serious charges against him, convicted of a relatively minor charge and hung on the rest I believe. Soon he'll be retried on those charges. His lawyer? Same as Michael Vick's....

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I don't see what the big deal is...I mean if guys like Michael Vick didn't raise these fighting dogs then they would probably be extinct in a few years. The dogs are only doing what god intended for them to do. Plus you get to meet Roy Jones Jr.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

I'm all for the American way of not convicting someone before they've had a fair trial. In this case the NFL seems to be taking the opposite stance. If the NFL sees him guilty then there must be something to it. They're all about image and convicting someone before there time doesn't make sense unless they know something that the general public doesn't. I guess any video tapes of him attending the dog fights would be explained away somehow.... remember, "you can't convict if the glove doesn't fit" or was it "if the glove doesn't fit you can't convict"... same difference... I guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff D.

Actually Fred, it was "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." But same idea.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Two words: Don Imus.

If there hadn't been such a stink about what Imus said, then things like this wouldn't happen.

Do I think Vick is guilty and these things should happen to him before he even goes to trial?? Yes. However, if the Imus incident and backlash against him hadn't happened, then what Vick is going through now, companies dropping their association with him, wouldn't have happened.

The companies might not have liked it but they would have stood behind Vick until he was found guilty. Now, after Imus, companies are thin skinned as far as being associated with a celebrity in trouble and who can only generate bad publicity for them. They are going to cut their association (and possible losses) as quickly as possible until the smoke clears and then re-evaluate their position if the celebrity is found innocent.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

It happened well before Don Imus...Bill Maher said something politically incorrect on the show aptly titled "Politically Incorrect" in 2001 and ABC fired him. Same thing goes for the Dixie Chicks and Clear Channnel...I'm pretty sure OJ Simpson was canned from NBC and lost all his endorsements well before he went to trial. There are plenty of examples prior to OJ as well. Companies have to protect themselves from bad publicity and there's nothing wrong with that. Could you imagine the backlash Avis car rentals would have gotten had they stood behind OJ throughout his trial?

[Archive]

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H.)

I agree that Vick has become a corporate liability to anyone and that the companies that use him as an endorcer would be foolish not to distance themselves from him.


But I was surprised that UD not only got rid of him as an endorser but also as a subject in their set. Simply having a card of him in the set isn't the same thing as using him and his image in promoting their products. That was where I thought the treatment of Vick was rather unusual and (I think) unprecedented. After all there have been some pretty despised players in card sets over the years including players facing accusations as, or even more, serious than those Vick now confronts.

UD is well-within its rights to do whatever it wants with VIck's cards so that's not an issue either. Being included in a card set isn't a matter of free speech or something so there is no principled reason that they shouldn't pull all Vick's cards.... I was just surprised that UD went this far in this case.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

There does seem to be a double standard here when you consider the charges against Kobe Bryant. Of course I have no idea how UD handled that situation, but I'm assuming they didn't pull his card from their set?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Not only is innocent until proven guilty a legal concept, but along with it goes the legal burden of proof, which is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a very high burden of proof and it exists in criminal cases because often the defendant's liberty is at stake. The system requires that if someone is going to lose their liberty, a very high burden of proof be met.

Loss of liberty and loss of image on a sports card are two different things. In the Vick case there is a lot of talk about letting the court process take its course.

But is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the standard that the whole world now has to use? Do Nike, Topps, the Atlanta Falcons, Joann Kline or public opinion now have to be tied to a standard that exists when someone's freedom is at stake?

I don't think so, myself. I think public opinion, commercial contracts and individual responses can be made on much less than a guilty verdict in a court of law. Also, IMO, I think it's pretty dangerous that we allow the dialog to take us down the road of not being able to do anything in society unless the criminal burden of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is met.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Excellent, Joann.

[Archive]

Posted By: S Gross

<<<I mean if guys like Michael Vick didn't raise these fighting dogs then they would probably be extinct in a few years>>>

Dan, you just said a mouth full. I will take that and give a scenario going in the opposite direction:

Before the 1970's dog fighting was concentrated to about a few hundred people. These dogmen "bred" (not trained) their dogs to be "game." There were many big time bouts, but many for a few bucks or a 50 lb bag of dog chow. Most would shoot (not electrocute, drown, burn, or slam) a dog who bit a person (a old time thought of weakness).

