ROTOWIRE.COM NFL MLB / Minors NBA NHL GOLF RACING    COMMUNITY FORUMS PODCASTS MYROTOWIRE ASK AN EXPERT GAMES

Why Michael Vick Shouldn't Be Suspended

We can debate all day long whether what Michael Vick did is really horrible (due to the intentional cruelty involved), or not that big a deal (due to it involving animals which the soon to be former Governor of Alaska likes to shoot from helicopters). But either way, he should be eligible to play in the NFL this season.

The idea that Roger Goddell is going to cook up a new NFL punishment likely involving a suspension is purely a public relations ploy. Why couldn't Goddell have figured out Vick's NFL punishment two years ago while he was in prison? The facts have not changed, and by being in prison Vick was effectively suspended from the league for two years already. Even if Goddell comes up with a one -year suspension, it should be credited as served concurrently with Vick's first year in prison. If it isn't, it essentially amounts to a three-year suspension.

I'm not a fan of Vick the person by any means, and I don't think he ever was all that good a player. But this guy paid for his crime, lost most of his money and already missed two seasons. Tacking on an NFL suspension on top of that would just be kicking an easy target while he's down to bolster Goddell's "law and order" credentials. If anyone should bar Vick from playing in the NFL, it's the teams that decide he's no longer good enough to play.

Comments

By: jhermann
On: 7/3/2009 4:28:00 PM		 Chris, I agree with your cogent argument that Vick has already served his punishment in his own life. But, the Commish must look at it from a public relations perspective in terms of football players as role models for young kids. More importantly, what does that say about the culture of the NFL if the Commish should allow Vick to return? He transgressed, but he still remains a talented enough football player to serve on a team. The NFL is trying to create a model of acceptable behavior. Otherwise, all players might look like the Bengals. As a tenured professor, I have a secure job, but if I were to commit certain immoral acts, the university can find that grounds for termination of tenure. So, why should not all players meet a minimal moral standard? While I am not positive, I am sure that your organization has rules for acceptable and unacceptable behavior for its employees and members, and many are moral in nature. It is part of living in a greater community.
 
By: Chris Morgan
On: 7/3/2009 7:59:00 PM		 Goodell loves him some discipline that is for sure. He's draconian at his best and, and I use this word begrudgingly not wanting to overstate things, fairly fascist at his worst. I am all for disciplining players when need be. It is certainly within the rights of the league to administer punishment on some occasions when it is warranted. I'd even go as far to say a draconian system is better than, say, baseball's system where Manny Ramirez is gone 50 games for using a banned substance but, and correct me if I'm wrong, Joba Chamberlain escaped punishment for a DUI.

All that said, Mike Vick has spent more than enough time away from the game for his crimes. I hate to be this close to the position of defending Vick since he is a scumbag to be sure, but any additional suspension would seem excessive in my eye. Again, there is a bit of cognitive dissonance associated with the notion of saying "OK, X amount of punishment seems reasonable for Y crime" but as far as I can wrap my head around it I think two years in prison and all the money he lost is a fair punishment. Goodell would just be flexing his muscles to do anything else.

Lastly, in regards to the notion he should be further punished due to the fact he makes a poor role model for kids (Oh, won't somebody please think of the children!). I find it odd that somebody who is a public figure must inherently try and be a role model to people. What about being an athlete has anything to do with moral character? Not to say you can't find role models amongst athletes, movie stars, and maybe one out of every 500 politicians, but an athlete need not bear the onus of being a role model. You can use sports to teach your kids the reality of all groups of people if you are looking to impart a lesson. In most walks of life, you've got scumbags and you've got good people. It's a matter of judging each person on their own personal traits, rather than making assumptions about them based on a certain characteristic not related to morality or ethics.
 
By: Chris Liss
On: 7/3/2009 8:30:00 PM		 I don't think one can apply the ethics of professorial conduct broadly across every occupation. A football player has to do battle in front of 70,000 screaming fans with opposing players trying to kill him, is in the public eye constantly and is usually in his 20s when this happens. You're also talking about people who have been far less vetted from a "get along with others" standpoint than someone who's been through graduate school. Professors who transgress are likely to be corrupt in their own ways - like the Harvard medical school ones who are on the take from the drug companies http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03medschool.html. If you view NFL behavior in context, Vick's two-year removal from the game is sufficient. Players who beat their wives get less, and if I recall correctly Michael Pittman actually rammed his wife's car while she was inside. As for the role model issue, I think that's a euphemism for marketing and public relations. The NFL doesn't want to lose revenue by having people think its players are bad role models. But even within a for-profit business, the concept of justice is still worth considering. In my view, if Goodell suspends Vick this year, it's unjust and also bad for league morale in the long term.
 
By: jtr5708
On: 7/4/2009 3:35:00 AM		 What are your thoughts on the Donte Stallworth situation? His crime was completely void of malice, unlike Vick. Drinking and driving is terrible. When it causes a death that magnifies it exponentially. Does the evidence, which points to alcohol not being the main factor in the victim's death, create an excuse for leniency? Does the fact that he will not miss any games due to incarceration mean that Goodell will take more liberty?
 
By: Chris Liss
On: 7/4/2009 11:41:00 AM		 Stallworth is exactly the opposite as you point out. No cruelty or malice involved, but much more dire consequences - taking a human life. I think he's got a damn good lawyer to get just a month in jail, and that Goodell would be warranted in taking more liberty there. In Vick's case the legal system went above and beyond in its duty to punish him. In Stallworth's, it did very little.
 

Leave a comment

Commenting is restricted to registered users only. Please register or login now to submit a comment.

Tell Someone

  • Digg it
  • submit to reddit reddit
  • Add to Mixx!

Recent Favorites

NFL Notes
A look around the league regarding Week 10:
Week 10 Observations
  • We've beaten to death Bill Belichick's decision to go for it on 4th and 2 in Sunday night's game (the best take on it I've seen is here), but the real takeaway is how much Cris Collinsworth, Al Michaels, Tony Dungy and Rodney Harrison felt it was their duty to spout the conventional wisdom without even attempting to analyze Belichick's basis for the decision. Throw in Bob Costas, and it's appalling that five guys collectively making more than $10 million a year to interpret the sport for us didn't even consider the issue from a probability standpoint. Sadly, the NBC crew is probably the best one on TV. (Update: Jon Gruden just defended Belichick's call on MNF - good for him).
    • Dominant Offense but Shaky Defense...Barkley and Dirk
    This topic is a spin-off from the Michael Jordan thread of last week.  In the excellent discussion on that thread a mini-debate broke out as to how Charles Barkley compares to Kevin Garnett.  The gist of the brief debate was to question whether Barkley was enough better than Garnett offensively to make them comparable in value as overall players despite Garnett’s huge defensive advantages.  The thing is, though, to me there is a much better comp for Barkley in this generation than Garnett:  Dirk Nowitzki.
    What is Iverson's Legacy?
    What are we talking 'bout? We're talking 'bout *IVERSON*.
    Jennings vs Rose
    Last year Derrick Rose was the NBA Rookie of the Year.  One year later, would you take him over current rookie point guard phenom Brandon Jennings?

    RSS Feeds