gortiz Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I'm a little sickened by this: "There is no change in the status of the agreement between Nike and football player Michael Vick," a Nike spokesman told The Associated Press then. "He is rightfully presumed innocent and afforded the same due process as any citizen, rather than be tried in the court of public opinion. Nike will continue to monitor the situation, but has nothing further to say at this time," the spokesman said. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3390401&page=1 The “presumed innocent” stance that this company is taking and hiding behind is CRAP. I think Nike is taking a chance that they might make more money from this scandal. They tend to market the hip hop/ tough street cred crowd, so I think they see this as a win/win situation. If Vick was indicted for something else like drugs, NIke would have dropped him by now :mad: I'm adding Nike to the list... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 i'm glad to see Nike is standing by him. i'm tired of seeing people being convicted in the media before they actually have their day in court. If Vick is found guilty in a court of law, by all means crucify him, until then he shouldn't lose anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Michael Vick wears Nike Cleats and Nike Gloves when disposing of dog carcasses... Nike the official sponsor of VA Dog Fighting Rings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 i'm glad to see Nike is standing by him. i'm tired of seeing people being convicted in the media before they actually have their day in court. If Vick is found guilty in a court of law, by all means crucify him, until then he shouldn't lose anything. Even though I believe he is involved in dog fighting, I agree with you. Dod fighting is disgraceful and is a form of cowardness, but he hasn't been convicted of anything as of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Even though I believe he is involved in dog fighting, I agree with you. Dod fighting is disgraceful and is a form of cowardness, but he hasn't been convicted of anything as of yet. truth be told, i think he had some involvement in it as well, but we don't know that for a fact yet. there will be still time to take away his endorsements if he is convicted........which would be the least of his concerns at that point anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackest Eyes Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 If Vick is innocent, I will lol mainly because he has denied it so much. I mean...if you get caught for doing something illegal, be a man and confess up to it. Nothing worse than a liar found to be guilty afterall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Nike learned from the Kobe mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Mike Vick owned and paid for a home built to specs for dog fighting. If he's guilty of a crime associated with this situation is a question for a jury. The fact that he was involved in dog fighting is not. We know that he did pay for the home and the dog fighting structures didn't build themselves. Nike is making a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted July 19, 2007 Author Share Posted July 19, 2007 My issue is the fact that if he was convicted of another crime, lets say steriods or drugs or something that is way off course with their Marketing Brand - Nike would have dropped him... I really think they are thinking "any publicity is good publicity" and they ARE HIDING BEHINED THE INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY CRAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I have no problem at all with Nike waiting for some kind of judgement to be passed in the courts. They cant ****can him now after what happened with the Duke Lacrosse thing. I am willing to bet that found innocent or guilty, Nike drops him. They just cant do it now. Further, i dont think there is any money to be made by nike from this. I understand than "any publicity is good publicity" but i think in this case, its really not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 My issue is the fact that if he was convicted of another crime, lets say steriods or drugs or something that is way off course with their Marketing Brand - Nike would have dropped him...I really think they are thinking "any publicity is good publicity" and they ARE HIDING BEHINED THE INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY CRAP. 1. he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. 2. since when is "innocent until provent guilty" crap? if you or any other person were accused of any crime, you would want that standard to apply. the only problem with "innocent until proven guilty" is that with so much media coverage of high-profile cases, people are now often "guilty until proven innocent" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 1. he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.2. since when is "innocent until provent guilty" crap? if you or any other person were accused of any crime, you would want that standard to apply. the only problem with "innocent until proven guilty" is that with so much media coverage of high-profile cases, people are now often "guilty until proven innocent" You're 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 The “presumed innocent” stance is SUCH CRAP. I'm a little sickened by this. The "presumed innocent" stance is very American and a founding ideal. Being against it is such crap. That doesn't mean you have to like Vick. It merely means it MIGHT be acceptable to wait for him to be JUDGED guilty BEFORE you punish him. Once he's guilty of something, he'll be punished. Until he is, asking that he be seems terribly out of step with being American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Mike Vick owned and paid for a home built to specs for dog fighting. If he's guilty of a crime associated with this situation is a question for a jury. The fact that he was involved in dog fighting is not. We know that he did pay for the home and the dog fighting structures didn't build themselves.Nike is making a mistake. 