The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

My only thing is that I personally wouldn't want to associate myself with someone who is going through this situation. Especially with Goodell making examples of everyone. Not that CP has done anything but should he, I would imagine that getting himself involved in something that doesn't concern him will only stick out. I guess its also that he should listen to his own message and mind his own business.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

steve09ru wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

brad7686 wrote:It doesn't surprise me he said that at all. And I don't mean that it was an ok thing to say, I'm just not at all surprised that he would say it. Whats that thing about "core guys" again?

Find me one NFL player without one fault. I'll time you.

Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Ray Lewis (haha j/k on that one), Mark Brunell, marvin harrison, there are hundreds without these faults and problems associated with Vick...

Yeah they may not have Vicks issues but I said find me one without a fault. Guys here make it sound like we're going to win football games based off of truth and justice, that are players are squeaky clean and we're too good of a team to bring on someone who had a speckled past. There are some wacko's out there bet people need to step off of their pedestal.

maybe you could clarify faults of these guys? see there is nothing that we see...they may have a fault or two outside of football and away from the public's eyes...but we don't know what there faults are because they know how to control their words and actions and are leaders.

Portis and a couple of posters underestimate the power of this issue in law and in public opinion. While any poster here has absolutely nothing to lose as a -private- person with poster name that probably nobody can trace back to him/her (perhaps with the exception of the owner of the site), Michael Vick and Clinton Portis are -public- persons.

A -public- person makes willingly a living in the eyes of everyone. These people noy only -choose- to be -public- persons they aspire to it. They enjoy the economic reward, fame and recognition that comes with it. I have little sympathy for anybody that looks for the spotlight and then complains about its drawbacks.

If they do not wish to be scrutinised, they could always become -private- persons. But this choice carries lesser economic rewards, diminishing or no fame, and little if any recognition. It is a -package- that its is not imposed on but chosen and cherished by each ane evry one of them in the NFL.

Interestingly, -this- is preciesely the reason why some people choose to have a very guarded -private- life as much as they can. They minimise the exposure surounding their -public- lives as much as they can. And they minimise their exposure by not talking to the media as a rule, i.e., precisely minding their own business.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Yeah they may not have Vicks issues but I said find me one without a fault.

CLL,

Not everybody can be an Art Monk or a Darrell Green. Not everybody supports charities. Not everybody is or even should be expected to be model citizens.

Some of our best players in the past were no saints for sure. There are some rough stories out there. Some are funny, others are not very nice. But they did two things right:

1) they did not brake the law (they were not criminals); and
2) they did not embarrass their team and the NFL.

Those are the two thresholds that define a clear line on this issue today.

Some of you are really getting carried away with this and making a mountain out of a molehill on this one, IMO.

Portis is a major jokester. He cracks jokes in every interview. How do we know that Portis wasn't just joking around and the journalist simply misrepresented what and how Portis said what he said. Did anyone see this interview on TV, or was it just written in a paper? My point is, Portis could have been laughing the whole time and the journalist just left that part out on purpose for a better story.

I would have to think that if Portis was actually serious about this and was an advocate of dog fighting, this story would've been plastered all over the news in every town, city and state by now. It hasn't, so I would take those comments with a grain of salt, especially knowing that Portis likes to joke around.

SkinsFreak wrote:Did anyone see this interview on TV, or was it just written in a paper? My point is, Portis could have been laughing the whole time and the journalist just left that part out on purpose for a better story.

Watch it:

HERE.

Just do a google search with the words:

"Portis supports Vick" or "Portis defends Vick"

Count the numberof hits and the tone of the articles. If this was a joke, and it might have been one in a weird kind of way, it is one of the kind that an agent gets headaches about.

In a paradoxical way, joke or not, far from helping Vick, it drew more attention to Vick and the allegations.

Redskin in Canada wrote:In a paradoxical way, joke or not, far from helping Vick, it drew more attention to Vick and the allegations.

Thanx for the link RiC

Samuels was laughing before CP even finished his 1st sentence (does that mean CP told CS that he would say something to get a rise out of people... I don't know).

Vick might not mind the allegations about the dog fighting considering the police found out about it during a drug raid

Just watched the video, and I have to say I was kind of confused by Portis's comments. What exactly was he trying to say? Is he saying that people should just not care because it's Mike Vick and he's popular and because he's done some good things in the community?

Just because it's "only dog-fighting" doesn't mean that it's not a serious issue. Sure dogs aren't people, but I'm not going to get into that issue of whether it's right or wrong -- the fact remains that it's a felony.

I'm just really confused... is it ok to do only because the fights were behind closed doors on his property? All I took from this was that he was trying to protect Vick and say some positive things for him, which is fine. But he's wrong in saying that it's not anyone else's business -- no one else made Vick get involved with this or some of his other incidents.

