Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

I started a new thread because I did not want this to get lost in the old thread. I just heard that the bottle tested negative for dope so what was in the bottle? I guess because of the circumstance around how this went down and how Vick reacted we thouht he was guilty. Allot of people on this site called him allot of things so its time to start eating a little crow.
I thought I should add link [url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2738494]ESPN.com - NFL - Sources: Vick didn't have marijuana, won't face charges[/url]

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

I'm generally a Vick supporter, and I recognize that everyone makes mistakes. I couldn't care less if he was carrying pot, or if he smokes it -- it's his personal right. However, this still sounds fishy to me.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;271460]I'm generally a Vick supporter, and I recognize that everyone makes mistakes. I couldn't care less if he was carrying pot, or if he smokes it -- it's his personal right. However, this still sounds fishy to me.[/quote]

I agree with you 100%. But when you are the QB of an NFL team with a 100+ million dollar contract then you have certain responsibilities that you have to live up to. Vick is not the bad guy that everyone on this site made him out to be.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

Similar thing happened when Sean Taylor got in trouble in Miaimi. He was suddenly thug this and thug that. He comes clean, and every one suddenly shuts up.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

when this happenned they said it would take a couple weeks for the testing,now its done already? now they say it would be a couple of weeks before they decide whether or not to press charges,if he didnt have weed what are they going to charge him with? sounds very fishy

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

This is real fishy. Like htownskinfan said......it was supposed to take weeks to get the results, and all of a sudden he's free of charges? Very fishy indeed.

On another note, this weekend I was thinking about who would trade for Vick? Of course the first team that popped in my head was the Raiders. I go to foxsports.com and I see this....

[QUOTE]"The Oakland Raiders are preparing to make a run at Falcons QB Michael Vick, according to NFL sources. The Raiders package would include receivers Randy Moss and Jerry Porter plus the No.1 overall pick in the 2007 draft for Vick and the Falcons first round pick (10th overall)."[/QUOTE]

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;271460]I'm generally a Vick supporter, and I recognize that everyone makes mistakes. I couldn't care less if he was carrying pot, or if he smokes it -- it's his personal right. However, this still sounds fishy to me.[/quote]

Yea, personally i don't care if someone chooses to smoke or not, however... Vick is and has been the "face" of the franchise and is held in higher regard. I don't think the Falcons would be to keen on the idea of their leader as a "pothead."

IMO, if you are a veteran NFL qb, you probably should put the pipe down. You are getting paid millions of $ to do what you do.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[QUOTE=GhettoDogAllStars;271460]I'm generally a Vick supporter, and I recognize that everyone makes mistakes. I couldn't care less if he was carrying pot, or if he smokes it -- it's his personal right. However, this still sounds fishy to me.[/QUOTE]

It's not his personal right to carry pot, or to smoke it. In almost every situation, it's against the law - although a claim of glaucoma [U]would[/U] explain some passing accuracy questions I have.

The point isn't that the criminalization of marijuana use or possession is wrong. I'm pretty sure there is a consensus on this website that casual users of weed shouldn't be jailed. However, since it is illegal, understand that irresponsible use of marijuana - and carrying a secret compartment that has an odor of pot through the only place in the country where you are guaranteed a pat-down search is wildly irresponsible - is about as foolish as you can get without liquor and a chainsaw.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[QUOTE=Redskins_P;271470]This is real fishy. Like htownskinfan said......it was supposed to take weeks to get the results, and all of a sudden he's free of charges? Very fishy indeed.

On another note, this weekend I was thinking about who would trade for Vick? Of course the first team that popped in my head was the Raiders. I go to foxsports.com and I see this....[/QUOTE]

yeah Vick would just love that. Atlanta finally gets receivers...but they trade Vick for it

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

OJ Simpson is innocent too - - right? That's what the law says so it has to be so.

There is a real difference between what someone does and what a prosecutor can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in court - - particularly if that someone had a boatload of cash and can get expensively lawyered up.

If - I said IF - Michael Vick or any other well known sports star or celebrity has a water bottle with a fake compartment in his/her possession and tries to sneak it onto an aircraft in 2007, then that person is a moron.

Not a thug; not a criminal; not a sociopath. But a M-O-R-O-N.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee;271473]It's not his personal right to carry pot, or to smoke it. In almost every situation, it's against the law - although a claim of glaucoma [U]would[/U] explain some passing accuracy questions I have.

The point isn't that the criminalization of marijuana use or possession is wrong. I'm pretty sure there is a consensus on this website that casual users of weed shouldn't be jailed. However, since it is illegal, understand that irresponsible use of marijuana - and carrying a secret compartment that has an odor of pot through the only place in the country where you are guaranteed a pat-down search is wildly irresponsible - is about as foolish as you can get without liquor and a chainsaw.[/QUOTE]

It's certainly irresponsible. It's certainly against the law. However, I don't believe that ANYONE has a right to tell another person what they can or can't do to their own body.

It is irresponsible for many people to have children. If they made a law against it, would that mean it is not their right to have children? I'm talking about human rights -- those that are inalienable. I believe using drugs is an inalienable personal right.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;271524]It's certainly irresponsible. It's certainly against the law. However, I don't believe that ANYONE has a right to tell another person what they can or can't do to their own body.

It is irresponsible for many people to have children. If they made a law against it, would that mean it is not their right to have children? I'm talking about human rights -- those that are inalienable. I believe using drugs is an inalienable personal right.[/quote]
Thats OK with me but then when ones addicted, poor health, no job just don't ask the goverment to support these people with my tax dollars. OK, no more politics. What I don't understand is that you get resdue (spelling) from a pipe which was used for smoking not from a container which is thought to hold the weed before smoking.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;271529]Thats OK with me but then when ones addicted, poor health, no job just don't ask the goverment to support these people with my tax dollars. OK, no more politics. What I don't understand is that you get resdue (spelling) from a pipe which was used for smoking not from a container which is thought to hold the weed before smoking.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. You might be able to see that I support less gov't -- not more. Hence the stance on personal freedoms. Well, that attitude applies to nearly every facet of gov't -- not just drug use, or the ones that are convenient for me.

BTW, a residue could be a concentrated form of THC -- like hashish.

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon;271498]OJ Simpson is innocent too - - right? That's what the law says so it has to be so.

There is a real difference between what someone does and what a prosecutor can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in court - - particularly if that someone had a boatload of cash and can get expensively lawyered up.

If - I said IF - Michael Vick or any other well known sports star or celebrity has a water bottle with a fake compartment in his/her possession and tries to sneak it onto an aircraft in 2007, then that person is a moron.

Not a thug; not a criminal; not a sociopath. But a M-O-R-O-N.[/QUOTE]

What's worse? Moron or meathead?

Re: Vick's Bottle Tested Negative
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;271498]OJ Simpson is innocent too - - right? That's what the law says so it has to be so.

There is a real difference between what someone does and what a prosecutor can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in court - - particularly if that someone had a boatload of cash and can get expensively lawyered up.

If - I said IF - Michael Vick or any other well known sports star or celebrity has a water bottle with a fake compartment in his/her possession and tries to sneak it onto an aircraft in 2007, then that person is a moron.

Not a thug; not a criminal; not a sociopath. But a M-O-R-O-N.[/quote]I agree it was stupid what he did but how many regular flights has Vick been on over the past couple of years? I'm sure most of his travel is either private planes or flying with the team so he may not have known that a water bottle was a no go. I think that law is fairly new in the past 12 months when that group was caught plotting to make those liquid bombs this year (2006).