Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Nike not budging on Vick's contract


gortiz

Recommended Posts

... 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...

Who cares, the outcome is the same. What do you have against Nike?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Petco directly markets to pet owners and lovers. So something like this could directly affect business. However, I would still say that they'd probably just wait it out, and use someone else as a fill in for the time being.

There is nothing wrong with Nike standing by Mike. He hasn't been convicted, so why should they drop. And do you really expect them to say, "Hey we're standing by Mike Vick because we hope to make more money off of him in the future.". He is innocent until proven guilty, and we should respect that. Also, you say that Nike's whole deal is the street cred/hood market, well to be honest, I know a lot of people in the hood, and most of them can relate to someone being indicted on drug charges more so than someone being indicted on Dog Fighting charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not at all, i just made the mistake of assuming you had basic reasoning and deduction skills

You make a mistake? GET OUT!!!! By the sounds of it, you are perfect. :silly:

I'm just saying that money and the bottom line are fueling Nike's stance at this point and time with Vick, not their faith in the judicial system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i knows its a crazy concept.....letting the legal system play out........but i think it just might work.

Note to all: "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard for prosecution. It has no bearing at all on what you are or are not allowed to believe.

"Guilty" in the context above is just a label that is placed upon you once the legal process plays out and the factfinders hold that you committed the crime that the state (or feds) accused you of.

Here's an example: If I shoot Bob and kill him, I'm guilty of killing him the second I do it.

If you saw me shoot Bob or have enough evidence in your mind to believe that I shot Bob, you can say, "Eersskins05 shot Bob." You don't have a burden of proof. You don't have a standard of "innocent until proven guilty." You've used the proof you have to surmise that I shot Bob.

But once I'm charged with that crime, the State can't make me prove my innocence. I am innocent until the State proves me guilty. THAT is the founding principle many of you are incorrectly citing as a reason for Nike to hold off on dropping Vick.

Nike isn't the State. If Nike had a sponsorship with OJ Simpson, they wouldn't have to hear a jury say "guilty" to surmise that they should drop him as a spokesman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dog fighting is wrong, but people are acting like Vick was involved in killing people. He should be punished if he did it but long prison sentences and loss of livelihood seem a bit much. I like to see a stiff punishment (a year in the pokey and a huge fine) but I won't endorse him ever playing in the NFL again.

Also there were only 4 people indicted, that can't be everyone. I doubt these were the only people involved. Growing up in VA I know, PERSONALLY, there are many big wigs (even judges) that participate in organized dogfighting. There should be at least tens if not hundreds of people involved; especially for a multiyear FBI case. Sounds lto me ike Vick's dog may have beat the wrong person's dog. Or maybe Vick wasn't cooperating with rolling on the other participants? Considering those involved, it could be a lose-lose situation for Vick and his family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're comparing apples to oranges. Petco directly markets to pet owners and lovers. So something like this could directly affect business. However, I would still say that they'd probably just wait it out, and use someone else as a fill in for the time being.

There is nothing wrong with Nike standing by Mike. He hasn't been convicted, so why should they drop. And do you really expect them to say, "Hey we're standing by Mike Vick because we hope to make more money off of him in the future.". He is innocent until proven guilty, and we should respect that. Also, you say that Nike's whole deal is the street cred/hood market, well to be honest, I know a lot of people in the hood, and most of them can relate to someone being indicted on drug charges more so than someone being indicted on Dog Fighting charges.

Well that is your opinion and I totally respect it, but I think if Vick was a Petco spokesman executives would have dropped him a month ago...and if not then certainlty after the indictment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dog fighting is wrong, but people are acting like Vick was involved in killing people. He should be punished if he did it but long prison sentences and loss of livelihood seem a bit much. I like to see a stiff punishment (a year in the pokey and a huge fine) but I won't endorse him ever playing in the NFL again.

