Vardy's Punishment

[Guest bennytwohats]

Who cares what non-Leicester fans think, they aren't privy to all the details and they are trying to boil the situation down to being just about racism. That was never the case in the first issue as we're told two of them were found not guilty of racism. It was an accumulation of factors.

They are privy to just as much detail as we are and are a lot more impartial. I'd say the consensus among neutrals would be a much better indication of an impartial view than some Leicester fans who seem hellbent on massaging the details of the events to arrive at the conclusion they want because it's in the best interests of their club.

[lifted*fox]

Ok, great example. Using your own analogy:

You offer me am orange and I say no, I hate fruit. And I don't eat anything with seeds in it, and I don't eat anything that grows on trees. I then I get an apple out and start munching it down, and you rightly ask me why I am doing that given it matches all the characteristics of oranges I claim to despise. And I say are you blind? They are clearly different. The orange is orange but the apple is red, the orange is segmented whereas the apple isn't, and the skin on an orange is not edible but it is on an apple. And if you can't see why oranges and apples are different you need your head checking, look at them, they aren't the same are they mate? If you think oranges and apples are the same you are deluded pal.

See how intellectually dishonest your position is now? Surely you get it?

 

[willie-bell-in-rothley]

All sorted now. Move on

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

You described it as "pedestrian" just now

Its obvious you don't find the racial abuse as offensive as most.

Pedestrian:

Adj. lacking excitement; dull

Apparently you thought it meant 'Morally sound' or 'basically fine'. I witness much worse at work on a regular basis mate, that's why I find it pedestrian. That does not mean I agree with or encourage it. You are starting to look desperate in your attempts to ascribe a position to me I have not taken.

[MadridFox]

You've clearly been in Spain awhile

 

It wasn't that bad though.... Why on earth are people willing to accept an apology that isn't sincere?  I would rather Vardy say "I get mad sometimes" and Leicester say "Unlike the others... we like/need Vardy and in the grand scheme of things, it isn't that bad."   

 

Why must this be turned into a club of lies and false apologies?!

[Larry_LCFC]

You only picked that because he's black.

[Guest bennytwohats]

The first one in this case. How many non-Leicester fans will have read "The Sun" for example, and taken it at face value - probably quite a lot.

How many Leicester fans will have actually taken the time to find out the facts, watch the video, discuss it with others - probably quite a lot.

If Vardy deserved to be sacked, regardless of who he is, I would have called for him to be sacked. There is no place for racism. However, I don't believe he is a racist. Uneducated and slightly stupid, yes, but that's about as far as it goes.

But that's complete conjecture isn't it? Why have you come down on this view rather than the other view that Vardy is racist? It's completely unbalanced.

 

And that's the point. I don't know Vardy, I have never met him, I have no view whether he is racist or not. I have seen a video with him clearly racially abusing someone - that's forming my opinions. Not some notion that he isn't a racist which is plucked completely out of thin air.

 

By virtue of the fact I was sat in the office discussing it with them, and they had watched the video I would have to disagree with your other assessments. They knew just as much about the issue as I had, had engaged in it as much as I had. Only difference is that they aren't biased.

[Carl the Llama]

Ok, great example. Using your own analogy:

You offer me am orange and I say no, I hate fruit. And I don't eat anything with seeds in it, and I don't eat anything that grows on trees. I then I get an apple out and start munching it down, and you rightly ask me why I am doing that given it matches all the characteristics of oranges I claim to despise. And I say are you blind? They are clearly different. The orange is orange but the apple is red, the orange is segmented whereas the apple isn't, and the skin on an orange is not edible but it is on an apple. And if you can't see why oranges and apples are different you need your head checking, look at them, they aren't the same are they mate? If you think oranges and apples are the same you are deluded pal.

See how intellectually dishonest your position is now? Surely you get it?

Your position is more like trying to argue that tomatoes belong in a fruit salad though.