The after a few well documented pit-bull attacks in the 1980s, all things go anti-bull breed. Pit bull stories flooded the airways. Laws are passed randomly and ignorantly (I owned and showed AKC Bull Terriers at the time, and can truthfully say 75% of what was being said about bull breeds was incorrect). I have an AKC program from the 1990's from a long time legitimate club who had to more it's venue due to anti-bull breed laws.

We were told all bull breeds would eat your children and rape your sisters. Pit Bulls, we were told, can be trained to fight ... you can make them meaner by feeding them gun powder and pepper ... dock you dogs tail to make them lighter in the ring ... crop their ears to make them look meaner ... hell, even cut of their front paws, so they can go in low versus an opponent.

And do you know what all this hysteria did ................... ????? It made pit bull fighting go from a few hundred to tens of thousands. Tens of thousand "tough" boyz like Vick, who bred mean dogs to mean dogs (not old game dogs)... who feed their dogs gun powder and crop their tails and all the other garage that was once just glorified fiction.

Pure self profession .....................

And what is going to happen now ................ ? Same thing. UD can drop Vick, but the tough boy mentality is flanned very half hour on the half hour by dozens and dozens of 24 hour news shows and hundreds of other media venues ............ promoting a lot of ignorance.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Hollywood celebrities have lost commercial contracts because they had flings outside their marriages. Burt Reynolds lost an orange juice contract because of his love life.

I agree Vick is legally not guilty until proven guilty, and it's unfair and unwise to have judged guilt before at least hearing both sides. It's hard to judge the evidence if you haven't heard it yet.

The problem for athletes, especially innocent ones, is that in steroids cases (with a relatively minor penalty) almost all athletes automatically deny taking them to their last breath even when the did use them-- often even when they after they've tested positive. Thus, an innocent player shouldn't so much blame sports fans for not believing their statement of innocence. He should blame his fellow athletes who have a habit of lying to the sports fans. Sports fans lament they cannot identify the innocent athletes, but they also know the reason know they cannot identify the innocent ones is because many athletes lie.

Many expect fans to act like judges, but they really act like statisticians. "If X number of players lied to us before, what is the probability this guy here is telling us the truth?" For the average fan, the more players' lies in the past, the less the probability a player is telling the truth now. A lawyer might lament the thinking, but a statistician might perceive it as a good question.

If you ask a statistician "How many people are innocent until proven guilty?," he might say, "53.25 percent." If you tell him, "No, the answer is 'all,'" he might assume your calculator was missing the batteries when you did that calculation.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

David,

The reasons for the lies are pretty obvious. They are protecting their careers, most contracts have clauses that pertain to off the field conduct. If they are convicted of a felony, the team has the right to terminate their contracts.

Also, they find the role-model requirements of a superstar to be burdensome and unrealistic. They really don't want kids to worship them, they want to be judged solely on their on-field heroics.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Peter C.,
Yeah, the reasons they lie are obvious, but that hardly invalidates David's point addressing why people are skeptical of athlete's denials. And, they may not want to be role models, but that doesn't absolve them of any anti-social and criminal behavior on their part.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcy

The famous British statistician George E. P. Box said it was amusing attending US Government meetings where American lawyers set the laws for how much chemicals or pollutants or whatever were allowed in the air, water or wherever. After just setting the legal standard for how much arsenic was allowed in the environment, a Congressman asked Box why he was chuckling to himself. Box explained that, while poisonous at certain parts per million, human bodies require a small amount of arsenic. He explained that if the US lowered the arsenic in the environment to the parts per million required by this law, all Americans would have to take arsenic pills to live.

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Kobe Bryant, to my knowledge, was not removed from any card sets because of the alleged rape, but he did lose endorsement contracts prior to the trial.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

I wonder why Topps is taking so long to join the parade.

Without going into one of my favorite rants; when these players who are pampered from the time they are in grade school do something wrong, they need to take real responsibility for their actions. This is NOT just for Mr. Vick but for anyone else who messes us in their life.