Also there were only 4 people indicted, that can't be everyone. I doubt these were the only people involved. Growing up in VA I know, PERSONALLY, there are many big wigs (even judges) that participate in organized dogfighting. There should be at least tens if not hundreds of people involved; especially for a multiyear FBI case. Sounds lto me ike Vick's dog may have beat the wrong person's dog. Or maybe Vick wasn't cooperating with rolling on the other participants? Considering those involved, it could be a lose-lose situation for Vick and his family.

this is another problem i have, which is more the media's fault than any others. of the 4 people indicted, the only one you hear about is Michael Vick. i don't even know the other 3 people's names. i think the media's coverage of this could make it difficult for Vick to get a fair trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is another problem i have, which is more the media's fault than any others. of the 4 people indicted, the only one you hear about is Michael Vick. i don't even know the other 3 people's names. i think the media's coverage of this could make it difficult for Vick to get a fair trial.

It was his house, he is the multi-millionaire that allegedly dropped 23K on two dog fights, and he is the biggest stakeholder in this thing,

I get where you guys are coming from, but Vick is main conspirator in this mess, and no one else. You nail him and the rest is easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was his house, he is the multi-millionaire that allegedly dropped 23K on two dog fights, and he is the biggest stakeholder in this thing,

I get where you guys are coming from, but Vick is main conspirator in this mess, and no one else. You nail him and the rest is easy.

those are all very agruable points, which his defense attorneys most certainly will.

its a criminal case, so prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. it is very easy to create reasonable doubt.

and to say no one else is main conspirator is just wrong, you don't have or know all the facts of the case yet to make that assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nike isn't the State. If Nike had a sponsorship with OJ Simpson, they wouldn't have to hear a jury say "guilty" to surmise that they should drop him as a spokesman.

I understand all of that, but they certainly dont HAVE to do anything until Vick is proven guilty in a court of law. People saying that he should be dropped as a spokesperson RIGHT NOW are definitely ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" standard because THEY havent seen Vick do anything.

Like i said, guilty or innocent, Nike most likely will drop him either way. The timing just isnt right at the moment.

Nike knows about public relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was his house, he is the multi-millionaire that allegedly dropped 23K on two dog fights, and he is the biggest stakeholder in this thing,

I get where you guys are coming from, but Vick is main conspirator in this mess, and no one else. You nail him and the rest is easy.

from what i seen with my own eyes, i doubt he was the biggest stakeholder or main conspirator.

either way we are making assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be a very interesting thread if you had any evidence at all that supported this theory.

I feel bad for letting you down in both the interesting and evidence departments :silly: ...but at least I'm not the only one that thinks this.

Nike more about money than morals

Mark Kriegel

FOXSports.com, Updated 13 minutes ago

But with the launch of the Zoom Vick V — which your kids can buy for a mere $100 — a month away, Nike is studying the situation. All of a sudden, the company that made cool a corporate art form sounds like the Pentagon. Did you really expect different?

It's not about the dogs.

It's about the shoes.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7038442

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if Vick has committed criminal acts or if he will be convicted of them, but I wouldn't want him as a spokesperson. Like PB says, I think Nike are waiting for the right moment to drop this SoB.

If public opinion keeps building like the way it is, the right moment might have been back in April.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The courts determine criminal guilt. I don't need to know if Vick broke a law. My outrage isn't about laws. His involvement with dog fighting is enough for me. It was his house and there was dog fighting going on there. These are facts. Was Vick actively involved? I don't care. His place, his friends/family, his company raising pitbulls. That's enough to make a value judgement, not enough to send him to jail.

I'm not sending him to jail. What I am saying is I'm not buying a damn thing made by Nike until they cut ties with Mike Vick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The courts determine criminal guilt. I don't need to know if Vick was broke a law. His involvement with dog fighting is enough for me. It was his house and there was dog fighting going on there. These are facts. Was Vick actively involved? I don't care. His place, his friends/family, his company raising pitbulls. That's enough to make a value judgement, not enough to send him to jail.

I'm not sending him to jail. What I am saying is I'm not buying a damn thing made by Nike until they cut ties with Mike Vick.

this is what i agree with. if you as an individual choose to boycott Nike over this, by all means do so. my problem is with the people who think Nike as a whole should drop him before his guilt has been proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel bad for letting you down in both the interesting and evidence departments :silly: ...but at least I'm not the only one that thinks this.

