My bet? Dallas will pick him up. Jerry Jones will take anyone, especially if it’ll give him a chance to get on TV.

No conundrum: he’s a celebrity, and gets to operate under different rules. The only unusual thing here was that the crime was so over-the-top outrageous to male sports fans that his time-out from the NFL went a little longer than usual (say for domestic assault or rape).

He’s earned a second chance, but people should remain very wary of him.

he’s a celebrity, and gets to operate under different rules

I don’t see any sign of that.  I suspect a noncelebrity might have gotten off more lightly than 18 months in a federal prison.  Compare also Donte Stallworth.  I certainly don’t see any basis for a life ban from the NFL for committing a crime not related to football—people who serve their time ought to be able to rehabilitate themselves afterwards.

Yes, he deserves a second chance. I am glad that the terms of his probation include not being allowed to own animals because the man shouldn’t have so much as a goldfish for the rest of his life. But he does have a right to earn a living in the way he knows how if someone is willing to hire him. And as part of his reinstatement, the NFL should insist that he volunteer at the Humane Society during the off season.

And I hope the Lions pick him up. They need all the help they can get.

Gracchus, good point. Dogs cannot be called gold-diggers, scorned women, or ask for it, so they are seen as more trustworthy than human women.

And I’m tentatively throwing in with folks who say that he should be allowed to earn his living.

Pam, what would you suggest, a lifetime ban?

His reinstatement is conditional, and right now he’s only guaranteed that he can appear in the last two preseason games, if a team is willing to sign him.  (Think: Minnesota Vikings.)  Then, if he keeps his nose clean, the league might clear him to play in the regular season.  He’s got to prove himself to be a good citizen at this point.

I have a hard time picturing you as someone who wouldn’t want to give an ex-con a second chance, so I’m assuming here that the problem is that you are reluctant to see this ex-con get a second chance in a publicly-visible position.  Am I close on that?

If Mr Vick gets a second chance, it will be saying that ex-cons should and do get second chances.  Denying Mr Vick a chance to practice his profession is sending the message that no, we don’t give ex-offenders a chance to earn a living doing what they do best after prison.

Do we really shun anyone from public life anymore? For anything?

Bill Bennett got back on TV in less than a year after blowing $10 million of his family’s money on gambling.

Elliot Spitzer is now some kind of consultant on MSNBC despite visiting prostitutes while he was enforcing laws against prostitution.

Now Michael Vick gets back in the NFL.

If Bernie Maddoff wasn’t in jail for the rest of his life he would no doubt be a pundit on CNBC in about two years.

RMJ, I think I remember a sports columnist somewhere who made exactly that point when the Vick story originally broke—the dogs were getting more sympathy from sports fans and writers than any of the women abused or raped by sports stars.

I think the biggest issue for teams is that hiring Vick is going to worlds of unrelenting bad publicity—not just initially, but all season long. They’ll have to deal with protestors, angry sports columnists, season ticket holders who’d prefer to get a refund than watch a game with the infamous dog-killer. They’ll have to deal with angry teammates and coaching staff. Vick isn’t a linebacker who can keep his head down on the field and do his job quietly—he’s a quarterback, and he’s the center of attention every snap.

Every time the team loses, fans and sportswriters will ask the coach and the owner “Was Vick worth it? You paid millions for a dog-killer, and he can’t even get us into the Super Bowl?”

D C Fem wrote:

And I hope the Lions pick him up. They need all the help they can get.

I think that they’re going to stick with their first round draft pick there. 

If Mr Vick wasn’t even allowed to sign until mid-season, it would be wide open: which team’s QB has failed miserably.  But if he’s signed soon, it’ll have to be with a team that sees a real problem at quarterback; that’s why I’m guessing the Vikings.

I think we need to reframe this question:

Do ex-cons deserve to be able to work.  We can’t bray and moan that black men are locked up in droves and then barred from work, and then turn around and say “that Michael Vick shouldn’t be allowed to return to his job because ... he’s Michael Vick ... and ... his job is Pro Football”.

Consistency, please.  Sorry, but I have to say that I’m with Dana on this one.  It isn’t like his NFL job is at all related to his offenses.

Do we really shun anyone from public life anymore? For anything?
Bill Bennett got back on TV in less than a year after blowing $10 million of his family’s money on gambling.

Bennett’s sin wasn’t the waste, but the hipocrisy—he criticized gambling and was addicted to the same. If he had just blown the 10 mil, he’d just be a fool with a disease.

Elliot Spitzer is now some kind of consultant on MSNBC despite visiting prostitutes while he was enforcing laws against prostitution.

A little better, but frankly, prostitution is a pathetic crime. What he should have done was murder half a million brown people overseas—that wouldn’t even qualify as impropriety.

The problem with the analysis here is that the scale is bass-ackward: I’d rather NONE of the people described here got kicked from public life at all if the alternative is they get kicked while the really awful people in public office commit war crimes and get praised.

Now Michael Vick gets back in the NFL.

Meanwhile, you can commit rape and still get back into professional sports (Tyson). Seriously. I don’t give a shit about Vick. If we can’t keep a convicted rapist out of public life, Vick most certainly should play. The alternative is a de facto position that dogs > people, a position more foul than Vick’s own crime.

So do get back to me once we’ve stopped giving celebrity rapists, murderers, and war criminals free passes.

I seriously doubt football is the only thing Vick can get a job at. Surely a sewage treatment plant somewhere could use him?

I think there’s a big difference between “served his time” and “served his time and should therefore be restored to the greatest heights of fame, fortune, and fawning fans”.

Still, it’s not up to me, because the NFL doesn’t care what I think. If enough of the fans are outraged, he won’t be signed (it’s a business, after all), but I don’t think enough of humanity to give a damn that, you know, he killed dogs. Because, really, he served some time, or something. Isn’t that good enough to forgive him?

Hell, at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if they reinstated a football player convicted of killing babies, as long as his arm was good.

However, isn’t it the folks like Dana who constantly carp about how sports figures are role models?  And that’s what I’m not seeing considered here, which is fine by me if we’ve now given up on that idea.  But I guess we need to state it explicitly.

I reluctantly have to side with Dana too (ugh). Animal cruelty squicks me out (I used to be involved in AR) but I would be a piss poor prison reform activist if I didn’t at least let the man have a shot at showing he’s rehabilitated… Still, I have a hard time believing he is, considering the nature of his acts.

what would you suggest, a lifetime ban?   yes, without hesitation.  What? the ONLY job he can get, anywhere, is playing pro-football?

At one time, most teams and leagues had extremely strong morals clauses in player contracts, because the players were viewed as representatives and the public face of the the team or league (the same situation was in place in the old Hollywood studio system). The higher the profile (e.g. team captain/QB/goalkeeper), the greater the restrictions. And needless to say, it only applied to situations where the athlete/star was caught red-handed and a cover-up wasn’t possible.

That morals-clause situation changed for a number of reasons, with both positive and negative results. We see here illustrated one of the negative results, and Vick’s re-admission into the NFL says more about the league than it does about Vick.

Now we’ll see which team wants to be associated with a torturer of animals. The Giants and Jets say no, but that’s only two teams. Let’s see how the “free market” exercises its supposed benevolence and virtue in this case

Pam, what would you suggest, a lifetime ban?

Actually, I didn’t lodge an opinion either way, though Pete Rose was banned for flipping betting on baseball—and no lives were lost there. It apparently boils down to whether people think killing domestic animals means more than tossing down cash with a bookie on your sport.

However, the man needs to be able to earn a living. Re-employment with a high profile position on an NFL team is more than a job—it’s for better or worse, a way for someone to obtain the label as role model. Some team will sign him, and those who feel he doesn’t deserve a chance will picket or boycott the team, and others will pay to see him play. I don’t see an easy answer to this.

My anger at this point lies more in what he and people like DMX have done to harm the reputation of pit bulls (and similar breeds), and to giving any legitimacy to dog fighting as some kind of proof of his manhood. We have enough pathology surrounding equivalence of manhood to violence and ignorance in minority communities. Vick’s “rehabilitation” needs to include being a spokesman not only against animal cruelty, but to get rid of breed-specific legislation that permits APBTs to be killed at shelters because 1) no one wants to adopt them and they are euthanized; or 2) they are bred to be a menace and are put down.

I’m actually torn on this one. As an animal lover, I was sickened by what he did to those dogs (there was actually a great story in SI a few months ago about how some of the dogs were saved and are being rehabed at foster homes around the country). I wouldn’t have minded seeing him banned from football forever. At the same time though, what do you do when someone commits a crime, is found guilty, serves their time & is released? Continue punishing them by not allowing them to pursue their chosen career? I was thinking about this while reading Amanda’s post about Ben Rothlesberger (sp?). I’m a huge sports nut, but I don’t know if I’d like “my team” to be the one to sign Vick, even though he is a very good football player. I’d like to think he really has turned over a new leaf though.

Second chance at life; yes.  At football?  No.  Never.  Ever.  No more hoodlums or thugs in sports.  They are, or should be, rôle models.

I would never attend a game where he was on the field.  If some team takes him I hope they get picketed forever.  I hope their sponsers get boycotted.

I think this case is indicative of the screwed-up priorities of our society at large.  We are letting torturers and mass murderers (of human beings) walk free among us with little or no complaint (we’re just moving forward from that, letting bygones be bygones).  Some of them will earn money just from writing and talking about their exploits.  Yet we actually take time and energy to question whether a convicted dog-killer (who has served his time) should be allowed to do what he does best to earn a living.  I guess dogs are more valuable than ‘towel-heads.’  All who plan to boycott or picket any NFL event due to the presence of Michael Vick should first ask themselves if they expended the same energy and moral indignation when the Bush administration was killing innocent human beings (or when the Obama administration started doing the same).

Wait, Dana’s supporting forgiveness for a convicted felon? And Pam is wanting harsher punishment and banishment from society? Did I walk into the twilight zone here? Is it Opposite Day?