When you play with fire sometimes you're gonna get burned...

Who cares. This is a dead story already. Just funny to see CP chime in for Vick. Those dogs are built for fighting. If it wasn't for that...what else would you do with a pit?

The press and animals fruits are making it a big deal. Ever see the animal activists rush to the defense of a pit when it attacks a kid? hmmmm....

Obviously I care, and so do the rest of the people on this thread who have posted. And it's not a dead issue; Vick could still be in some trouble, especially if he keeps putting himself in these situations.

HardDawg wrote:Who cares. This is a dead story already. Just funny to see CP chime in for Vick. Those dogs are built for fighting. If it wasn't for that...what else would you do with a pit?

The press and animals fruits are making it a big deal. Ever see the animal activists rush to the defense of a pit when it attacks a kid? hmmmm....

Wow.

When this first was reported, Vick denied 2 things - 1 he was not aware of the dog fighting at this place and 2 that he had ever spent any time at this address - ever! I understand that 1 and maybe both of these are not true statements. If that is the case I hope that he reaps the full "reward" from both the NFL and Blank for trying to create a different impression on this situation. I also hear that the locals at this address are trying to cover up for him as much as possible and that he is a "popular" person in the area.

I think that Portis' remarks are just a mistake in judgement on his part but not intentionally an attempt to mislead.

SkinsJock wrote:I think that Portis' remarks are just a mistake in judgement on his part but not intentionally an attempt to mislead.

That's it. A misconceived sense of solidarity.

HardDawg wrote:Who cares. This is a dead story already. Just funny to see CP chime in for Vick. Those dogs are built for fighting. If it wasn't for that...what else would you do with a pit?

The press and animals fruits are making it a big deal. Ever see the animal activists rush to the defense of a pit when it attacks a kid? hmmmm....

Pitbulls are guard dogs, not dispensable creatures, and when they attack kids that is because of bad ownership. They are not bred to fight for their lives so people can try and make money off of each other. That is like saying that the slaves in Rome should have been fed to the lions in the colisseum. Not saying dogs are people, but you get the point. If you hadn't guessed, I own a pitbull.

hailskins666 wrote:yes portis is now trash. lets get our panties all in a bunch, the sky is a falling.

some of you guys need to get a life........ and mind your own business.


i do not agree nor do i disagree with dog fighting, cock fighting, underground tough guy, etc. nor do i care. i mind my own business. if someone else wants to do it, more power to em. dogs suck anyway, maybe they'll all destroy themselves, then i won't have to clean dog crap off of my lawn.

you are missing the point entirely.

you say "if someone else wants to do it, more power to em." that would make sense if they were choosing a behavior/activity/etc for themSELVES to take part in. but the animal doesn't HAVE a choice. by your reasoning, we should "mind our own business" about a thief or a rapist or a murderer, because that's what they want to do. no, i don't neccessarily think a dog's life is of the same value as a human's. in fact i don't particularly care for dogs. but the bottom line is, they are not just some inanimate object to be used as one pleases. they experience emotions, they feel pain and suffering.

whatever one chooses to do between himself and inanimate objects (or himself and and another consenting adult) is one thing. but this is not even remotely the same thing.

HardDawg wrote:Who cares. This is a dead story already. Just funny to see CP chime in for Vick. Those dogs are built for fighting. If it wasn't for that...what else would you do with a pit?

The press and animals fruits are making it a big deal. Ever see the animal activists rush to the defense of a pit when it attacks a kid? hmmmm....

they're built for fighting? only illegally...get a child or pet of your own and tell me then...you tell me if you raise a pit pull for over a year then you will not care to have it die in a ring fighting another animal....

ok....your child is 2 years old and people are paying to watch a fight between your child and a 20 year old...is that fine with you then? a dog...just like any other animal or pet... has that bond with its' owner...if that owner is a piece of **** then that owner has no reason to be able to claim it as their own...

is this understandable?

die cowboys die wrote:

hailskins666 wrote:yes portis is now trash. lets get our panties all in a bunch, the sky is a falling.

some of you guys need to get a life........ and mind your own business.


i do not agree nor do i disagree with dog fighting, cock fighting, underground tough guy, etc. nor do i care. i mind my own business. if someone else wants to do it, more power to em. dogs suck anyway, maybe they'll all destroy themselves, then i won't have to clean dog crap off of my lawn.

you are missing the point entirely.

you say "if someone else wants to do it, more power to em." that would make sense if they were choosing a behavior/activity/etc for themSELVES to take part in. but the animal doesn't HAVE a choice. by your reasoning, we should "mind our own business" about a thief or a rapist or a murderer, because that's what they want to do. no, i don't neccessarily think a dog's life is of the same value as a human's. in fact i don't particularly care for dogs. but the bottom line is, they are not just some inanimate object to be used as one pleases. they experience emotions, they feel pain and suffering.

whatever one chooses to do between himself and inanimate objects (or himself and and another consenting adult) is one thing. but this is not even remotely the same thing.

you REALLY need to mind your own business. and so should everyone else.

