Apparently, today is the last day of Michael Vick’s sentence for running a dog fighting ring and all the attendant atrocities that go hand in hand with such an enterprise. The big debate now is whether Vick can, should or should be allowed to return to the NFL. I’ll be honest; I don’t really know how I feel about Vick’s return to football. I think, THINK mind you, that I am against it. But that’s not why I’m writing this. Maybe Vick should be allowed to play football again and maybe he shouldn’t. What I am writing about it this:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jim_trotter/07/20/vick/index.html?eref=sihpT1
Now, to be clear, I do believe in second chances. Hell, I believe in third chances where warranted. But I have a real problem with the tone of this column written by Jim Trotter. This column makes it sound like Vick has some sort of right to play in the NFL and that just isn’t so. The great logical leap Trotter makes is that Vick deserves the right to “make a living” (agreed, by the way, Mr, Trotter) and then the seeming assumption that the only way Vick could possibly earn “a living” is in the NFL. Now, my reading of the salary cap/minimum salary chart I located would appear to suggest that if Vick were to come back and play this season, it would be for at least $620,000. That is one hell of “a living,” especially when you consider that the average national salary in the United States hovers around $50,000 per year.
Again, I agree that Vick has the right to earn a living wage, but that does not mean he has the right to play in the NFL again. Why can’t he apply for financial aid (if he is so strapped) and go back to school, finish his degree and find a job in whatever field he chooses? Is he too good for manual labor? My guess is that he’d make a hell of a great youth counselor, given the depth and breadth of life experiences he has to draw from. There are a lot of things Michael Vick can do that don’t entail playing in the NFL.
Trotter talks about the hypocrisy that would run rampant if Vick was denied an opportunity to play while such degenerate losers like Art Schlichter, Leonard Little, Bam Morris and Tamarick Vanover were allowed chances to return to the league for such infractions as gambling, drug trafficking and “murder.” What Trotter does here is play a little game to increase the “value” of the crime committed by Little (manslaughter stemming from a drunk driving incident) by saying that in his (Trotter’s) mind, manslaughter committed while driving drunk is the same thing as murder. Well Mr. Trotter, I have news for you, no matter how you view it, the law doesn’t think it’s the same thing at all. AT ALL. Your opinion doesn’t matter any more than mine as to what Little SHOULD have been charged with or convicted of. The law does make that distinction and while it’s a neat trick to manipulate words like you did and enable yourself to call Little a “murderer,” that is simply not the case.
Now, to be clear, I am not defending Leonard Little or what he did. I don’t think HE should have been allowed to return to the NFL either. But it’s disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst to say that Leonard Little was a murderer simply because of your personal views on the matter.
And reasonable minds can differ on this, but I think that what Vanover, Morris and Schlichter did, while reprehensible, was not as bad as what Vick did. Schlichter had a disease and that disease made him do lots of horrible things. Again, I’m not defending him, but having a disease is STILL a better excuse than anything Vick ever said by way of defending himself.
As for Morris and Vanover, well, they sold drugs. Also illegal (although many people think it shouldn’t be. Their opinions don’t matter any more than Trotter’s opinions about how manslaughter is the same thing as murder, by the way.). But while selling drugs is illegal, they were only providing a product people wanted and continue to want. They didn’t, as far as I know, force anyone to use the drugs they supplied. Vick abused and slaughtered animals that he was supposed to be caring for. I don’t like Morris, Vanover or Vick, but if I had to pick which of them committed the greater crime, it’d be Vick, far and away.
And again, for the record, I don’t think that THOSE guys should have been reinstated either.
While Trotter’s column doesn’t really hit on the “Vick has paid his debt to society” angle, that will no doubt come up as people try to lobby Roger Goodell to allow Vick to come back to the league. And he has. Vick has no additional responsibility to society insofar as his dog fighting career is concerned. But the NFL is not “society” and society is not the NFL. The NFL isn’t bound to give Vick the same chances society gives (but the NFL also wasn’t allowed to imprison Vick, for that matter). But here is a rough analogy: I am a lawyer and if I were to be convicted of damn near any felony, dog fighting, drug trafficking or vehicular manslaughter, I would almost certainly lose my license to practice law. And I would lose it for good in a very efficient disbarment process. I wouldn’t get it back and my name would be stricken from the roll of attorneys in my home state and any other state where I had a license would honor that disbarment as well. Never mind that I might pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines, live in a prison for years and have all the attendant issues from that incarceration. I’d lose my license and even if I got my criminal record expunged and got a Presidential pardon, I’d probably still never get my license back because my “debt to society” is not the same thing as my responsibility to the bar. My state supreme court has a different responsibility than the criminal justice system; the court is there to protect both the public and the institution of justice from dirtbag felons like me. Similarly, Roger Goodell’s portfolio is not the protection of the public so much as it’s the protection of the National Football League. He doesn’t have to let Vick in simply because the US government says that they are square with Vick any more than the state of Kansas has to let me practice law again simply because I did my time for whatever felony I committed.
Maybe Vick should get back in and maybe he shouldn’t. I still don’t really know. But I’d be a lot more convinced if people would quit making it sound like football is the only useful purpose Vick could ever serve. That thinking insults my intelligence and it insults Vick’s humanity. You also won’t persuade me by comparing Vick to other scumbags and arguing that he is no more a scumbag than they; perpetuating mistakes and bad decisions is not a good reason for the making of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Probably one of the best articles I've read on the Michael Vick issues. One note: I don't believe that he served any time for direct animal cruelty, merely for financing the operation and sharing in the proceeds, a sticking point for the animal community. I have decided that whether or not he comes back to play is not my decision, but I would not feel comfortable watching him in a game. Since you are a lawyer, maybe you could answer, shouldn't conviction under RICO for participation and profiting from an illegal gambling activity be a deal-break factor in his return, or lack thereof?
You're right, of course, he was only charged with his role in the dogfighting ring and not with animal cruelty.
As for his RICO participation being a bar to playing again, I think that's really up to the NFL more than it's a legal question. They can set whatever rules they want in terms of eligibility although they have some pretty obvious reasons for wanting them to remain stringent. If he were allowed back despite gambling issues, I assume the NFL could let him in if they want, but the damage to the credibility of the game would most likely be significant.
Thanks for your kind words. I don't get too many comments, but when I do, they motivate me to increase my snail-paced posting.
Post a Comment