Andy Reid Suspension Speculation Thread - Page 5

Bork · #41 11-03-2007, 01:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In both situations, Goodall is wrong to assert it is the person's responsiblity because they owned the property.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is the decision in the Vick case bad? Vick's position was he was unaware of it and that there wasn't any dog fighting going on. Then he funded more dog fights..

If somebody claimed there was dogfighting going on in your house and you don't check to make sure it isn't/ make sure it stops you are obviously responsible.

If the league came to Reid prior to these incidents and said we think there are drugs in your house then it would be reasonably close. Still it's much easier to hide some narcotics than to hide a dog fighting ring on the property.

craig · #42 11-03-2007, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How is the decision in the Vick case bad? Vick's position was he was unaware of it and that there wasn't any dog fighting going on. Then he funded more dog fights..

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you respond to Red Bean's post, but not read it?

Bork · #43 11-03-2007, 01:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is the decision in the Vick case bad? Vick's position was he was unaware of it and that there wasn't any dog fighting going on. Then he funded more dog fights..

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you respond to Red Bean's post, but not read it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I read and understood his post. He doesn't say why he doesn't think Vick ought to be responsible for the continued dog fights on his property assuming he is unaware of them. Especially after somebody accuses him and says they think there might be dog fights happening on his property. IMO he is responsible for anything that occurs after that point, whether ignorant or not. He was accused of this cruelty stuff years before, so he ought to be making sure it isn't going on.

RedBean · #44 11-03-2007, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How is the decision in the Vick case bad? Vick's position was he was unaware of it and that there wasn't any dog fighting going on. Then he funded more dog fights..

[/ QUOTE ]

The ultimate decision was not bad, obviously, knowing what we know now. (The part above in bold wasn't known by Goodall when he made the statement.)

The decision for Goodall to state that Vick would be responsible because he owned the property, despite the assertion that he had no involvement.....that was a bad decision.

As things played out, however, it became irrelevant as Vick was in fact, involved.

Number27 · #45 11-03-2007, 02:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No, I read and understood his post. He doesn't say why he doesn't think Vick ought to be responsible for the continued dog fights on his property assuming he is unaware of them. Especially after somebody accuses him and says they think there might be dog fights happening on his property. IMO he is responsible for anything that occurs after that point, whether ignorant or not. He was accused of this cruelty stuff years before, so he ought to be making sure it isn't going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

By this same logic Andy Reid was definitely aware that his sons had drug problems and drugs were still found in the house after one of them was in jail.

Bork · #46 11-03-2007, 02:23 AM

No, drugs can be easily hidden, if there is a dog fighting ring which operates on your property it wouldn't take a detective to figure it out and put a stop to it. To find drugs Andy would have to comb through his son's possesions.

Bremen · #47 11-03-2007, 05:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No, I read and understood his post. He doesn't say why he doesn't think Vick ought to be responsible for the continued dog fights on his property assuming he is unaware of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because Vick claimed he was just the landlord. Landlords have almost no control over what their tenants do and certainly cannot just "visit" to make sure no illegal activities are going on.

Hoya · #48 11-03-2007, 09:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I read and understood his post. He doesn't say why he doesn't think Vick ought to be responsible for the continued dog fights on his property assuming he is unaware of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because Vick claimed he was just the landlord. Landlords have almost no control over what their tenants do and certainly cannot just "visit" to make sure no illegal activities are going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually they can, although many don't.

TheNoodleMan · #49 11-03-2007, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And about the first point in being in control. This is what any fan assumes out of a coach is he can control a team. I'm sorry if I feel like if you can't control a family you are not fit to control a team. Yes, one is an occupation and the other is not. Also, I understand that controlling 22-40 year old men is completely different than your own children, but it is a feeling I have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony Dungy is a good coach by all accounts and yet his son committed suicide. I would say that it's more like being an NFL head coach precludes someone from being in control of their families because they spend such little time with their families.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just about to bring this up. Does anyone condemn Dungy for fufilling his obligations to being a top 3 NFL coach, and not spending enough time with his family?

Again no concrete facts, but I would imagine the odds of a dysfunctional family of NFL coaches is exponentially higher than a regular "ordinary" working person.

edit: needle, this is essentially the only argument that can be made on my side. if it's not enough for you then we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The Dungy and Reid situations aren't really apt for comparison. The reason no one condemns Dungy is that he spends time with his family. His kids are on the sidelines at every home game.

Nothing in the Dungy situation points to poor parenting. Youth suicide is something that can happen very suddenly, and comparing it to years worth of Reid's kids getting into trouble and practically begging for discipline is unfair.