Vick's sentencing.

by davidincincinnati on Dec 10, 2007 10:00 PM EST Comment 1 comment

Maybe it's me but considering that O'Dell got suspended for 2 seasons shouldn't Mike Vick be serving more time than 23 months.

I know that Vick faces prison and that is far more serious than being suspended but still again isn't the crime far greater too?

I have a problem with the equality of justice and I wonder when the owners will seek to remove the commissioner.

0 recs | Comment 1 comment |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

RE

Well, in my opinion, and most of you know that I'm not fan of the Chancellor, this is way different than Thurman -- it's the violation of league substance abuse policy that did him in. And in the end, Vick will have been away from the game for three full seasons -- not including the chance that no owner will pick up Vick once he's available.

However, things to consider here. One, the Chancellor has ordered his suspensions well after the offense in several cases. Even Tank Johnson, a much more offensive real-world crime with less NFL consequence, was given his suspensions, I believe, after he served his time.

I agree that the Chancellor has been over-zealous with his very biased thought process against Thurman. And consider people that have similar violations with Thurman and how quickly they've returned. That, in my opinion, would be the better argument.

Regardless, I don't think we've seen the NFL hand down their final verdict on Vick's punishment. And they very likely could consider 23 months in prison as his punishment.

by Josh Kirkendall on Dec 11, 2007 9:10 AM EST reply actions