Nike more about money than morals

Mark Kriegel

FOXSports.com, Updated 13 minutes ago

But with the launch of the Zoom Vick V — which your kids can buy for a mere $100 — a month away, Nike is studying the situation. All of a sudden, the company that made cool a corporate art form sounds like the Pentagon. Did you really expect different?

It's not about the dogs.

It's about the shoes.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7038442

Thats not evidence. Thats speculation. Obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is what i agree with. if you as an individual choose to boycott Nike over this, by all means do so. my problem is with the people who think Nike as a whole should drop him before his guilt has been proven.
This would be a very interesting thread if you had any evidence at all that supported this theory.

I hear you on all points, my gripe is the fact that they flat out said they are letting the legal process play out and they don't want him judged in "the court of public opinion." I THINK THAT IS CRAP. When they drop him by years end, where did all that conviction in the legal process go? I guess I'm focusing on how two faced they are sounding with their statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you on all points, my gripe is the fact that they flat out said they are letting the legal process play out and they don't want him judged in "the court of public opinion." I THINK THAT IS CRAP. When they drop him by years end, where did all that conviction in the legal process go? I guess I'm focusing on how two faced they are sounding with their statement.

your point may very well be true, Nike may have alternative motives for keeping Vick, but thats irrelevant. in fact, Nike is in a catch-22 situation almost: on one hand if they keep Vick under contract, they appear to be standing by a dog abuser in most eyes. if they let him go, they run the risk of convicting a possibly innocent man.

i think "letting the legal process play out" is the only stand Nike can publicly take right now.....as more facts come in about the case, that can and probably will change however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note to all: "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard for prosecution. It has no bearing at all on what you are or are not allowed to believe.

"Guilty" in the context above is just a label that is placed upon you once the legal process plays out and the factfinders hold that you committed the crime that the state (or feds) accused you of.

Here's an example: If I shoot Bob and kill him, I'm guilty of killing him the second I do it.

If you saw me shoot Bob or have enough evidence in your mind to believe that I shot Bob, you can say, "Eersskins05 shot Bob." You don't have a burden of proof. You don't have a standard of "innocent until proven guilty." You've used the proof you have to surmise that I shot Bob.

But once I'm charged with that crime, the State can't make me prove my innocence. I am innocent until the State proves me guilty. THAT is the founding principle many of you are incorrectly citing as a reason for Nike to hold off on dropping Vick.

Nike isn't the State. If Nike had a sponsorship with OJ Simpson, they wouldn't have to hear a jury say "guilty" to surmise that they should drop him as a spokesman.

Very good post EersSkins05. Sometimes we tend to forget how to apply terminology in context.

And just to make it clear, I don't endorse, support or enjoy dog (or any other animal) fighting. I think it is disgusting, depraved and in most places illegal.

MV may have owned the property and paid the taxes without knowing precisely what occurred there. If I was a muli-millionaire, I might purchase a home or other property for family or special friends to use, while the title was still in my name and with me paying the taxes. However, if he okayed the construction of the facilities there, and/or was involved directly in Bad Newz Kennels, he most likely was aware of what was occurring, even if not actively participating.

I would suppose most parties need to study the indictment and talk to the Feds before they take any concrete action. Let's not forget that this indictment was a surprise to many people (even the local prosecutor claims to not have known that it was coming). I also suspect that (as one or two posters noted) that many, many old money families are involved in that area with dog-fighting activities (which is IMO why the Feds were called in because the local people were just not moving on this at all), and they are in the process of ensuring that they are not going to be dragged down into this.

And Finally, yes, people are free to convict or exonerate someone in the court of public opinion in any manner they choose and to freely associate with whomever they wish to. If you wish to get a jump on any potential conviction and begin to punish MV and any companies/organizations assocaited with him now, by all means let it fly. Please don't expect or demand that others do so based on your morals, judgements or beliefs, or condemn us as lovers of dog-fighters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...