Interesting, I think the disagreement stems from those who view football as being different from other jobs or professions, in terms of ethical requirements.  I think that he should be allowed to play if a team will take him, because after getting out of jail people should be allowed to work again, that’s a no-brainer.  I think here we are seeing this view and then a “just not in football” view that doesn’t want him to be honored with fame etc. but would rather see him work at a more ordinary job.  Hopefully none of the posters here think he should be forever unemployed.  But I’m not hearing that.

Well, I can see the point about how it is problematic to honor someone who did what Vick did with further celebrity.  However, what message is more important? “Ex-cons don’t get special goodies” or “Ex-cons get to go back to their lives as best they can”? I think the latter is the message that is most important for people to hear.  And ultimately it will be up to teams whether they will take a chance on him.  So, I’m pleased with the decision especially since it’s not at all a free ride, he has to behave himself, and there is no guarantee a team will go for it—presumably they would have to be confident that he can and will behave himself before shelling out the money.

That’s what I think, anyway.

Wait, Dana’s supporting forgiveness for a convicted felon?

Oh, I’m sure if a pro athlete came out as gay or announced he was pro-choice, Dana would be yelling the loudest for a lifetime ban.

He went to jail, he’s in bankruptcy, he’s never allowed to own animals again.  He can play football, so why not let him?

Remember OJ’s note?  The man was a college graduate, but is barely literate b/c the only thing he could do and the only thing he was properly trained to do in college was play football.  I don’t know what Vick’s abilities and education are, but I can guarantee more time and effort were spent on football than anything else.

He hasn’t played in 2 years.  His skills have atrophied—they have to since he hasn’t seen full-speed NFL action, even if he’s worked out and tried to stay in shape.

He’ll always be the guy who tortured and killed dogs, which is worse than torturing and raping women in our society.  He’s not going to get endorsements unless he catches onto a team and wins a Superbowl.  Then it’s a great redemption story.

I guess I’m a “species-ist”, b/c I really see a difference in dogfighting and harming human beings.  Don’t get me wrong, dogfighting is bad, and what he did to those dogs is horrible—that’s why he deservedly went to jail for such a long time.  He’s prevented from owning animals in the future as a result.  I don’t see the point of continuing to punish him forever over cruelty to animals.

And Pam is wanting harsher punishment and banishment from society?

Why don’t people r-e-a-d? I said no such thing. I’ve suggested some steps that Vick could take as part of his PR rehab to actually do some good as a public figure if he’s signed by a team. There’s an opportunity here.

Having represented ex-cons in employment law cases where they were denied the opportunity to work just because they had a conviction, I say unreservedly that Michael Vick should be allowed to work for any team that will hire him.  One can argue over whether the sentence was adequate to the crime, but the fact remains that he did his time, and so should be allowed back into society.

The real problem is that the other 10 million or so people in jail or who have criminal convictions won’t get the same treatment and opportunities.

He went to jail, he’s in bankruptcy, he’s never allowed to own animals again.  He can play football, so why not let him?

I don’t think any of the teams will let him play. Not only are his skills in bad shape, but they’re not going to risk the negative publicity of having him as QB.

My guess: one of the southern teams will give him a well-paid (6-figure) assistant coaching or back-office “show-up” job for a few years so he can get out of bankruptcy, and that’ll be the end of his career in major-league football.

No more hoodlums or thugs in sports.  They are, or should be, rôle models.

I never understood how getting paid millions to run around with a ball qualifies you for role model status.  It’s just another job (albeit a grossly overpaid one, designed for narcissists), nothing more.

He’s not being forgiven, his crimes won’t be forgotten any time soon and his slate isn’t being wiped clean.  He’s being allowed to try to work in a field he once demonstrated talent and skill in.  He’s paid his debt, let him play if he still can. 

He’ll be on a short leash.

It’s just another job (albeit a grossly overpaid one, designed for narcissists), nothing more.

Actually with the kind of revenue the NFL pulls in, I estimate that many of the athletes are actualy underpaid.  The players are the reason that revenue is pulled in - from ticket sales, to broadcast rights, to logo licensing.  Almost nobody is tuning in to watch Jimmy Jones, and nobody buys an overpriced licensed jersey with a Pats logo because Robert Kraft owns the team.  The high salaries in the NFL are simply the result of labor (and make no mistake, the athletes are the labor here) demanding that they get a good chunk of the profit they create.

If anything, the real argument is with people who are willing to spend all the money that makes a bunch of guys playing with balls such a profit making machine.

Pam:

What Pete Rose did was the baseball equivalent of insider trading—in the grand scheme of things, not particularly heinous, but it does show him to be unsuited to continue in that particular line of work, since he can’t be trusted to play fair.

Vick (and, to be fair, convicted rapists like Mike Tyson) is in a somewhat murkier area—as heinous as crimes such as rape and systematic animal abuse are, they don’t directly have anything to do with sports, so what exactly is the criterion? I think at this point basically all you have are the role model arguments, which frankly are sufficient in my book given the nature of the job. I mean, in retrospect, you do get the occasional case like Ray Lewis where someone was found not guilty of a heinous crime and manages to make a decent second chance go of it, but Lewis wasn’t convicted. (Of course in Tyson’s case, he’s been a laughing stock ever since, and virtually all of his high-profile fights since then have been complete freakshows, which leads me to believe that calling him an embarrassment and his reinstatement a mistake is an extreme understatement.)

Charles Barkley’s comment in the 1990s about him not being a role model was well-intentioned but wrong. Moral turpitude should definitely be an issue for big-league pro sports, and frankly I’m all for cutting Vick loose and making him wish he’d paid better attention in his classes at college.

Mike Tyson should have never been allowed to play pro sports again, either, and if I had my druthers the media would shun Cheney, too. That kind of proves my point—no matter what crime you commit, you can still get paid millions in a one or two years despite it as long as you don’t go to jail, and the media will still take you seriously as if nothing happened.

Q of the day: Has Vick earned a second chance?

Um, what the hell has he done to earn one?  Prison for a few months and then house arrest (for someone who’s made an NFL-star salary for several years and thus can afford a lot of house)?  Statements of remorse that are dubious, at best, as to whether he actually means it or is more remorseful about getting caught?

The problem with rehabilitation and counseling and learning and second chances is that we’re not psychic.  We can’t tell if someone is sincere or acting.  Also, we’re proud creatures, and it’s a very hard thing to accept, emotionally, that you were wrong—-especially on this level.  Human psychology rewards holding onto the false belief that the problem isn’t you, it’s other people’s ridiculous standards—-and it punishes the realization otherwise, with shame and guilt and feeling sick at your own actions.  We don’t have a good system to get people past this.

If Michael Vick is serious about having had a change of heart and conscience, he can earn his second chance through working for the cause of helping what he’s previously hurt—-that is, what is mentioned above about his working with the Humane Society, but that being not a condition of his release or reinstatement but his earning of what has been given to him.  Otherwise what we have here is effectively class—-and celebrity—-privilege.

It’s a difficult problem—-what to do about an ex-con whose sentence is widely considered too low for the crime?  Prison is punishment and prevention—-but what happens when both run out?  What Richard Goblin says has merit here: to continue to punish someone who’s already served their time is vigilanteism and double jeopardy—-but a person who walks out of prison unchanged and undeterred from his original crime remains every bit as much a danger as when he walked in.  Second chance, to me, means trust from all comers on the level of before he was ever suspected of his crime, and this, I feel, has to be earned by more than prison time (which is mandatory). 

What earns a second chance is 1) an uncoerced apology for, and understanding of, the harm caused by the crime committed, 2) a steadfast refusal to do it again, and 3) some degree of volunteer work that involves either working against the phenomenon of similar crimes, or helping the victims of said crimes, (depending on whether the help of that person is helpful for victims of those crimes, which is often the case with human victims).

Prison is not restitution.  Prison alone does not constitute redemption.  It backtracks them, perhaps, moves them backward in their life’s path, metaphorically, to a point where they have not yet committed their crime, but unless they turn around and start walking in a new direction, they will be right back where they ended up.

I never understood how getting paid millions to run around with a ball qualifies you for role model status. It’s just another job (albeit a grossly overpaid one, designed for narcissists), nothing more.

Tell that to the advertising industry, which spends millions more on the basis of the idea (and to the leagues, which also pay lip service to the idea). They’re role models because that’s the sort of achievement our screwed-up society offers as a role model.

Actually with the kind of revenue the NFL pulls in, I estimate that many of the athletes are actualy underpaid.

No doubt. Especially when you also consider that many of these guys spend their relatively short careers having their bodies ground into hamburger, and spend the rest of their lives disabled by excruciating pain with no alternate careers to fall back on. They may make millions, but within 5 years of retirement most of them will have to spend the remaining decades of their lives living off their savings (and sound financial management is not a skill-set that the league, the teams, or the fans prioritise in an athlete).

Ms Kate wrote:

Sorry, but I have to say that I’m with Dana on this one.

And in other news, Hell has frozen over. 

Phylosopher wrote:

However, isn’t it the folks like Dana who constantly carp about how sports figures are role models?

I can’t speak for people “like” me, but I’ve never said that sports figures should be role models; I do recognize that they are to some people.

My feeling is that if Leonard Little is allowed to play, I don’t see keeping Vick out. Unless of course, you think killing dogs is worse that killing people.

I have the same ambivalent reaction as Pam and a lot of other folks.  My reservations come from the fact that 1) a lot of people didn’t take his actions seriously and thought it was no big deal and I’m not sure I’ve heard anything from him that indicates that he recognizes the gravity of having tortured and killed (and subsidized the torturing and killing of) dogs. 2) Right or wrong, being an athlete does make him a role model of sorts and therefore seeing him in the NFL just further reinforces point #1.  Animal cruelty is not taken seriously enough, IMO.  And I do believe in rehabilitation and I don’t agree with disenfranchising felons nor do I think they should be stigmatized for life but I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t say that I have a very hard time forgiving or forgetting with Vick.  Just as I doubt I will ever enjoy anything Chris Brown produces, even now that he has pleaded guilty and apologized and will presumably fulfill his punishment.  If Vick does do something (not just say something) to rehabilitate the image of pit bulls and to help animals I would have a much easier time forgiving him.