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Dale

yeah its strange that topps wouldn't announce this either, gotta wonder what the hold up is?

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

When sporting men of honor would get together and fight dogs to death or dismemberment for a few laughs or a six pack of beer. Those must have been good times, before it got all corporate like it is now.

The pit bulls aren't the problem. My brother has a pit and he's the finest dog in the world, and good friends of mine have owned pit bulls. In fact, a friend's pit bull actually rescued a kitten that my girlfriend and I then adopted. I have a picture of the dog and the kitten eating from the same bowl--I love that picture. As usual, it's people who are the problem. I don't give money to PETA and they, in fact, seem awfully shrill to me, but I understand why they get so angry about stuff like this. I do give cash to the Humane Society and Farm Sanctuary, though. If you're horrified by the details of the Vick indictment, I hope you'll consider supporting the Humane Society or your local ASPCA, as well. Somebody, afterall, has to take care of these dogs at the end of the day.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Vick's first dog food commercial

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

IF Vick, and/or his associates, are proven guilty maybe they should get done to them what they did/do to the dogs? The dog fighting is bad enough but the electrocution and body slamming etc...is absurd and pathetic........regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Leon, you couldn't have stated it any better...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Chad, well said. Only a moron would get excited about the prospect of watching two animals kill each other.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Great photo, Kevin. But real poetic justice would have been if Vick was IN the jersey at the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Dale

...most of the morons that would get a thrill or enjoy a "bet" over two dogs killing each other and then watching the loser or even the winner get executed in a grotesque manner don't have much to lose - unlike Vick. When convicted I will enjoy seeing him lose everything; his $100 million contract; endorsements, etc. Sad for Atlanta fans - I'm sure glad the Raiders didn't bite (bad pun) on his trade offers.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Innocent until proven guilty is an important legal concept, but I am a big fan of the court of popular opinion.

I think the public is getting awfully tired of the boorish manner in which many public figures conduct their lives, and the fact that they often see themselves as above the law. Michael Vick may be not guilty in a courtroom, but when I hear him say he had no knowledge of it even though it occurred on his property, I do have to shake my head in disgust. That's as bad as Lindsey Lohan walking into a police station with cocaine in her pocket and telling the cops it's not hers!

Please spare us these sob stories and let celebrities take responsibility for their own lives.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Innocent until proven guilty, of course. However, I think a difference between this case and a he said/she said case, is that the FBI may have already determined that a crime was committed. Irrelevant to who was involved, they may have already determined that, beyond doubt, illegal dog fighting took place. The question, of course, is if and how Vick was involved. However, that this was not a fly by night operation (dog condos were built, etc) and it was on Vick's property at least ties him as the property owner, which may have some legal ramifications in and of itself (ala, seized property in drug cases). In fact, in all neighborhoods, it is against the law to have certain things take place on the land, whether or not the owner knows. For example, in many neighborhoods, one can't build a gas station, condo, hotel, tavern, casino or public playground. It doesn't take a legal scholar to deduce that Vick's home probably wasn't zoned for dog fighting and public gambling-- and the property owner will be held to some responsibility, if just financial (read: fines).

Of course it is irresponsible to prejudge guilt and guess whether Vick was electrocuting Spot, but that does not mean that a person cannot look at information and make responsible opinions. It wouldn't be unfair of me to predict that if a motel and gas station materializes on your front lawn that you may be seeing a big fine in your future. And I would find it hard to believe that if a brothel or underage bar or dog fighting ring existed on someone's land for seven years (arbitrarily picked amount)that the property owner won't at least be fined. Even if you the owner knew nothing about the activity, it's near certain he's going to at least be fined.

So I go out on a daring, reckless, wind swept limb and predict there will be a fine for the property owner.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scot Reader

Did a little research tonight. About 90% of federal defendants nationwide enter guilty pleas. Of those who take their cases all the way to verdict, 87% are convicted . Couldn't find a breakdown between bench trial and jury trial conviction rates. In the Eastern District of Virginia, where Vick has been indicted, the conviction rate is a somewhat lower 78%. The Vick matter is pending before a judge appointed by Bush II in 2002. With these statistics and the guilty plea of his alleged co-conspirator today it does not look good for Mr. Vick.