Yahoo! Sports writer says NFL will announce suspension of Michael Vick

UPDATE2:ESPN reports Vick has been offered a plea deal, has until Friday to take it.

But the NFL says "no decision has been made".

Sportswriter Jason Cole says two NFL sources told him the league would announce his suspension before the season starts. But NFL spokesman Greg Aiello say that decision hasn't been made.

Vick is under indictment for federal charges tied to organized dogfighting and gambling. His case could go to trial as early as November.

I don't know where I stand on this. My gut says "until you know he's dirty (i.e. he's convicted), you don't suspend him". But there are reports Vick misled the league office concerning details of the investigation. And the NFL is a business, not a court of law.

Do you go ahead with a suspension prior to his trial? What reason do you give, "in this particular case, it looks worse than (pick something to compare it to) x circumstances"? What if he's acquitted?

Cole notes that the league's gambling policy goes way back, much further than the personal conduct policy. A player can be banned for life for illegal gambling.

I just don't know if you can drop the ban-hammer prior to a conviction.

UPDATE: reading through some of the comments I think I'm being a little careless at the end of my post with two different things, suspension, and banning (for gambling). Two different things.

Kinda sorta related, someone asked me the other day why Cincinnati's Chris Henry was playing in a preseason game. The league did suspend him for half the upcoming season, however he is allowed to practice and appear in preseason games. Once the suspension begins, he can't play or practice with the team for 8 games.

posted by Dave In Texas at 04:12 PM

| Access Comments