And my feelings about this have nothing to do with the fact that, yes, there are worse things he could have done.  Rape and war and torture of humans are all awful.  I have no idea what that has to do with Vick’s case.  All other crimes go unpunished until we can execute Dick Cheney?

Pam wrote:

Actually, I didn’t lodge an opinion either way, though Pete Rose was banned for flipping betting on baseball—and no lives were lost there. It apparently boils down to whether people think killing domestic animals means more than tossing down cash with a bookie on your sport.

Pete Rose’s banishment is due to the fact that he actually bet on his own sport, and apparently bet on his own team while he was manager of the Reds in 1987.  Supposedly he always bet on the Reds to win, and here have been no allegations he ever threw a game, but gambling on your sport is the biggest offense in professional sports, because it impacts the integrity of the entire game.

That said, I think baseball ought to lift the ban on Mr Rose sufficiently to make him eligible for the Hall of Fame, but with possible restrictions against him ever managing again.  (Not that he was a particularly successful manager anyway.)  But it’s also true that I’m a Cincinnati Reds fan, and my opinion on that might be biased.

Ben D wrote:

Mike Tyson should have never been allowed to play pro sports again,

Remember, Mr Tyson didn’t play for a team, but, as a boxer, was an independent contractor.  He had to be licensed to box by whatever state boxing commissions were appropriate, and he could have boxed overseas, but there was no team or league which had to pass judgement on him.

Dana, I agree with everything you’ve said on this thread—surprising myself here—but I don’t understand why you’d ban Pete Rose from being a manager.  It’s a totally moot point because no baseball owner would hire him for the job, and what are you worried about?  Unlikely he’d resume his betting habit.

I never understood how getting paid millions to run around with a ball qualifies you for role model status.  It’s just another job (albeit a grossly overpaid one, designed for narcissists), nothing more.

Sooo….

Should we let someone like this represent us on one of our Olympic teams?  They are rôle models whether they wish it or no.  What Mr. Vick did was depraved.  Most serial killers started out by torturing animals.  I’m ashamed to be the same species as that man.  I’m not particularly a dog person but that was so heinous as to be obscene.  If sports isn’t all it should be perhaps we can make it that way.

Charles Barkley’s comment in the 1990s about him not being a role model was well-intentioned but wrong. Moral turpitude should definitely be an issue for big-league pro sports

This is really a systemic issue.  Barkley is absolutely right - he is not a role model.  In fact, he is telling everyone that (1) he does not self-define as a role model and (2) you should not hold him out as a role model.  When someone tells us that they are not a role model, we should probably take him or her at their word and be done with it.

Why the hell our society has decided that athletes (like Barkley) are role models is beyond me, but we need to stop.  Being able to play a kids’ game better than all the other adults is not something which we should deify or to which we should aspire.  Yet we continue to do this.

And no, “moral turpitude” and other vague phrases should not be in employment contracts period.  There are still parts of the country where having gay sex or straight sex outside of marriage are considered moral turpitude.

My thought is that he’s served two years of time and is under a microscope.  If he actually does change, then, well, isn’t that the point?  That he did bad things, that he was appropriately sanctioned for them, and that he changed so as not to do them any more.

In addition, if this does work out, I think it’d be a huge argument in favor of a number of prison reforms, allowing many more much more deserving African-American men who don’t happen to be professional athletes a chance to have decent lives.  I’m willing to take that chance, and I hope the NFL is, too.

Herein lies the problem with “letting him play football is too good for him”:

Firstly,  football has little, nothing to do with his original offense.

Second, and more important, who decides what occupations are appropriate for which sort of people?  If he’s good at it, can find employment, and meets the conditions of parole, where do you draw the line on what is “too good for a con”?  Or, for that matter, “too good” for any and many sorts of people?  It is a very fuzzy concept, IMHO - way too fuzzy to frame an acceptable argument around, let alone a workable one.

Pete Rose?  He was banned because his return to sport meant returning him to the scene of his particular crimes - sort of like making Vick a dog track manager.

When someone tells us that they are not a role model, we should probably take him or her at their word and be done with it.

I am not the bloody messiah!

Should we let someone like this represent us on one of our Olympic teams?

The Olympics are just the standard athletic self-aggrandizement with a few layers of self-righteousness added for good measure. 

Basically, I agree with Gracchus.  Professional sports (including the Olympics) exist to sell ad space.  Society would be better off if we treated it as such.

The moral superiority parade over Michael Vick is pretty funny. Michael Vick did harm and even torture animals. However, the meat industry also harms and tortures of animals. If you eat their meat, you’re complicit.

If you wonder if Michael Vick has truly paid his debt to society, perhaps the real question is: Have you?

I think here we are seeing this view and then a “just not in football” view that doesn’t want him to be honored with fame etc. but would rather see him work at a more ordinary job.

What I object to is the notion that certain jobs are too *good* for *certain* people.  If a job conflicts with the criminal past, then, that’s a condition of release and screening by employers.  It gets all too easy to go from “this job is too good for a criminal” to “this job is whites only”.

Should we let someone like this represent us on one of our Olympic teams?

Well, didn’t a whole lotta people ask that question when Magic Johnson had been touring around plugging his magic johnson into the groupie pool and caught himself a whopping HIV infection?

<cite>Should we let someone like this represent us on one of our Olympic teams?</cite>

We let meat eaters on our Olympic teams. In fact, we let our Olympic athletes do ads for McDonald’s, who, like Michael Vick, tortures animals.

Except, schism, we don’t.  Sports isn’t about, at the end, who wins or loses.  It’s about achievement, striving.  If all the Olympics are to is what you said, how would you suggest we celebrate the human spirit.

This little article from Sports in Society (2007) says it best.

Last week Cal Ripken Jr., was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, and in is acceptance speech, he addressed the issue of athletes and being role models. “As years passed, it became clear to me that kids see all, not just some of your actions but all,” Ripken said. “Whether we like or not, we big leaguers are role models. The only question is, will it be positive or will it be negative? Should we put players up on pedestals and require that they take responsibility? No. But we should encourage them to use their influence positively to help build up and develop the young people who follow the game. Sports can play a big role in teaching values and principles. Just think. Teamwork, leadership, work ethic and trust are all part of the game, and they are also all factors in what we make of our lives.”

Kids are like sponges, they absorb everything, both positive and negative. A seven year old who follows the Michael Vick situation may be thinking, if he abused animals and he is a quarterback in the NFL, then what is the big deal if I do it? Kids may see baseball players and other professional athletes taking steroids, and they are succeeding, why shouldn’t I dope and get the same results? Cal Ripken is right, athletes whether they like it or not are looked up too, and they are role models so they should do the right thing. They are very lucky to be in the position they are in, and they should always conduct themselves like it. Thank you Cal Ripken Jr., for being one of those positive role models, and thank you for telling other athletes their role. Now they just have too all listen.

Basically, I agree with Gracchus.  Professional sports (including the Olympics) exist to sell ad space.

I’d put it slightly differently: Professional sports (including the “amateur” Olympics) is in the business of selling ad space. Unfortunately, as in so many other aspects of our society, the business end of things (esp. marketing) has eclipsed and corrupted the quality of the product itself.

I wish our society, when presenting athletes and actors and musicians as role models, focused on the hard work and intense focus these folks have put in to achieve in their chosen professions. But instead, the focus is on the money and the bling and the fact that they’ve won some sort of deterministic cosmic lottery that made them instant stars, and gives them license to commit heinous acts while continuing/resuming their careers.

It’s the pernicious complement to the myth that anyone, regardless of talent, can be a celebrity.

If all the Olympics are to is what you said, how would you suggest we celebrate the human spirit.

The problem with the Olympics (and I’m saying this as someone who’s had the pleasure of spectating in person at two Games) is that it’s been hijacked by the business end of things. The IOC, at least since the days of Samaranch, is a hopelessly corrupt organisation, now in thrall to television and large crony sponsor corporations that care little about the mission you describe.

Anybody that does what he did to animals deserves to be out of prison only to be shunned by polite society for the rest of his sorry-ass fucking life.  I’d feel the same way if he’d raped somebody.

And this is the attitude of society in general, writ large, about all ex-convicts: you were convicted of crime X, so now you deserve to be spat on for the rest of your life.  I find the glee with which a lot of so-called liberals and feminists on this site have reveled in at the thought of Michael Vick being punished by the NFL after he has served his time, and before that reveling in Madoff being treated like shit in federal prison on an earlier thread really disturbing.  You should know better.  I find this desire to really “stick it to” Michael Vick and Bernie Madoff no better than the average jackass who thinks its funny to make prison rape jokes about people going to jail.  We don’t need to really “stick it to” people, ok? 

If you think we need to hound ex-cons when they are done serving their time or think that rape is an unofficial sentence enhancer then you are not a progressive.  I don’t give a damn about Michael Vick personally and I don’t care that much for professional sports (watching people playing a game on tv while sitting on your ass?  Boring!).  But the attitude on display here concerning Michael Vick comes from the same place as the general societal attitude towards ex-convicts in general.  And what I see manifesting here is the same attitudinal garbage that leads to regular ex-convicts being unable to reintegrate into the community after serving their time.

So get your yuks and your shattenfreude if you must, just don’t call yourself a ‘liberal’ or a ‘progressive’ afterward.

Richard, bang on.

I just wonder how many of us here have seen family members struggle with the CORI stigmata, even for minor bullshit.  I wonder if that makes a difference?

