License Re-Vicked
The court of public opinion has officially condemned Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick. Under Federal Indictment for running a dog fighting ring, Mr Vick is now dealing with that accusation (and as of now, that's all it is).
Nike decided not to release the latest version of Mr Vick's shoe.
PETA and the HSPCA are on him like an angry linebacker. From Dan Shannon, an assistant director of campaigns for PETA. "We don't think their 'wait and see' attitude goes far enough." I assume by "wait and see" they mean "wait and see" if he's actually found guilty of the crimes he's accused of committing. But, honestly, I get Mr Shannon's emotion. I totally disagree with his request, but it's not at all surprising that he wants to destroy a man before he's been found guilty. However, when a US Senator jumps on the "guilty until proven innocent" bandwagon I get a little more chilled. Says Sen John Kerry (D-MA)
On behalf of millions of sports fans and dog lovers, I urge you to treat Mr. Vick's dogfighting indictment with the very serious attention it deserves and suspend him from the league until the resolution of legal proceedings.But wouldn't suspending him before he's found guilty just mean that the allegation is equivalent to guilt? I get that "innocent until proven guilty" is not explicitly stated in the USC, but the principle is about as American as any principle gets. For Mr Kerry to jump ahead of due process, which is spelled out, and urge the suspension of Mr Vick before the trial even begins is a tad alarming. Using Mr Kerry's logic, any accusation should result in penalty. Not sure I can endorse that. (Quick aside, Mr Kerry repeatedly condemned Mr Bush's handling of Guantanamo Bay -rightly so- but is OK with punishing Mr Vick based on nothing more than accusations. Not the same, certainly, but very similar.)
Finally, the NFL acted. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "temporarily" suspended Mr Vick, telling him to stay away from training camp. Yes, Mr Vick will still get his pay, but is that the point? He will lose training time with his teammates, the suspension will certainly give the air of guilt to those same teammates, and the combined effect of both of those actions will certainly affect his on field performance (assuming an actual suspension isn't in the works). That will cost him, and that cost is potentially huge (if he loses his contract that alone is $130 mil, add in the fact that his endorsement value decreases if he's not on the field, and it ramps up from there). Of all the third parties involved, I feel most for Mr Goodell. It's an almost impossible situation. Allow Mr Vick to continue as if nothing happened and your fans go nuts, hurting the image and revenue of the league (his primary responsibility). Suspend Mr Vick and you set yourself up for having to answer why any player accused of any misdeed isn't similarly treated. Keep in mind, the NFL is a league where drug and sexual abuse allegations occur yearly. The next time a player is accused of sexual abuse, Mr Goodell will find himself having to explain why dogs get more attention than women. At least if he sticks to the "due process" clause, he avoids that. Furthermore, I believe, most American's will eventually understand and respect that path. Over the short term its easier to suspend Mr Vick, but its wrong, and will open up a whole new can of worms. (When I say "wrong" I mean it in the civic sense. I know that the NFL has the clauses built into all contracts to make the move. It's contractually correct, but civicly suspect.)
Just so PETA stays off my back. I have two dogs, and the idea of dog fighting makes me ill. If Mr Vick is found guilty (and for the record, that's my bet), he will find no defender here. My point is that due process is not on a sliding scale of heinousness of accused crime. It's not, "speeding ticket = due process" and "dog fighting = destruction of reputation and earning power." At some point, as a nation, we need to decide if American core principles are indeed core principles. If they are, then someone accused of dog fighting, or terrorism, should have the same rights as someone accused of shoplifting or fraud.
I say let Mr Vick play until he's found guilty. Then drop the hammer.
4 comments:
Consider what Goodell and Blank perhaps know about Vick that we don't, and don't forget Billy "White Shoes" Johnson:
http://www.ajc.com/falcons/content/sports/falcons/stories/2007/07/21/0722vickbio.html
"Johnson was a star receiver and kick returner for the Falcons in the 1980s. Four years after retiring, he returned as coordinator of player programs. His duties include helping rookies adjust to professional athletics and, since 2001, keeping the Falcons' best-known player out of trouble.
In January 2002, for instance, Vick had twice failed to appear in court for a parking citation. A Clayton County judge threatened to jail him if he didn't show up a third time.
So Johnson took him to court. After Vick paid a $260 fine, Johnson acted as his spokesman, telling a reporter the case was 'bogus.' He suggested Vick was treated more harshly because of his celebrity.
'It happens all the time,' Johnson said of the charge. Afterward, the near-jailing of the Falcons' highest-paid player received little news coverage.
The day that Vick's friends took Spencer's watch at the airport, a police detective called Johnson. According to police records, Johnson offered to have Vick bring back the watch the next day and to pay Spencer $450 for 'any inconvenience he may have encountered.' Phillips and Harris, Johnson told the detective, grabbed the watch because they thought it belonged to Vick.
The next day, Vick didn't show up with the watch. But Johnson met with Spencer and police officers. Spencer, who could not be reached for comment last week, later said he felt pressured to not file a police report as Johnson tried to negotiate a payment to him.
Johnson did not respond to several messages left at his office by a reporter last week.
Spencer later said that Johnson and the officers kept him in a room for several hours, apparently less interested in retrieving his watch than in protecting Vick. He said Johnson asked him 'what would make me happy.' At one point in the conversation, records say, Johnson offered Spencer as much as $1,000.
'He's got Billy in there blocking for him and he probably has no intention of returning my watch,' Spencer later said. 'I felt betrayed by the whole process.'
Spencer filed a complaint with Atlanta police over the handling of the case. When investigators submitted written questions to Vick, Johnson e-mailed back: "Mike will not participate in the investigation under advisement from his attorney.'
The detective said Spencer tried to get as much as $20,000 from the team and that he didn't submit a formal report because 'Mr. Spencer stated he and Mr. Johnson could settle this matter.'"
Yeah, Spencer sounds shady, but that's the Michael Vick "E True Life Story" in a nutshell: a franchise face again and again letting his ass show in bad-to-worse light. He's paid to look, by association or otherwise, better, and the Falcons indisputibly gave him more help than any grown man's due.
"Due process" initially was my knee-jerk, but you know what? That's what the law, not the league, owes him. Goodell owes him only the contractual terms to which Vick and his "people" agreed. If Goodell's acting within his rights, Vick's ain't his business.
What Goodell and Blank--especially Blank--no doubt know is a career of bad choices and bad company only are worth adding up against the bottom line; I'm sure they tallied an addend or two more than what was publically known, but privately tolerated. There's no blood on Blank's hands, but bet that they're dirty sweeping Ookie dookies under the rug.
Billy "White Shoes" Johnson: Sez who "Irony's dead?"
Do over:
http://www.ajc.com/falcons/content/sports/falcons/stories/2007/07/21/0722vickbio.html
One last shot 'fore we quit it:
http://www.ajc.com/falcons/
content/sports/falcons/stories/
2007/07/21/0722vickbio.html
What do Billy "White Shoes" Johnson and Alberto Gonzalez have in common...http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Paper_details_Gonzaless_decade_of_dishonesty_0730.html
Post a Comment