[Frank to be]

Pedestrian:

Adj. lacking excitement; dull

Apparently you thought it meant 'Morally sound' or 'basically fine'. I witness much worse at work on a regular basis mate, that's why I find it pedestrian. That does not mean I agree with or encourage it. You are starting to look desperate in your attempts to ascribe a position to me I have not taken.

You don't think they should have been sacked for something you consider pedestrian.

That's all from me.

[Babylon]

Well I think it's a valid point because he is saying that the difference in profile between the offenders is the reason for the difference in the punishment, rather than the different characteristics in the incidents.

 

The first case was about more than racism but the racism alone would surely have been enough to see him dismissed.

The point is, how can you say that when the two cases differ so dramatically?

 

You and he seem to be trying to boil both situations down to racism, when one case quite clearly has so many more offending features, not only to the wider general public, but to the people who pay their wages. As has already been stated, two people who were sacked from the first incident never uttered a racist word and were found not guilty of racism by the club, so you cannot boil it just down to that.

 

Even if you want to try and boil it down to that, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread there are differing levels of racism and different punishments to suit. I think the analogy was someone going 77mph won't get as big a punishment as someone going 110mph.

 

 

People on here seem completely unwilling to even entertain the idea that the club had a much tougher decision to make due to it being Vardy and not some youth team player. Genuinely people think it's a ridiculous notion to suggest the youth players would have been dismissed had they committed Vardy's offence? I would say that is being more obtuse than the points Marshall is making.

But nobody has said anything of the sort have they. It's quite clear that sacking a player worth £10m is harder to do than someone worth **** all, but the fact is you CANNOT state the differences in punishment are down to that when the cases differ so drastically.

[Babylon]

They are privy to just as much detail as we are and are a lot more impartial. I'd say the consensus among neutrals would be a much better indication of an impartial view than some Leicester fans who seem hellbent on massaging the details of the events to arrive at the conclusion they want because it's in the best interests of their club.

So they know that two people weren't guilty of racism then that got sacked, because you don't seem aware of the fact only Hopper said anything racist.

 

There is no massaging needed, the two cases are there on video and the differences are a plain as day to anyone actually willing to look.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

You don't think they should have been sacked for something you consider pedestrian.

That's all from me.

Translation: I can't think of any more ways to misrepresent your position or lie. There are many discplinary stages and levels of severity between doing nothing and sacking. I am saying the appropriate punishment was less than sacking but more than nothing. Fines, diversity training, bans, removal of privileges, final warning etc. Good try mate.

[Babylon]

Ok, great example. Using your own analogy:

You offer me am orange and I say no, I hate fruit. And I don't eat anything with seeds in it, and I don't eat anything that grows on trees. I then I get an apple out and start munching it down, and you rightly ask me why I am doing that given it matches all the characteristics of oranges I claim to despise. And I say are you blind? They are clearly different. The orange is orange but the apple is red, the orange is segmented whereas the apple isn't, and the skin on an orange is not edible but it is on an apple. And if you can't see why oranges and apples are different you need your head checking, look at them, they aren't the same are they mate? If you think oranges and apples are the same you are deluded pal.

See how intellectually dishonest your position is now? Surely you get it?

Yep... you're a mentalist.

[Larry_LCFC]

.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

Yep... you're a mentalist.

Again, name-calling in lieu of an actual argument. I've used YOUR analogy, not mine, to show what a logical mess you've got yourself in. I have robustly taken apart everything you've said and you resort to being childish as a result. Embarrassing.

[Frank to be]

Translation: I can't think of any more ways to misrepresent your position or lie. There are many discplinary stages and levels of severity between doing nothing and sacking. I am saying the appropriate punishment was less than sacking but more than nothing. Fines, diversity training, bans, removal of privileges, final warning etc. Good try mate.