If the “lack of punishment” is an issue, that is best handled at the judicial level.  This pile on is ridiculous - and all the more so when it comes to “fit” jobs for convicts.  Given the disparate incarceration levels for minorities, why not just make certain nice jobs “whites only”, unless somebody can prove they are one of the few good minorities who is allowed?  Say it loud and proud if you are going to go there and do that.

what to do about an ex-con whose sentence is widely considered too low for the crime?  Prison is punishment and prevention—-but what happens when both run out?

Going to jail for animal cruelty is too low?  Vick served more time than many rapists.  He served much more time than the 300# cop that kicked the shit out the 110# bartender: he only got probation, though the conviction will cost him his job as a cop, thank heavens. 

Of course, the cop only beat and kicked the shit out of a woman who refused to serve him more beer, so, no harm no foul, right?

I don’t think Vick would have gone to jail over this crime at all if he were white.  But he did go to jail.  He’s served his time and is prevented from having “pets” in his care ever again.  Either we accept that he’s out and no longer a danger to animals and let him work, or we think it’s better to punish men who abuse animals forever while letting men who abuse women continue to work.

Staying away from all women is never a conditon of probation for men.

—————-
The difference, at least initially, for the Olympics is that they were founded precisely to create role models for a better world.  Part of their charter is to uphold ethics in sports.  We can argue about how commercialism has corrupted the games, but they at least have a written charter that includes ethical behavior as a requirement for the athletes.

I find the glee with which a lot of so-called liberals and feminists on this site have reveled in at the thought of Michael Vick being punished by the NFL after he has served his time, and before that reveling in Madoff being treated like shit in federal prison on an earlier thread really disturbing.

I can’t speak for the others, but I find it a silly notion that anyone would consider a lifetime ban from the NFL as a personal “punishment”—it would simply be the NFL defending its brand. As demonstrated numerous times in the past, it’s their judgment that their brand can encompass high-profile players who beat up or rape women. And now we’ve learned that it also welcomes back extreme animal abusers. It’s a stupid decision in my view, but I’m not part of their audience. In any case, I think the league is counting on the idea that no team will let Vick play on the field again (in order to protect their brands).

Vick has paid his legal debt to society under the law. That doesn’t mean that an NFL team is obligated to hire him back into a high-profile position—especially after he caused an equally high-profile PR nightmare that resulted in his criminal conviction. If he wants to consider that a “punishment,” let me accompany him with a gless-less tune on the world’s smallest violin.

As for Madoff, he hasn’t finished serving his term, and won’t for 150 years or so. He’s a convict, not an ex-convict. I’m obviously not in favour of prison rape, or any other cruel and unusual punishment as a fate. But it is prison, and if the thieving scumbag spends most of his remaining hours in a small cell, crowded in with a big unpleasant roommate, I’m not gonna cry for him—I’m just gonna forget about his rotting arse, which is more than his victims can do.

Richard Goblin @ 07/28 at 01:29 PM is right and, for bonus points, has an awesome last name (or at least his handle does).

Off topic: Romantic comedies are <strike>infernal evil</strike> bad for you:

On topic: Chomsky described sports as a distraction from our lack of affiliation for civil pursuits (I’m heavily paraphrasing here). Since sports are a distorted and cancerous part of our society in the first place, it’s rather difficult to put all of this into context. . . until you realize that Vick abused animals, not people. This is not a controversy. If you think Vick doesn’t deserve a pro athele’s salary, the subject is really who deserves a pro athelete’s salary in the first place. If you think Vick doesn’t deserve a pro athele’s fame, the subject is really who deserves a pro athelete’s fame in the first place. If you think Vick deserves more punishment, then you SHOULD think that he deserves more prison time. If you think that Vick has paid his debt to society but don’t want him in the NFL, I’d say you’re being a dick.

I’m not defending Vick, but if he owes anyone anything due to his crime, he doesn’t owe the goddamn NFL. He sure as hell doesn’t owe the fans; what, was he torturing ONLY the dogs belonging to football lovers? This is all very silly, and the conversation here is most useful where it addresses the sickening place of sports in or society in general.

The difference, at least initially, for the Olympics is that they were founded precisely to create role models for a better world.  Part of their charter is to uphold ethics in sports.  We can argue about how commercialism has corrupted the games, but they at least have a written charter that includes ethical behavior as a requirement for the athletes.

The Olympics charter is a good example of both the positive and negative aspects I was describing above regarding strict morality/ethics clauses: the IOC is unforgiving of public mis-steps by athletes when it comes to protecting its brand, but for at least the past 30-40 years the IOC has also considered those athletes its exclusive property, and has exploited that “property” to one degree or another (especially when the athlete isn’t willing to sublimate his own interests to the commerical mission).

If you wonder if Michael Vick has truly paid his debt to society, perhaps the real question is: Have you?

When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, and he looks you crooked in the eye and he asks you if ya paid your dues, you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol’ Jack Burton always says at a time like that: “Have ya paid your dues, Jack?” “Yessir, the check is in the mail.”

Chomsky described sports as a distraction from our lack of affiliation for civil pursuits (I’m heavily paraphrasing here).

The culture of professional and college sports can be pretty toxic, but when people on the left say things like this, it irks me because it people actually like playing as much as watching sports, and because it reinforces the stereotype that socially responsible = humorless (like the old, possibly apocryphal story about the hippies who vandalized the humor section at the Cambridge Booksmith because “these are not times for laughing”). Play is an important part of society, which is a case Amanda in particular has made here many times with her posts about music and sex, and people who deny that, even out of the best of intentions, are IMHO shooting themselves in the foot.

Sports are universal. What needs to change is the toxic culture of entitlement that surrounds their greatest practitioners.

Gracchus:

I’ve become rather cynical about the Olympics for several reasons. The first is that the ancient Olympics were very much professional endeavors, so the Eastern Bloc countries that were “cheating” weren’t really doing anything that would bother the Greeks. This ties into the larger issue of amateurism—the only thing that was lost was the founder’s creepy Anglophile classism that ensured only the rich or well-connected could be eligible.

The second is that the people running them seem to have no real sense of ideals at all, at least not since Samaranch in the 1990s. Admittedly, I think the 1980/1984 debacles probably contributed to that, but he was at the helm during the big SLC scandal, so…

1) Michael Vick should be allowed back in the NFL. None of his crimes were violations of the rules of football, let alone ban-worthy offenses. He has served out the punishment assigned to him by the appropriate bodies, and so his reinstatement is warranted.

2) If I were the owner of an NFL team, I would not hire Michael Vick, because of both the PR nightmare that this would cause, and my personal revulsion toward his conduct (not to mention my opinion that Vick was a criminally overrated NFL QB!). I would hope that my fellow owners would feel likewise, and that, between us, we could find 32 just-as-talented starting quarterbacks with less evidence of complete scumbaggery against them, but, obviously, that would not be my call to make for anybody else.

This, of course, could change; if in a year or two after his reinstatement he shows that he has seen the light about dogs and women (oh, how often we forget about Ron Mexico), he should absolutely be welcomed back with open arms (to any team that wants someone who hasn’t developed at all since Virginia Tech). If anybody, right now, is really intent on rushing in to hire him, I don’t really understand why.

Look this guy severely damaged his marketability, and that carries its own punishment.  If somebody hires him to play football, it won’t be for the money he used to command.  And, it’s perfectly legitimate for a team to conclude that people aren’t going to want to pay money to watch him play football.  It’s also legitimate, and even more likely, that no one is going to want to pay him to endorse their product—sales of Vick jerseys will be way down.  But, having the league ban him, ruling that he won’t be allowed to make a living using his skills, is not how we want to handle ex-cons, as a general rule.

The culture of professional and college sports can be pretty toxic, but when people on the left say things like this, it irks me because it people actually like playing as much as watching sports. . .

. . . neither of which are at issue. The problem is that enthusiasm, even violent enthusiasm, for sports is socially acceptable while similar passion for the rights and health of one’s fellow man is considered bizarre.

. . . and because it reinforces the stereotype that socially responsible = humorless

Eh, that’s a stretch on a good day. Bemoaning a lack of political passion =! a hatred of standup. It may = a hatred of puns, but that’s just good taste—whereas:

(like the old, possibly apocryphal story about the hippies who vandalized the humor section at the Cambridge Booksmith because “these are not times for laughing”).

. . . is simply fucking hilarious. YES. This should be done again.

Sports are universal.

Eh, no. Ubiquitous, sure. But this is a nit.

What needs to change is the toxic culture of entitlement that surrounds their greatest practitioners.

Absolute agreement. Of course, while we’re at it, we need to take out the culture of entitlement around celebrities, and the same culture of entitlement that buoys up the rich. Why do things by half?

as far as role models go, Vick is an outstanding role model, in a negative sort of way—the clearest example of a talanted person self-destructing from foolish machoism imaginable.

There’s a big ick factor here, truly, and at first I was disgusted to hear that Vick is eligible for the NFL again. It helped to hear on NPR this morning that at least he’s making all the right noises—apologizing, expressing regret, and working lots of community service hours with the Humane Society.

I think we have a responsibility to let him show whether or not he’s actually rehabilitated. If he violates the conditions of his parole, he’s going back to prison and will lose any hope of refurbishing his reputation/image.  But if he’s sincere and does what he’s supposed to do, he could be the kind of role model who could make a positive impact. Let’s give him a chance. If he screws it up, lock his ass up again, but if he comes through a changed and better man, then we all win, right?

i thought second chances were the basis for much of liberal values. it is to me. the idea of paying your debt and being given a chance to prove you can change. the idea that someone can go to prison, come out, and not be damaged goods forever. that’s what i thought it was about. no one’s saying he’s SAVED!, but uh, he deserves what our democracy has put in place: you do the crime, you do the time, you either make yourself better or don’t. and if you don’t, you’ll likely end up charged again. if he sticks to the life plan and keeps his nose clean? then good for him. you ‘ve seen the DOGS can be rehabbed, doesn’t every person who comes out of prison deserve the same chance?