Portis made the Mike&Mike "Just shut up" list for Tuesday. Might be what he was going for.

Once Gollic and Greeny get started on something they can let it go.

I think it was just an attempt to get the media to back off. He was down playing the dog fighting. Didn't say he agreed with it. Didn't say he would do it or anything just trying to down play it. I don't think he was taking Vicks site. If he said no comment, than he is just another NFL player with no opinion, if he dissagreed with it he would have his peers against him, I still don't think he agreed with it. He just down playing if for the media. Saying the media should back off. And saying he's a role model. Say there are some kids that look up to him, its bad for the media to be taking about this all the time. All he was doing is trying to get the media to back off.

And I agree with CP.

Ok, there is an investagation going on about Vick and dog fighting. Thanks for the update media. Now, move on untill there is some real new news. But they can't they will talk about this for months, Mike can't got anywere with cameras. Notice, the video clip showing them taking the dogs out of there, recorded on helocopter. I bet there are at least 1000 people in the us right now that are in the media and assigned to Vick coverage. Thats crazy.

1niksder wrote:Portis made the Mike&Mike "Just shut up" list for Tuesday. Might be what he was going for.

Once Gollic and Greeny get started on something they can let it go.

I'm sure everyone in the media loves this. There's nothing more exciting than a blatant case of racism, intolerance, or criminal activity because then the sports analysts can take the hard line and write scathing articles from their perch.

I agree with the people in this thread that aren't reading too far into Portis' words. Someone could think that dogfighting is morally repugnant -- and that everyone who engages in it is scum -- but say exactly what Portis said. "A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police."

Redskin in Canada wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:I think that Portis' remarks are just a mistake in judgement on his part but not intentionally an attempt to mislead.

That's it. A misconceived sense of solidarity.

I see where you might get that impression but I was not defending or condoning or trying to clarify for anyone - just an impression from seeing the media and "reports" portray different things in any light they deem "newsworthy"!

I just hope that the NFL athletes will start to get the idea that if they want to be a part of todays NFL which is very conscious of it's image, they are basically agreeing to not put themselves in "situations" OR say things that could be harmful to that image. These guys continue to defy that and hopefully the NFL will be very strict and suspend these guys so that the players and their teams will begin to wake up!

Like I said before - if you want to play in the NFL you have to abide their rules - these are not society's rules, these are the NFL rules and code of conduct. These players make that choice and if they abuse those rules then they should choose to find another job OR be made to - either way I'm hoping the NFL really puts it to anyone that thinks they can mis-behave because in my opinion some of these guys still think they can get away with things because they always have!

Redskin in Canada wrote:Portis and a couple of posters underestimate the power of this issue in law and in public opinion. While any poster here has absolutely nothing to lose as a -private- person with poster name that probably nobody can trace back to him/her (perhaps with the exception of the owner of the site), Michael Vick and Clinton Portis are -public- persons.

I wondering why this is such a big issue, now that Portis has chimed in. Prior to the comments by Portis, there wasn't a single post about Vick and the dog fighting issue.

No one saw anything wrong with Vick being the owner of the house, or the fact he sold it for half it's worth.

No one pointed out that he's a registered dog groomer.

No one has said anything about Vick's friends saying they think he is deeply involved in dog fighting.

It appears that you guys moral turpitude doesn't kick in until a Redskins says something that you had no posted opinion of, then you come out the wood work.

If CP had been the one to buy the house and the run out to get a groomers license that would be one thing but he only make a comment.

What will we think if CP shows up for a Thursday preeser dressed as a Dog Catcher?

Since there wasn't a topic on this in ATL, I'll put the updates here.

Here's the meat of the story:

Vick's possible link to dog fighting inside the home surfaced last month after police reportedly found evidence of pit bull fighting while following up on a drug arrest involving Vick's cousin. They said they found a blood-stained carpet, a digital dog scale, whips, an electric treadmill modified for dog training and a "pry bar" to pry apart a dog's jaws. Roughly 60 dogs also were taken from the home.

...

So far, no charges have been brought against Vick, 26, who played at Warwick High School in Newport News

...

Vick said he bought the home for his cousin and had no knowledge of the dog fights. However, local animal control coordinator Kathy Strouse, who took part in the investigation, said an informant can place him at the fights.
Town residents have questioned how Surry County Sheriff Harold Brown could not have known about the fights and wonder why he waited to take action until now, when he is seeking re-election.
Brown has said officers responded to calls at the property for house alarms and a brush fire but found nothing unusual.
Residents also have questioned why Vick immediately sold the house for half its assessed value of $747,000. A business owner said "heads will turn" when the name of the buyer is revealed.

link to WT story

Congressman wants strong action against Vick
Cali Congressman wants action from the NFL ... does that mean the State of California has no issuses with Dog-fighting - maybe he should handle his "business"...