We agree on your stance, then. You don't think they should have been sacked for something you consider pedestrian.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Obviously that's your take on it. I think for a neutral it would be more amusing to watch the masses of people try to make this issue so 'clearly distinct' from the Thailand issue in order to try and maintain the view that the club hasn't acted with double standards.

 

I've got a lot of non-Leicester supporting friends and I can tell you the general view among them is that we have acted with double standards. Personally I find it hard to disagree. For me the similarities in the incidents were more stark than the differences. The worst part of the sex tape incident for me was the racism, as was the worst case of the Vardy incident. Starkest difference of course is the profile of the player(s) in question.

Who gives a flying feck what your friends think?

 

Time to move on, and concentrate on the football.

[Guest bennytwohats]

The point is, how can you say that when the two cases differ so dramatically?

 

You and he seem to be trying to boil both situations down to racism, when one case quite clearly has so many more offending features, not only to the wider general public, but to the people who pay their wages. As has already been stated, two people who were sacked from the first incident never uttered a racist word and were found not guilty of racism by the club, so you cannot boil it just down to that.

 

Even if you want to try and boil it down to that, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread there are differing levels of racism and different punishments to suit. I think the analogy was someone going 77mph won't get as big a punishment as someone going 110mph.

 

 

But nobody has said anything of the sort have they. It's quite clear that sacking a player worth £10m is harder to do than someone worth **** all, but the fact is you CANNOT state the differences in punishment are down to that when the cases differ so drastically.

 

 

Okay, so I agree with what you are saying. I agree that there was more in the Thai incidents as the other two wouldn't have been sacked, but you can break it down. The prostitution stuff is low and vile, although I think arguably more complex than some people here would acknowledge as there are different attitudes towards the two in two different countries. It's illegal but not enforced.

 

I would agree that 'them' filming it as opposed to 'someone else' filming Vardy is hardly relevant.

 

The fact that it was on a tour in Thailand and not somewhere else - well, couldn't you fairly argue that this is also double standards? It's fair enough to expect certain standards of your players that are in the public spotlight wherever they happen to be and under whichever circumstances. The fact that he isn't 'at work' is irrelevant, I work for a profession and I can be dismissed for that profession for the way I act outside of work - people often are. It's no different with footballers.

 

I'm not presenting any of that as fact, merely an opposing view to the ones listed above.

 

For ME, the worst thing about the Thailand incident was the racism, and other stuff aside I think the dismissal would have still been the right option. Likewise I feel the same way about the Vardy issue. I see the difficulty of the situation and the the club is caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

My frustration is more borne out of the fact that an entire industry talks so much about trying to get racism/sexism/homophobia out of the game but does **** all about it. It's time for football to catch up. I know that makes my view unpopular on here but I genuinely think had this been a player from another club there would be a lot more people saying the same thing, or at least willing to engage with the issue a little more than dismissing people as idiots.

[Captain...]

Wow, I think I have another contender for the ignore list.

 

I said at the time if it had been Vardy, Cambiasso and James being rimmed and making multiple derogatory remarks to Thai prostitutes including one clearly racist one, on a goodwill tour of Thailand, then filming it and making it public, I would want them sacked. Their actions were wrong on so so so many levels, and displayed clear misogynistic and aggressive attitudes bordering on sociopathic not mention moronic stupidity on a level that deserved to be sacked alone. Try filming yourself making racist comments at work about your boss' nationality and then distributing it around and see how long you last.

 

If it had been Hopper, Pearson and Smith getting a bit lairy in a casino and saying Jap, I would want them to apologise and be reminded of their duty, I would be more lenient towards them then I would Vardy because they are younger and much lower profile.

 

It is not double standards to have different opinions on very different situations.

 

Vardy's actions were born out of anger and frustration and resulted from provocation he may require some sort of anger management classes too.

 

The mindset of Hopper in particular, who's behaviour was very disturbing, was that of a troubled young man who needs serious psychological help, anyone who thinks any part of his behaviour was acceptable is just plain wrong.