@Gracchus (hopefully in the right thread this time!)

That morals-clause situation changed for a number of reasons, with both positive and negative results. We see here illustrated one of the negative results, and Vick’s re-admission into the NFL says more about the league than it does about Vick.

You couldn’t be more wrong about so-called morals clauses. The NFL head office actually has unprecedented control over player conduct and behavior outside league activities, more so than any other sport management apparatus. Anything a player does outside the league, even if it does not involve legal action or sanction, can be fodder for suspension, fines, or removal from the league altogether. The strict terms of Vick’s reinstatement are proof of this. In what everyday profession does an ex-convict have to provide for approval plans governing every aspect of their life, violation of which even a single one means an automatic lifetime ban froms said place of employment?

This is not to whine on Vick’s behalf. I rely on an assistance dog 24/7 and Vick’s crimes were horrifying and revolting to me, but he did the sentence, is conforming to all of the requirements thrown at him by both the league and the court, and the NFL is a cut throat enough business that someone will be willing to pay Vick to find out if he still has the talent to succeed in the league.

As for whether or not the league shows as much concern for players who abuse or rape women, I’d say absolutely not (Mike Wilbon’s column in the Washington Post made this very point today). But that failing on the league’s part shouldn’t be taken out on Vick. To be honest, I suspect his 2nd stint in the NFL will be a short one, which has everything to do with how his performance was trending when he was arrested and nothing to do with murdering dogs or recidivism.

The NFL is also aware of the PR problem. Notice Vick can sign right away, participate in practices and play in the last two preseason games, but then has to serve a 6 game suspension. The latter is not to further punish Vick, but to keep him out of sight as the season opens, which, other than the playoffs, is when NFL ratings are highest, and they don’t want the story of the dog killer front and center on opening day.

Yep, right thread.

The NFL head office actually has unprecedented control over player conduct and behavior outside league activities, more so than any other sport management apparatus.

Well, then, with that level of control it does indeed tell us about what the league considers acceptable for one of its players.

In what everyday profession does an ex-convict have to provide for approval plans governing every aspect of their life, violation of which even a single one means an automatic lifetime ban froms said place of employment?

As I noted above, being a high-profile QB is not an everyday profession. And the expectations in terms of public image are, fairly or not, commensurately higher. Even so, the NFL chose not to excercise its “unprecedented control over player conduct and behavior” when it came to Vick (or the parade of rapists and abusers), leading me to believe that the committment to the morals clause ain’t what it used to be (although, granted, the NFL is a young league, and I’m not as familiar with its history as the other leagues).

Now, we’ll see which team is desperate enough to take a PR risk on him.

As for whether or not the league shows as much concern for players who abuse or rape women, I’d say absolutely not (Mike Wilbon’s column in the Washington Post made this very point today). But that failing on the league’s part shouldn’t be taken out on Vick.

Agreed. Vick is but one example of many. Dog-abuse and wife-abuse aren’t equivalents, but they’re both considered heinous by general standards of human decency. Just not, apparently, by the standards of the NFL.

The NFL is also aware of the PR problem. Notice Vick can sign right away, participate in practices and play in the last two preseason games, but then has to serve a 6 game suspension. The latter is not to further punish Vick, but to keep him out of sight as the season opens, which, other than the playoffs, is when NFL ratings are highest, and they don’t want the story of the dog killer front and center on opening day.

Which is why any team that hires him will follow suit in sweeping him under the rug. It’s also why the best I see him getting is a back-office or low-profile asst. coaching job.

@Gracchus:

Glad to be on the correct thread now.

Which is why any team that hires him will follow suit in sweeping him under the rug. It’s also why the best I see him getting is a back-office or low-profile asst. coaching job.

I think you will be disappointed here. I expect Vick to play back up for much of this season for a team, which means his on field appearances may be few or none. If his skills remain solid (and they were solid, but not spectacular, prior to his arrest) he’ll likely start for someone at some point, because there are few enough high quality quarterbacks in the NFL, injuries happen, losing streaks happen, and the game is so predicated on winning, getting to the post season, and making money.

NFL fans may yet surprise me, and utterly reject Vick in a way that makes it impossible for a team to employ him on the field, but I doubt it. If that did happen, I’d consider it a problem of his own making, and not weep if he has to take a job outside of football altogether. That is separate and distinct from the league decision to offer him a chance to return.

As for what this says about the league, I admit I am not entirely sure what I think. There are conflicting currents in the league over players who have been involved in criminality, convicted or not, which have played out in unexpected ways with Vick. When news of his arrest first broke I expected it to be a national outrage for about five minutes, then settle down to a dull roar, then have him be admitted back to the league far sooner than what has actually happened. That he went to prison at all surprised me in a good way. That the league is allowing him a chance to return under pretty tight conditions did not surprise me - there is a trend of having players return if their off field behaviors/crimes are not deemed too terribly egregious or the media shit storm (which has a powerful signaling effect in pro sports) isn’t too severe.

Of course, this means the league’s application of its considerable powers over players has been incredibly uneven, to the point where the severity of the crime often seems unrelated to the league punishment. Those who have abused women seem to get off pretty easily, which is wrong, and belies the idea there is any sort of internal fairness involved in the process.

But I honestly have no issue with the league reinstating Vick now he is out of prison. If he has satisfied the courts and conforms to the conditions set down by court and by the league, then he should sink or swim by his own efforts going forward. As I said above, I predict his return will last a year, perhaps two, and its longevity will be determined more by his playing then by off field activities. I won’t say he is reformed, but I’ll bet he toes the line very carefully.

Unree wrote:

Dana, I agree with everything you’ve said on this thread—surprising myself here—but I don’t understand why you’d ban Pete Rose from being a manager.  It’s a totally moot point because no baseball owner would hire him for the job, and what are you worried about?  Unlikely he’d resume his betting habit.

Well, that’s just it: it is a gambling habit, an gambling addiction.  But this would be a middle ground which would let him resume official baseball connections, be eligible for the Hall of Fame (though even that’s a problem: he’d need 75% support from the 65 living Hall members, and there are a bunch who don’t want him in), but he wouldn’t be in a position of trust, one in which there could ever be questions about whether he was gambling again.

It’s fascinating that so many people believe that billionaire owners of sports teams are appropriate arbiters of morality.

1)  Michael Vick should be allowed to work his profession, bar none.  It is a destructive hypocrisy that invites quis custodiet ipsos custodes corruption to say otherwise.

2)  I laugh at the comparision to Pete Rose.  I’m reasonably sure Michael Vick is a better person than Pete Rose, because Rose is a fairly nasty character and a low bar to overcome.  Put aside the gambling, it’s a near certainty Rose went on further than just bet on his own team to win.  Also, Pete Rose once destroyed a player’s career in a meaningless play in a meaningless game.  Most interviews I’ve ever read from the man just screams sociopath.  I promise you, Pete Rose is not in jail because people were willing to cover for him.  MLB does not reinstitute him because there’s a whole lot more they know.  He’s not a Shoeless Joe Jackson.

3)  The NFL’s various teams over the years have let some pretty monstrous people play, many of them quite a bit worse than Michael Vick.  Moreover, right now there is a paucity of adequate quarterbacks in the NFL.  If Vick can show that he can play, he will most certainly get his chance to earn money again.

4)  NB:  The football player’s union is broken and serves the interest of the owners.  That has a role in events.

One point I’d like to make here: this was Michael Vick’s first offense.  If we are ever going to give ex-cons a second chance, first offenders should be the ones we give those second chances to first.  (Boy, that’s a strange sentence!)  If he screws up his second chance, then yeah, I’d say that the league ought to be done with him.

I think you will be disappointed here. I expect Vick to play back up for much of this season for a team, which means his on field appearances may be few or none.

That seems a waste of money, especially when there are ways of assessing his skills that don’t involve the PR risk of officially putting him in uniform or paying him millions of dollars. But we are talking about football team owners, so I can see that happening with a particularly stupid or desperate one.

NFL fans may yet surprise me, and utterly reject Vick in a way that makes it impossible for a team to employ him on the field, but I doubt it.

The Jets and Giants have made their opinion known. Antigone has offered a fair assessment of the Vikings. We’ll wait and see what the more desperate teams think about their own fans’ tolerance.

Of course, this means the league’s application of its considerable powers over players has been incredibly uneven, to the point where the severity of the crime often seems unrelated to the league punishment.

That’s because the league, like most powerful incumbent organisations, tends to use its morals-clauses against a player only when it benefits the league and owners, as opposed to the fan base or other players. See also the old Hollywood studio system.

But I honestly have no issue with the league reinstating Vick now he is out of prison

Not seeing a lack of re-instatement as a personal punishment but as brand protection, I don’t have much issue with it either way. I think it’s needlessly (for them) opened up a nasty can of worms for the NFL, as your ambivalence illustrates. But in the end, it’s a business decision, and perhaps they’re more concerned with showing players that they’ll take care of their own as long as the players bring in the revenue.

If someone can watch an animal in obvious pain, and even inflict that pain, without caring at all, I would be scared of that person.  It’s just inhuman.  I don’t think people who lack empathy can ever be “cured”.  I guess it’s unreasonable to suggest that he stay locked up forever, but I really think this is a sign of a much bigger problem and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he treated other people the same way.  I just don’t understand how someone can look into the face of a suffering animal and actually enjoy it.  There is something seriously wrong with this man.

I’m not sure how keeping him out of uniform somehow “hides” him for the first six weeks.  Either he’ll be on the sideline, in street clothes, and the networks will show him 18 times a game, or he’ll be kept off the sidelines, and then there will be continual stories about “Why are the Jaguars hiding Mike Vick?”

I can just imagine the following: he signs with a team, is anticipated as the backup to the starter, and then the starter has a season-ending injury in week 3.  All of the press will be about how the team will make it with the putz third-stringer until Mr Vick is eligible.

