I find it interesting to note that there is quite a bit of moral judgement going on, particularly in this forum.  I have come to appreciate this hobby (primary reason we are on this site?), for the simple fact that tolerance is held in quite high regards.  Unfortunately, it seems that attitude has too often been left to the wayside once we click on "Sports Talk".

Is there some sort of unwritten moral code when it comes to our sports?  If so, is it different than what we apply to our own daily lives?

Everyone has their own sense of what is right and what is wrong. While they may routinely do things that others may deem immoral, there are certain lines that they will never cross. For example, some of the most hardened criminals in prisons would never think of betraying their country, or doing anything to harm a child. For some people, sports is just as much a part of their life as going to work, or going to church. For others sports IS their life, and they tend to overlook some things in sports that they would consider immoral outside of sports. For example, "Who cares if he cheated on his wife, as long as he can win."

... however, there seems to be a tendency to condemn athletes based on these moral gray areas.

A recent post reads as follows, as if he should be wearing a big red "DK" on his chest:

"Michael Vick not only intended to do what he did, he did it over a long period of time, took care to conceal his activities (showing that he clearly knew it was illegal), and was making a profit off of it (or at least allowing others to profit).  Then, when he was questioned about it, he initially denied it."

On a different note, substituting one's own name in the statement above could shed a unique light on our own hobbying habits.  If we condemn Vick, are we not rightly condemning ourselves too?

Why not just say "I hate the guy", and leave it at that?

his actions because I'm a dog lover and because I feel that anyone who will harm an animal like that will do the same thing to a human being. That being said, I try to keep my "finger-pointing" to a minimum because when I point my finger at someone, I've got 3 fingers pointing back at me. I'm not saying that I never point fingers because I'm human and have normal humain failings.

I'm not too sure I know what you're referring to.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and as long as flaming is kept out of it, what people say here I can choose to agree with or disagree with.  I can also just ignore it, which many times is the best thing to do.

Perhaps if you got out more, you'd feel differently.  This board is one of the more polite on TER, which I find pretty interesting since it's virtually unmoderated.

I'm personally quite the opinionated asshole, at least if you ask my ex-wife.  I'm a moderate sports fan, but my team is still my team.  Give me a tough time about them, and you may get to see how high my horse can get.

I tend to deviate from the crowd on the Vick issue, since I feel that he's done his time, and life goes on.  I don't condone what he's done, but then again I don't condone a lot of criminal activity.  Other things that are considered illegal don't offend me at all.  Small quantities of drugs for personal consumption, and prostitution would be among those.

First, it appears that you are implying that I am a hypocrite simply because I do not like that criminal actions that Michael Vick engaged in, but yet, here I am on this site dedicated to prostitution.  Am I correct in that assumption?

If so, I guess I will simply point out that I have not engaged in an activity that included: kicking, beating, drowning, electrocuting, or betting on the death of another living being.  I have paid women to have sex with me and I have tried to not be too much of a pain in the ass during the process.

If you do not see a difference in these activities, then it would be a waste for me to try to point it out to you.  I personally believe there is an enormous difference between some criminal acts as compared to others.  Perhaps you do not.  So, I guess we can assume that, since you are here too, that you condone prostitution, therefore you condone murder?  Can you see the absurdity of that assumption?

Second, I don't "hate the guy."  I don't know Michael Vick.  He is not and never will be associated with my life.  Why would I expend the energy to hate him?  Do I have the same value system that he does?  No.  Does my good friend who is a devout and committed catholic have the same value system as me?  No.

Here is what I do believe about the difference between Vick and Stallworth.  I believe that Vick is not truly sorry for his actions.  I believe that he is only sorry that he got caught and that it has cost him so much in his life.  I believe that he still does not think there is anything wrong with what he did.  I believe that that there are many criminals like him.  I believe that he has served the sentence that the justice system gave to him and that he should get the same second chance that any other criminal does - but only because that is the way our legal system works.

I also believe that Stallworth is truly sorry for what he did.  He knows it was wrong.

Can you tell me that you know for a fact that my beliefs are wrong?

Didn't realize you were a CUBS fan, Lil' Phil!!  LOL

Hey, did you see the Nationwide Race today?  You're boy (Kyle) once again showed his "morals"!  RAOTFLMAO!

... there was never an intent to call you a hypocrite; if that was the way it had been taken or inferred - I do apologize for that.

Furterhmore, I do understand your point of view, and my own beliefs are probabaly not that far from yours, but I am only guessing at that.

On another note: do you feel that the Vick situation would have played out differently had he been forthright from the beginning regarding the investigation into the dogfighting activities?

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your intent.

As far as the Vick case, I truly do not know any of the finer details.  As to the question of whether his sentencing might have been more lenient had he chosen to cooperate from the beginning ... I could only speculate.  I would guess that, yes, the authorities probably would have looked more favorably towards him, but I do not know that for sure.

As someone else pointed out here related to this issue, what the NFL was most concerned about was his close association with gambling.  Sadly, that makes perfect sense to me.  They couldn't really care less about his crimes, only the way that they might reflect on - and hurt - their bottom line.  Unfortunately, cynicism is often the most realistic approach to the business of Big Time sports in our society today.