[Babylon]

Again, name-calling in lieu of an actual argument. I've used YOUR analogy, not mine, to show what a logical mess you've got yourself in. I have robustly taken apart everything you've said and you resort to being childish as a result. Embarrassing.

No, it's not my analogy at all. What you've done is taken a very simple analogy, ripped it up and tried to paste it back together with a mixture of straw and your own faeces. What you're left with is a shitty mess that makes no sense.

 

Robustly taken apart lol lol lol

[Carl the Llama]

Again, name-calling in lieu of an actual argument. I've used YOUR analogy, not mine, to show what a logical mess you've got yourself in. I have robustly taken apart everything you've said and you resort to being childish as a result. Embarrassing.

You haven't though.  Good job ignoring my post which showed you as much though.  I'll expand:

 

Tomatoes are a fruit, much like your apples, bananas, pears etc.  You'd have to be a bit of a mad man to stick them in a fruit salad though because though some things may fall under the same general grouping, the way we respond to them needs to vary based on the individual characteristics they display.  That or you make terrible fruit salads and all your friends hate doing dinner round your place.

[Captain...]

You haven't though.  Good job ignoring my post which showed you as much though.  I'll expand:

 

Tomatoes are a fruit, much like your apples, bananas, pears etc.  You'd have to be a bit of a mad man to stick them in a fruit salad though because though some things may fall under the same general grouping, the way we respond to them needs to vary based on the individual characteristics they display.  That or you make terrible fruit salads and all your friends hate doing dinner round your place.

 

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

[stulcfc]

Okay, so I agree with what you are saying. I agree that there was more in the Thai incidents as the other two wouldn't have been sacked, but you can break it down. The prostitution stuff is low and vile, although I think arguably more complex than some people here would acknowledge as there are different attitudes towards the two in two different countries. It's illegal but not enforced.

 

I would agree that 'them' filming it as opposed to 'someone else' filming Vardy is hardly relevant.

 

The fact that it was on a tour in Thailand and not somewhere else - well, couldn't you fairly argue that this is also double standards? It's fair enough to expect certain standards of your players that are in the public spotlight wherever they happen to be and under whichever circumstances. The fact that he isn't 'at work' is irrelevant, I work for a profession and I can be dismissed for that profession for the way I act outside of work - people often are. It's no different with footballers.

 

I'm not presenting any of that as fact, merely an opposing view to the ones listed above.

 

For ME, the worst thing about the Thailand incident was the racism, and other stuff aside I think the dismissal would have still been the right option. Likewise I feel the same way about the Vardy issue. I see the difficulty of the situation and the the club is caught between a rock and a hard place.

 

My frustration is more borne out of the fact that an entire industry talks so much about trying to get racism/sexism/homophobia out of the game but does **** all about it. It's time for football to catch up. I know that makes my view unpopular on here but I genuinely think had this been a player from another club there would be a lot more people saying the same thing, or at least willing to engage with the issue a little more than dismissing people as idiots.

just out of interest what is your profession? I'm guessing labour councillor

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

You haven't though.  Good job ignoring my post which showed you as much though.  I'll expand:

 

Tomatoes are a fruit, much like your apples, bananas, pears etc.  You'd have to be a bit of a mad man to stick them in a fruit salad though because though some things may fall under the same general grouping, the way we respond to them needs to vary based on the individual characteristics they display.  That or you make terrible fruit salads and all your friends hate doing dinner round your place.

Do you understand the difference between incidental and defining characteristics? You are so clueless that you don't recognise you are making the exact point I am making. I haven't ignored any posts, I am responding to half a dozen people here and I am on my mobile, some posts are bound to slip through the net. Believe, nothing about your dull contributions could cause me to abdicate from the discussion.

[Carl the Llama]

It's official, he's a loon with no ability to comprehend dissenting views to his own (as if you needed me to confirm it).