Not seeing a lack of re-instatement as a personal punishment but as brand protection, I don’t have much issue with it either way. I think it’s needlessly (for them) opened up a nasty can of worms for the NFL, as your ambivalence illustrates. But in the end, it’s a business decision, and perhaps they’re more concerned with showing players that they’ll take care of their own as long as the players bring in the revenue.

You are right - I am ambivalent about Vick, though not so much about the league decision to give him an opportunity to return. As for the PR problem, they are managing it in their ham-handed way as they do everything.

Watch carefully, though. If someone does hire him and he performs well and abides by the requirements of the court and of the league, he will be hailed by the NFL propaganda machine as an example of their mercy leading to rehabilitation. I think the way they have structured the terms of his return coupled with their near absolute power to remove him from the league at any time allows the NFL to adopt a wait and see attitude, and if it doesn’t work out, or Vick violates one of the terms, the league will find it easy to dismiss him from the game forever and say “well, we tried.”

As for owner’s wasting money on player potential - they do it every year in the draft and ridiculous free agency signings. Vick at least has something resembling a playing track record for them to go on.

I’m not sure how keeping him out of uniform somehow “hides” him for the first six weeks.  Either he’ll be on the sideline, in street clothes, and the networks will show him 18 times a game, or he’ll be kept off the sidelines, and then there will be continual stories about “Why are the Jaguars hiding Mike Vick?”

I can just imagine the following: he signs with a team, is anticipated as the backup to the starter, and then the starter has a season-ending injury in week 3.  All of the press will be about how the team will make it with the putz third-stringer until Mr Vick is eligible.

Players serving suspension are not allowed on the field, nor in uniform. I believe they cannot travel with the team either. The NFL has clearly thought this part of it out as best they can to minimize the initial PR impact on the brand.  There will still be coverage, but imagine how much more there would be were he on the sidelines Week 1.

They suspended him solely to keep him relatively out of sight and off the field during the league opening weeks, and as a way to low-profile him should he fuck up and violate the terms of his return, giving the NFL a chance to boot him before he ever wears a uniform on a Sunday.

If someone does hire him and he performs well and abides by the requirements of the court and of the league, he will be hailed by the NFL propaganda machine as an example of their mercy leading to rehabilitation.

Yep. That’s why they’re downloading the problem to the team owners. If Vick is hired and he doesn’t abide by the league’s terms (and/or the team’s), they can say “well, we tried to be nice.” If Vick is hired and behaves, you get the outcome you mentioned. Either way, it’s the hiring team that’s taking the risk.

I still don’t know if the league took a smart risk for itself here, though. The fact that the re-instatement has prompted non-fans and fans alike to start talking about the other nasty characters still allowed to play is not going to help their image. It also calls into question the whole chain of athlete entitlement that begins in college.

I guess everyone’s counting on the short attention spans of Americans. Which is a fair bet.

Vick at least has something resembling a playing track record for them to go on.

After 2+ years of inactivity? Say what you will about the draft picks and free agents, they’ve spent the last couple of years playing the game at a pro or semi-pro level.

I could see them tossing down 6-figures for the first year or two on the sidelines, but I doubt he’d accept that unless he was promised some major upside by both the league and the team.

So let’s let a former cop who commited a felony and did time get out and be a cop again?  It’s his “chosen profession.”  Not the same you say?  You’re right.  Michael Vick wants the keys to the magic kingdom back.  The bling, the limos, the entourage, etc.  Feh.  Hell no.  Let somebody else have the chance, some kid out of college.  Every single NFL contract has a moral turpitude clause in it.  It’s just that some teams are too greedy and/or stupid to exercise it.

Magis, it isn’t the same because the profession has something to do with the offense.  You can go back to your rightwing talking points all you want, but the reality is that ex-offenders have the right to rejoin society.

Period. 

Don’t like it?  Change the laws.  Just keep in mind where manditory minimum sentencing has gotten us, and the racist overtones of any punitive changes to the judicial system.

That’s my Cora, a rescue cat, staring out the front door making sure the neighborhood is safe from rabbits and chipmunks.  The way she blossomed after we brought her home has been nothing short of glorious.

I couldn’t ever forgive Vick.  He’s unworthy of forgiveness.

One could argue that Vick re-entering pro football is a double edged sword. Pro football players (especially those in positions that see a lot of hits) have a life expectancy 30 years shorter than the rest of us. Many of them end up with an 80-year-old’s dementia at 40.

I think the no animals ever clause is fair enough. Perhaps future romantic partners should be warned (I think this is sketchy, though). However odious Vick may be, I don’t think it’s my decision who does or does not deserve a second chance. Maybe someone else could do this, but not me. I’m glad I’m not a judge.

Magis, it isn’t the same because the profession has something to do with the offense.  You can go back to your rightwing talking points all you want, but the reality is that ex-offenders have the right to rejoin society.

You’re correct that an ex-cop can’t be re-instated after committing a felony, mainly because there are laws on the books to that effect. He re-joins society after paying his debt to it, but cannot re-join the force. Those laws exist for the good of society.

However, there isn’t any law preventing (or requiring) the NFL from re-instating a player after he commits a felony. He re-joins society after after paying his debt to it, but whether the league takes him back is up to the league (same for the team). That the league re-instated Vick had everything to do with their own interests, and little to do with society’s.

The NFL != society (thank goodness), even for a guy who built his career on joining the league before he screwed up and dealt it a major black eye. He’s lucky that the NFL is the kind of organisation it is, and that they have a fairly low opinion of their fans’ tolerance of violence off the field.

As I noted above, being a high-profile QB is not an everyday profession.

Gracchus: It’s a position created and governed by a union contract, subject to labor and employment law.  It is, in fact like any other union job.

I can’t speak for the others, but I find it a silly notion that anyone would consider a lifetime ban from the NFL as a personal “punishment”—it would simply be the NFL defending its brand.

There are actually two things going on here. 

First, “protect the brand” is not going to cut the muster at the EEOC.  I had a temp agency argue that they were protecting their brand by not hiring people convicted of a felony to do assembly work.  They dropped that argument pretty damn quick.

Second, a lifetime ban from the NFL is not personal punishment, but carving out an exception to labor and employment laws for NFL workers but not assembly line workers IS a punishment.  Telling someone convicted of a felony that they are only good enough to work here but not there is a punishment.*

*Now we can get into the exception of when a conviction has a direct bearing on the job at hand, e.g. you don’t want to hire an embezzler as an accountant.  But since animal cruelty has nothing to do with throwing an oblong ball around, this exception is not really relevant here.

It’s a position created and governed by a union contract, subject to labor and employment law.  It is, in fact like any other union job.

First, note what shah8 said:

The football player’s union is broken and serves the interest of the owners.  That has a role in events.

That’s an understatement, from other things I’ve read. The union leadership might easily side with the league against the player—it wouldn’t be the first time (see long-term health benefits).

Second, no, an NFL QB has a much higher profile than a shop foreman at a steel mill or a temp, and the NFL could argue without much problem that the public image of a team leader is critical to their business mission (which is just as much about entertainment as athletics). So there is a basis for arguing an exception.

First, “protect the brand” is not going to cut the muster at the EEOC.

Well, then, Vick could have taken his case to the EEOC had the NFL not re-instated him. The NFL would probably have a better case than the temp agency, since public image impacts the brand. All hypothetical, though—they decided to take a risk.

Second, a lifetime ban from the NFL is not personal punishment, but carving out an exception to labor and employment laws for NFL workers but not assembly line workers IS a punishment.

A punishment aimed at…? Felons in general? Nope, they’ve re-instated other felons. The difference was that they weren’t a QB whose name even non-fans like myself knew before the scandal broke.

This is simple, let him play under “Vick’s rules”, if he sucks, he gets electrocuted. If he continues to suck, he gets shot, just a flesh wound. rinse and repeat.

Well, he did his time.  If we think it was insufficient, we should change the law.

On that, I think its great he’s going to be using his old contacts to apologize and is required by parole to work with the humane society.  How else are we to rehabilitate this dog?

Why are people so surprised that someone who plays in the NFL might enjoy inflicting pain?

I wouldn’t require him to volunteer with the Humane Society. I wouldn’t let him near animals.

But I want to stand up and cheer for the legislation aimed at protecting an abusee’s pets from their abuser.
That’s one of the ways abusers control their target. Even if their target wants to run and has a plan to take the kids (or has no kids), some cannot bring themselves to leave Fluffy to die a slow, agonizing death as part of the abuser’s retaliation. Saving animals, in this case, also saves people.

Well, apparently, the Denver Broncos signed him.

I’m almost with Crissa: Vick gets a shot a rehab.
But what makes dogfighting so nasty is the ‘sport’’s incessant attempts to make a worse fighting dog.  The canine genome is relatively plastic, and it is possible to breed for viciousness and the monomania of the fighting dong that won’t permit it to let go.
We can’t forget that this is a whole sick subculture: a network of breeders and arenas and fans and moneylaunderers.
One of Vick’s suppliers lived in my area (I once had him grade a driveway, and thought him somewhat creepy then), a man who bred dogs for fighting as well as registering them with breeding associations (not sure about the AKC), making it easy for law enforcement to roll up some of his buyers.
And he was a sick puppy:
Epworth resident Glen Albert White will serve 10 years in prison followed by another 10 years on probation after entering a negotiated guilty plea to a number of charges including dogfighting, animal cruelty and sexual offenses.

In an appearance before Superior Court Judge Roger Bradley March 5 in Blue Ridge, White entered a guilty plea to charges contained within three separate grand jury indictments.

The charges to which White pleaded guilty were 25 counts of dogfighting, 21 counts of cruelty to animals and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon contained within the first indictment; three counts of child molestation contained within the second indictment; and three counts of child molestation contained within the third indictment.”
The children were his son’s step-children.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14140/GA/US/

Well, apparently, the Denver Broncos signed him.