Dogfight task force: Don't have Vick video
The task force as a informant that said there is video of Vick at dog fights.
That wouldn't prove he ran the operation but it would put a damper on Vick's statements that he knows nothing about this. The Virginia Animal Fighting Task Force is looking for the video and any other info thay can find... that would add up to them minding their business.


Goodell's power faces challenge in Vick's case
What can he do? No charges have been filed, no arrest have been made of NFL players

I post more as it becomes available. Looking at what is out there you can't blame CP for his comments. Take a look at the Falcons boards, Vick is being beat up worst than Clinton has been on this site (and most Redskins boards for that matter).

Portis has been here a few years and most of you have heard other comments by him this time of year that raises eyebrows, why should we expect anything less in 2007.

My money is on him saying something else before the season starts that will make comment forgetable

1niksder wrote:My money is on him saying something else before the season starts that will make comment forgetable

I suspect that this is true. The timing of his comment was particularly unfortunate. The -slowest- part of the off-season.

There are very few juicy stories other than malcontent players and no-shows at training camp. So, anything than can be turned over and over again just will be scrutinised from any possible angle.

Why is this becoming such a big story other than its timing? Well, because one thing is the suspicion of a crime and quite another the -appearance-, whether seriously or jokingly, of condoning any such criminal behaviour as part of the private life of a famous and wealthy athlete who feels that he may be above the law. The media and anybody that hates the Skins will have a field day with this, at least until juicier stories come around.

This is why -everybody- needs to be briefed and prepare themselves before they open their mouths in front of the media. As a Redskin fan, I wish we all fans and players, including Portis, mind our own business, respect the law and do not embarrass the team.

The Commissioner will do his job. Jokko. You are right, -again-.

I didn't feel the need to post anything before because all of these talk shows and ESPN debate shows like Around the Horn and PTI, among others, play these topics out. Portis's comments made it relevant to talk about here, especially after I watched the video. Just because no one was talking about the whole incident before on here didn't mean it wasn't important, it just meant that it didn't really relate a lot to this team or because some people didn't have anything that hadn't been endlessly discussed to add. I had a lot of thoughts on it but didn't feel the need to post until I disagreed with some other people's comments on Portis.

Sure, Portis says stupid things sometimes. He's a really funny guy, but that doesn't mean everyone should just play-off or disregard his comments just because he's a goofy guy. The issue of dog-fighting is still pretty serious, and while I don't know much of anything about it, I still believe it's wrong.

I never made any judgements about Michael Vick, but I also don't think it's a coincidence that he's had a couple incidents in the news. Sometimes, you can be in the wrong place at the wrong time or have an accident. But eventually, patterns start to develop and it's definitely worth questioning when issues like these keep coming up with the same person's name involved.

Does anyone here know whether he was involved with dog-fighting or not? No. But by being involved with friends that do and by having a home where injured dogs are being kept and there are bloddy carpets, the situation is opened up and his name is involved.

Whether or not he was doing anything wrong is still in question. And by being paid millions of dollars and making money off of fans, if athletes do these type of things, their business becomes our business, whether that's right or wrong. It's just a fact, and it will always be that way, especially with 24 hour sports and endless coverage over stupid stories. If athletes want to get all the credit for doing amazing things and seeming superhuman, then it's only fair that when they're involved in something not as positive that the opposite type of coverage is possible as well.

Who are any of us to keep saying things like "mind your business?" Every single day the media is involved with other people's "business" and even on this board, every single day, there are issues about people's "business." No one said to mind our business about Ricky Williams smoking pot again. Why does that not count, because it's Ricky Williams?

How exactly can you draw the line with that -- I'm confused.

Anyway, I didn't think this would grow to such a large issue; I was just interested into exactly what Portis was talking about or if he was trying to be funny. Either way, I'm still pretty disappointed at people trying to brush off the issue like it's nothing when openly discussing issues such as these is what lots of people, many on this board too, do everyday.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Guys here make it sound like we're going to win football games based off of truth and justice, that are players are squeaky clean and we're too good of a team to bring on someone who had a speckled past. There are some wacko's out there bet people need to step off of their pedestal.

Chris: Can you look at it this way? In a fortune 500 company, what would happen to the CEO if he was caught in a dog-fighting scandal like Vick has? And what would happen to the CFO if, like Portis did for Vick, he comes out and makes comments in support of the CEO's actions, and tells everyone else to mind their own business?

How fast would THOSE guys be out of a job?

Just a thought.