1. he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.2. since when is "innocent until provent guilty" crap? if you or any other person were accused of any crime, you would want that standard to apply. the only problem with "innocent until proven guilty" is that with so much media coverage of high-profile cases, people are now often "guilty until proven innocent" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted July 19, 2007 Author Share Posted July 19, 2007 I'm a little sickened by this.The "presumed innocent" stance is very American and a founding ideal. Being against it is such crap. That doesn't mean you have to like Vick. It merely means it MIGHT be acceptable to wait for him to be JUDGED guilty BEFORE you punish him. Once he's guilty of something, he'll be punished. Until he is, asking that he be seems terribly out of step with being American. I personally think being innocent unitl proven guilty is one of the things that makes this country great... I operative word in my rant is "HIDING." I think Nike is trying to take us for fools by saying they believe in the "innocent until proven guilty." When I said that stance was "crap" I meant Nike's use of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I personally think being innocent unitl proven guilty is one of the things that makes this country great...I operative word in my rant is "HIDING." I think Nike is trying to take us for fools by saying they believe in the "innocent until proven guilty." When I said that stance was "crap" I meant Nike's use of it. Wait........so YOU are allowed to believe in "innocent until proven guilty" but Nike isnt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 My issue is the fact that if he was convicted of another crime, lets say steriods or drugs or something that is way off course with their Marketing Brand - Nike would have dropped him...I really think they are thinking "any publicity is good publicity" and they ARE HIDING BEHINED THE INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY CRAP. Also, you have to remember, in the indictment you are only seeing what the prosecution is claiming. What happens if there is proof that on the days he was alleged to be at the dog fighting he was actually in another part of the country? Next time you think it is crap, go read up on the constitution. NIKE is doing nothing wrong, they are waiting things out like they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted July 19, 2007 Author Share Posted July 19, 2007 Wait........so YOU are allowed to believe in "innocent until proven guilty" but Nike isnt? I'm not saying I'm allowed to and they are not, It is my opinion that they are making a marketing decision to keep Vick based on dollars - and NOTHING ELSE. If Vick's indictment had something to do with something that was against their marketing brand, I believe they would have dropped him by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I'm not saying I'm allowed to and they are not, It is my opinion that they are making a marketing decision to keep Vick based on dollars - and NOTHING ELSE. If Vick's indictment had something to do with something that was against their marketing brand, I believe they would have dropped him by now. and what if Vick is found not guilty, or better yet all charges against him are dropped? how right would Nike be in that situation for dropping a person's endorsements before he was convicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted July 19, 2007 Author Share Posted July 19, 2007 my mistake for not being clear . . . I think Nike is being less then genuine when saying they want to let the legal process go through its course. If Vick had been accused of a crime that was against their marketing brand/mission or a crime that direclty effected their target demographic they would have dropped him. HYPOTHETICAL (sp?) EXAMPLE - If Vick was a sponsor for Petco, they would have dropped the second this dog fighting stuff came out, and they would have not cared about him being innocent until proven guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 my mistake for not being clear . . .I think Nike is being less then genuine when saying they want to let the legal process go through its course. If Vick had been accused of a crime that was against their marketing brand/mission or a crime that direclty effected their target demographic they would have dropped him. HYPOTHETICAL (sp?) EXAMPLE - If Vick was a sponsor for Petco, they would have dropped the second this dog fighting stuff came out, and they would have not cared about him being innocent until proven guilty. and Petco would be just as wrong in my opinion. in today's world anybody can be ACCUSED of anything. This goes double when you're a person of celebrity or wealth. accusations do not merit punishments, convictions do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowplay Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Nike doesn't CARE whether he's convicted. They're interested in the public perception of Mike Vick and if he can help them sell shoes. While I'm glad they didn't drop him the day the charges were brought, I wouldn't expect them to stand by him for much longer as more information comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted July 19, 2007 Author Share Posted July 19, 2007 and Petco would be just as wrong in my opinion. in today's world anybody can be ACCUSED of anything. This goes double when you a person of celebrity or wealth. accusations do not merit punishments, convictions do. If you were the Director of Marketing for Petco, and one of your most high profile spokepersons was accused of not only Dog Fighting, but coordinating a Dog Fighting ring, you would not drop him? You would wait a good year to year and a half to find out if he was guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 If you were the Director of Marketing for Petco, and one of your most high profile spokepersons was accused of not only Dog Fighting, but coordinating a Dog Fighting ring, you would not drop him? You would wait a good year to year and a half to find out if he was guilty? i knows its a crazy concept.....letting the legal system play out........but i think it just might work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortiz Posted July 19, 2007 Author Share Posted July 19, 2007 Nike doesn't CARE whether he's convicted. They're interested in the public perception of Mike Vick and if he can help them sell shoes. While I'm glad they didn't drop him the day the charges were brought, I wouldn't expect them to stand by him for much longer as more information comes out. That is where I’m coming from. Whether they drop him tomorrow or six months from now or any time before his day in court, when and if the heat turns up and they are losing money... ... YOU CAN BELIVE NIKE IS NOT GOING TO WAIT TO FIND OUT IF HE IS PROVEN INNOCENT OR GUILTY. Hence this is why their stance now is a calculated business decision, and has nothing to do with their moral stance on our judcial system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.