With a patsy stepping up that quickly, there must be a quid pro quo with the league.

The more I think about it, the more I believe the NFL handled this cleverly (which is not to say they’re the good guys). By re-instating him, they avoided a court case where they’d have to testify about why they re-instate wife beaters and rapists despite the morals clause they’d have used against Vick. Better for the NFL to have us discussing it in the blogosphere then to have their answering uncomfortable questions under oath.

They also shift the bad PR to the team that takes him (we’ll see if PETA can make itself useful in Denver), and can take credit if Vick shapes up.

Oh, and I’ll take this opportunity to tell Pam that Casey is an absolutely adorable, sweet-looking dog and that the quote from the dog-trainingbook was quite moving. Thanks for including both.

Denver Broncos have a good quarterback in Jay Cutler.  Bet this is the start of the change to Kordell Stewart-type roles.

I love dogs. LOVE THEM.  But the guy served his time, and the conditions of his probation are rightfully specific to his crime- everyone’s gotta work, even, or especially, ex-cons.

You sure he signed with the Broncos?  I can’t find anything about that on espn.com, and that would be a huge story.

Jay Cutler is no longer with the Broncos; he was traded to the Bears months ago.

Most of the speculation has been on the Vikings, now that Bret Farve has dropped out, and the Jaguars.

Damn, I did not know that.

Okay, the denver rumors happened in March as the Jay Cutler story heated up, which is why there aren’t new stories on espn for anything now.

Unlikely he’d resume his betting habit.

Depends, does Rose have problems with compulsive gambling? Gambling is lizard-brain behavior (and I usually refer to scratch tickets as rat pellets for that reason). If he was stupid enough to be betting on his own team while he was running it, that to me sounds like a hint of compulsion.

Vick hasn’t yet signed with anyone.

That will change shortly, IMO.

I don’t have a problem with him playing football again (legally I don’t think he should be banned, and emotionally I just don’t really care about football at *all* and it seems just as bad as working in a sewer to me so… congrats, Vick. You are a terrible person and now people will hit you for a living some more. :p) Dog fighting’s awful but it doesn’t have anything to do with sports (except in the sort of theoretical “anxious masculinity” way) and awful people get to keep their dream jobs all the time. So I don’t think he should be an exception (if he ends up sucking at football now then don’t hire him, but don’t hire him based on *ability* not assholeness.)

Actually, I didn’t lodge an opinion either way, though Pete Rose was banned for flipping betting on baseball—and no lives were lost there. It apparently boils down to whether people think killing domestic animals means more than tossing down cash with a bookie on your sport.

No, Pete Rose got a lifetime ban for betting on the sport he played in. Same way that it doesn’t matter if you served your time. If you were a bank teller who robbed a bank, you don’t get to work at a bank anymore. the crime was related to the field.

Animal abuse, while vicious and disgusting, is unrelated. If he were a vet. or worked at an animal shelter, a lifetime ban from his profession would be appropriate.

He served his time. He’s allowed to get back to work for anyone who would hire him.

Seriously, anyone who suggests a lifetime ban is ultimately saying that ex-cons don’t deserve to earn a living. If he’s banned from Football, because that’s what he was in during the criminal offenses, alright. Would you insist he isn’t allowed to play Pro Baseball if he tries to pull a Bo Jackson? is your criteria that he isn’t in public life? what counts as that? owning a bar? being a prominent local businessman? working at a local gas station and knowing everyone in a small town by name? Everything is public life.

He has served a lengthy prison term. He has apologized. He has, as a condition of parole, not going anywhere near that sort of business.

If he still has game, he deserves to try and earn a living from any team willing to hire him.

anyone who suggests a lifetime ban is ultimately saying that ex-cons don’t deserve to earn a living.

Right. How is he supposed to live without a multi-million dollar NFL contract? He’s a human being, after all.

Right. How is he supposed to live without a multi-million dollar NFL contract? He’s a human being, after all.

More directly, if he did the time and his crime, revolting as it is, bears no relation to his previous employment, why should he be barred for life from pursuing that employment again? Would you find it fair to do time for a crime unrelated to your professional field, then find when you were released that you were barred from working in your field ever again?

There is a difference from being barred from a profession and not being hired after serving a prison sentence. One is categorically unfair, the other, just the breaks.

It is a separate issue to argue whether it is moral for the NFL to offer him the opportunity to play again, but to demand some kind of blanket sanction after he fulfilled his societal requirements (and a fair argument has been made those sanctions were too lenient, but that cannot be blamed on Vick himself) strikes me as post conviction punishment.

The NFL is a rapacious business. It ought to come as no surprise it is willing to let Vick attempt to come back. Plus, part of his court requirements involve settling his debts, which are enormous, so the court itself is likely to view his return to the NFL and the potential money to be made as an extension of his sentencing.

Much has been made of how high on the hog Vick will live if he is signed, and to be sure, he’ll do better than most of us, financially speaking. But a large chunk of any money he does make (and he is a rather devalued property in football at the moment, so the types of money he was once earning are not coming his way again) is bound by the court to pay off creditors, and apparently there are a lot of them, and the sums involved are quite large.

Seems to me that most of the people who want to let him back in don’t much care for / watch the game .  They say the offense isn’t related to the sport. 

That’s where we differ.  It is part of the job not to piss off the fans.  It is part of the job not to dishonor the game in particular and sports in general.  It’s part of the job to be a force for good in your community.  It is PART OF THE JOB to be a role model for kids.  So, yeah, not being a sociopathic sadist is part of the job.

Look at the teams that have played footsie with all the thugs.  You don’t see them winning all that much.  It’s about certain owners having to pay less for personnel under a cloud.

Would you find it fair to do time for a crime unrelated to your professional field, then find when you were released that you were barred from working in your field ever again?

What, is quarterbacking an NFL team for millions of dollars per year the only football-related job in the world?

I laugh at the comparision to Pete Rose.  I’m reasonably sure Michael Vick is a better person than Pete Rose, because Rose is a fairly nasty character and a low bar to overcome.

I seriously doubt that.  Not that Pete Rose isn’t a piece of shit.  But a willingness to inflict pain on a helpless being is a sure sign of a psychopath, as far as I’m concerned.  I wouldn’t let Vick near a human child, much less a pet.  Something is seriously fucked up in his head.

Oh, and Pam, your Casey is just too adorable!!!

@Magis:

Pissing off the fans is a fungible metric. The NFL has decided to test those particular waters - we shall see if any team(s) thinks it is a worthy gamble. My guess is yes, at least one, probably several. Good QBs, even half competent QBs are hard to come by, and injury at the position without decent back up can end a franchise’s season. Making people mad in the short term might still prove a small price to pay in the longer term, assuming Vick can actually play, which is still very much in doubt.

Team owners are gamblers, by necessity, guessing at scouting reports, strategy trends, and marketing. This is just another gamble.

As for sociopathic behavior, well, I’m not in a position to make that kind of diagnosis. I depend on a service dog every day of my life, and the change he has brought to my existence cannot be articulated in any useful way here. Suffice to say that considerable suffering in my life has been radically alleviated by his presence and efforts on my behalf, so the killing of dogs hits me where I live.

But dog fighting is not a new activity in America, and the rough culture surrounding it is brutal and violent, but that does not necessarily mean it is truly socio- (or psycho-) pathic. It is easy to toss those words around and render the object of them an irredeemable Other, much as pit bulls have been relegated to a place in the American estimation of pets as similarly irredeemable killers, which, as anyone who has any real experience with dogs knows is not backed by the facts. Dog fighting is grotesque, cruel, all of that, but the insular culture that makes it permissible for those within it to actually kill animals for sport does not necessarily render its participants, however wrong and awful their behavior, sociopathic.

As for role models, for the most part, most players have a pretty low profile. The league has a lot of them (55 per team? x32?), and most of them are pretty anonymous to everyone except diehard fans of that particular team. Sure, QBs stand out, and to some extent become role models whether they will or not, and Vick was turning into one, more for marketing purposes than for any real usefulness to society.

I’m sure Vick would argue he strives now more than ever to be a role model, to be the one to come back from prison, heinous acts, and bankruptcy and prove perseverance in the face of adversity is a great human virtue…so on and so forth.

What, is quarterbacking an NFL team for millions of dollars per year the only football-related job in the world?

No, but it is what he does, what he was trained to do in football, and if the league intends to reinstate him, why limit where and how he can participate if a team is willing to hire him, at whatever pay level?

I see it as an all in or all out of the game question. If the answer is “yes, he can return” why limit the particulars? If his offense is so grave that he should be banned from football, then ban him all the way. Anything else doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Employers hire Iraq Occupation veterans all the time. They killed people for the president.

Dog fighting is grotesque, cruel, all of that, but the insular culture that makes it permissible for those within it to actually kill animals for sport does not necessarily render its participants, however wrong and awful their behavior, sociopathic.

Fuck, fine then: he’s merely cruel, grotesque, wrong, and awful. Not socipathic as far as we know- it’s not impossible that he’s wracked with guilt over all the dogs he shot, hanged, drowned or slammed to the fucking ground.

I don’t think he’s as misunderstood as the dogs he killed for fun, though. I think that’s a pretty sick comparison to make.

I don’t think he’s as misunderstood as the dogs he killed for fun, though. I think that’s a pretty sick comparison to make.

Nowhere did I say Vick was in any way misunderstood. Nor did I, nor would I compare what has happened to him (consequences of his own actions, which means all of it was of his own making) to what he did to those dogs (kill defenseless, innocent animals who looked to him for their care).

It isn’t even a loose reading of anything I’ve written or thought - it’s putting a whole bunch of words into my mouth I didn’t say. It’s beyond disingenuous.

And it is funny to see the words “cruel, grotesque, wrong, and awful” prefaced by “merely.”

In 1997 Boston’s Northeastern University and the MSPCA did a study that found 70% of all animal abusers have committed at least 1 other crime and that 40% had committed violent crimes against humans.

30% of convicted child molesters and 48% of convicted rapists admitted animal cruelty in their childhood.

Sure, wtf, put him back in the spotlight.  It’s just a job.  If kids are dumb enough to use him for a role model, tough shit. 

“Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives.”
      ~Albert Schweitzer

No, but it is what he does, what he was trained to do in football, and if the league intends to reinstate him, why limit where and how he can participate if a team is willing to hire him, at whatever pay level?

Who gives a shit if that’s what he does? No one is entitled to the perfect job for their talents. As far as the league reinstating him is concerned, I’d rather they didn’t. That’s my opinion, and it is not the same as saying he should be denied the opportunity to earn a living.

It isn’t even a loose reading of anything I’ve written or thought - it’s putting a whole bunch of words into my mouth I didn’t say. It’s beyond disingenuous.

No, it isn’t. You said:

“It is easy to toss those words around and render the object of them an irredeemable Other, much as pit bulls have been relegated to a place in the American estimation of pets as similarly irredeemable killers.”

And it is funny to see the words “cruel, grotesque, wrong, and awful” prefaced by “merely.”

Well, yeah, that’s the argument you’re fucking making. Those are your words. The “merely” is implied by the fact that you think the guy is still entitled to a high-profile, handsomely-paid NFL gig.

Sure, wtf, put him back in the spotlight.  It’s just a job.  If kids are dumb enough to use him for a role model, tough shit. 

Those stats are fascinating.

What is particularly interesting is the conclusion one can draw that anyone who has killed an animal must therefore be a serial killer or rapist in the making, which isn’t what those stats portray. Correlation is not causation. It’s often in the past behavior of someone who has raped or killed human beings, but is not a necessary predictor of such behavior, even though we often use those stats as if they were. By introducing them you are saying Michael Vick is unavoidably a serial murderer or rapist. Unfortunately, it doesn’t follow.

Employing words like sociopath necessarily alters the conversation. You and others seem secure that he is one.

But you’re right - he should not be reinstated. There isn’t anything useful to be learned from this at all. Not about the abuse and killing of animals, the bad rap Pit Bulls get, nor the possibility that people who do illegal and terrible things can change. God knows, that’s a lesson we shouldn’t ever contemplate teaching kids, because prison isn’t about reform, but punishment, as it should be.

@tb: I’ll shut up now. I honestly didn’t get from your earlier post to which I replied that your bottom line opinion is Vick should not be reinstated. The part about other football related jobs confused me. I haven’t a clue how this will turn out, and it is very possible I am wrong that he should have a shot at reinstatement.

@tb:

The comparison I was making had nothing to do with equating Vick as a victim to the dogs he killed, and my words do not say that at all.

What I did say is that applying the word “sociopath” to Vick and turning him into an Other is similar to the reputation that Pit Bulls have gotten as killers, viewed as Other by non Pit Bull dog owners, state legislatures, popular culture and so on.  As I said, I am not qualified to diagnose someone as a sociopath - he may well be one, but neither you nor I actually know that.

If I am not clear about what I actually meant, as opposed to how you interpreted my comments, then I apologize unreservedly. It wasn’t a comparison of victimhood at all, and if it came off that way, that is my failing.

Fallsroad:

It’s not causation, but it is, as the FBI says, an indicator.  It’s one of the things they look for.  It’s in DSM, look it up.  It didn’t say it was unavoidable.  But torturing to death c. 130 animals is, yeah, a pretty high indication of evil in my book.  Let me phrase it this way.  If Mr. Vick stays in the news and we hear about him beating up a woman or raping her would you be very surprised?

I’ll say this, most of the teams that giving thugs a second chance end up giving them a third and….  See “Pacman” Jones.

It’s not a good thing that kids focus so highly on sports figures, but they do!  You know, honestly, it isn’t just about Mr. Vick.  I just think I’ve reached my saturation point with this bullshit.  If they keep it up, pretty soon they’ll be able to fill the stands with parole officers.

@ Magis:

Phrased that way, the stats come into much sharper focus. Thank you.  I haven’t a lock on the truth, to be sure. Perhaps the risk is too high to allow Vick to play again.

If he did murder or rape someone, now, I honestly think I would be surprised. This may mean I am a stone cold sucker. I had no real opinion of Vick prior to his arrest, though I am a fan of the game (The Washington Football Club - wish they’d drop their racist moniker). After the details came to light I found it repulsive in the extreme, and literally incomprehensible. I followed the trial as it appeared in the news, and some of the discussions about what might happen after his sentence was served.

Oddly, the thing that has most prompted me to believe Vick should get a second chance under the right conditions was watching the Dogtown episode about those dogs that survived Vick’s kennels. The show was pretty unflinching about what the dogs had endured. Fighting dogs are viewed with distaste by a lot of people, as if the fact that humans have used them for this purpose is somehow their own fault. Seeing them brought back to good health, many of them adopted out, had me thinking that perhaps Vick himself could be rehabilitated. This is where tb got the idea I think Vick is some sort of victim or there is an equivalence involved, and it was my imprecise use of language that caused that. They aren’t equal, but they are related.

Yes, his crimes were the product of a cognizant human being blessed with the ability to reason and make choices, including choices about the lives of the dogs in his care, and everything he did was at the behest of his own free will. It is why what he did is a crime. Rightly so, the criminal justice system actually tried to do something about it, in no small part because of the depth of the depravity involved, and the size of his celebrity in the world of football.

Since being convicted, Vick has said and done all the right things. Perhaps he is lying to us all - it is very possible.  He has served the sentence passed upon him. He has complied with all of the terms the court and league set out for him. He remains a public figure, even out of the game. I guess my (apparently misguided) hope was that his return to football could illustrate, publicly, that human beings can be rehabilitated, learn from the things they have done, and serve as an educational example. He’ll have some involvement with the Humane Society, which could help raise money, educate people about animal cruelty and abuse, and perhaps help people understand that pit bulls are not an inherent threat to society. That could be a useful step to defeating breed specific legislation. And perhaps this could speak to the role model issue. Or I am in the thrall of out of control wishful thinking.

I get that his making money would piss people off. Most of any money he makes is already spoken for by creditors, so that honestly doesn’t bother me so much. He is also a severely devalued player, and likely will remain so given his baggage and his age and what that connotes in football terms.

I get your comments about repeat thuggery - the league has over extended itself to some players who have repeatedly displayed an inability to learn anything, to control themselves, even when huge sums of money are on the line (and in our dollar worshiping society, the presumption is if someone can’t keep their shit together for large sums of cash, they are really fucked up). It gets old.

I’m honestly not sure why I view Vick somewhat differently. Perhaps because it was his first offense, as extreme as it was. You’d think that, being reliant as I am on a wonderful dog companion to ameliorate the effects of and aid in my navigating a life informed by uncontrolled epilepsy I’d have no room for someone who has massacred dogs. Yet somehow I do.

Perhaps I really do have this all wrong. I certainly have a lot to think about.

Fallsroad:

I completely accept your sincerity and laud your obviously good heart.  But, I gotta say, the kids aren’t going to get the subtlety of the situation.  All they’re going to see is somebody who did easy time and became a millionaire a second time.  The animals will be forgotten.

Here’s the message we need to send to the kids about the NFL and NBA.  You get one shot at the big dance.  If you abuse women, children or animals; you’re done.  If you choke your coach, if you get a DUI, if you sell or use drugs; you’re done.  You’re expected to go back into your neighborhood and help other kids out.

Magis wrote:

All they’re going to see is somebody who did easy time and became a millionaire a second time.

Easy time?  I don’t know about you, but I’d be scared fecesless if I was looking at going to jail.

@Magis:

Yeah, “teaching moments.” God I hate that phrase. Still, if it could have been of any use.

Ah well.

Much of my thinking about what has been discussed here goes well beyond Vick, the NFL, and animals, and rapidly spills over to what constitutes proper forms of punishment in our society, and what we should expect or demand of those who have been incarcerated once their term is finished. I’ve known people who have done wrong things, both under the law and socially. Some have come back from it, learned to be decent human beings and find better ways to live, others have not. The difficulty is that predicting which way people will go is close to impossible, thus the risks of giving anyone a chance. Still, I think it is important for us to do so if we are to be a useful society. It has long been my belief that our attitudes towards how and why we imprison people goes a long way to creating a permanent criminal class. That may be useful for politicians and the prison industry, but I’m not sure it is any good for anyone else.

Admittedly the Vick case is a poor example in too many ways, as his celebrity and wealth are incredibly distorting factors, both positively and negatively for him in the way his case is being handled. But the attention it has garnered is one of the reasons we are even here talking about it.

Since his reinstatement is a done deal (pursuant to terms), it remains to be seen whether or not he is signed, and what he, and the league, choose to do with it. As you say, the dogs, any useful lessons will likely get lost. The NFL does whatever it determines to be in its long term profit interest - everything else is subject to that.

@Dana:

I’m also not so sure any time done in a federal penitentiary can be termed “easy.” Loss of freedom is a shocking thing to those who take it for granted. Whether the stretch of time was long enough for his crimes is another matter.

“And I hope the Lions pick him up. They need all the help they can get.”

Jim Schwartz actually ruled that out.

“No more hoodlums or thugs in sports.  They are, or should be, rôle models.”

Some sensible ex-player, I can’t recall who, possibly Robert Smith, pointed out that football is violent game and will tend to be played by violent people.

“Except, schism, we don’t.  Sports isn’t about, at the end, who wins or loses.  It’s about achievement, striving.  If all the Olympics are to is what you said, how would you suggest we celebrate the human spirit.”

I tend to think of sports (college football, NFL, NHL and college basketball) as the modern equivalent of painting yourself blue and raiding the next valley’s cattle herd. So a positive step.