OT - Support for Criminals in Sports?
After the signing of Vick by the Eagles, Bertuzzi by the Wings, and countless other convicts playing in major league sports, I felt that it's not too much to ask for a code of conduct that excludes felons from playing. Should that decision be up to the teams, or should the league be able to enforce a code of ethics? I am willing to distinguish between
criminals and felons, and give criminals a pass. But spending time in a Federal Pound Me In The Ass prison is too much.
Where do you fall on this argument:
They've paid their debt to society, let them in.
Who cares anyway, play the best players.
I'd rather not support a team that willingly hires a felon.
I'd rather not support a league that allows a team to hire a felon.
I realize this is an academic effort anyway, I fully realize that the leagues and the individual teams will always try to win the most games and/or make the most money. It just frustrates me that major league sports are such a big business (and fans so rabid) that there's almost no outcry against this practice, but Phelps gets suspended for 3 months for a picture smoking pot.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:36 AM ^
Todd Bertuzzi is not a convicted felon. In fact, he has no criminal record due completing his probation.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
Also, if you watch what happened, yes he sucker punched him, but it wasn't as horrible as many people seem to think IME. Had the injury not occurred he would have gotten a major (possibly a game misconduct) and that would be that. The injury, though very unfortunate, was a fluke. I think Bertuzzi has suffered enough for what happened to Moore.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:03 AM ^
only happened because of the other 5 players that jumped on top of the 2 of them when they hit the ice.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:18 AM ^
i've always felt the same way.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:42 AM ^
if they have gone through the legal system and met their obligations to society, they should be free to earn a living. Would you rather these people end up as beggars, alcoholics on the street. In a lot of cases, sports is all they know and they have no other discernible skills.
Vick's crime cost him over a hundred million dollars, two years of his life and public scrutiny we can only imagine, let the man earn a living.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
i wonder if the eagles get a tax break for hiring a convicted felon.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:48 AM ^
I don't agree with your sentiment here. Speaking as a man who has had...let's just say a colorful past, I think second chances are a good thing. If a guy is a career criminal that is something different, i can see not allowing them back in a sport. I am now an MD, so should I not have been allowed to be an MD because of my past? Why should sports be any different than the rest of society. How can we say that "you deserve a second chance, you just don't deserve one here"? I am all for anyone having paid their debt to society getting a second chance.
As an aside, I think two chances should be the most, maybe three (I know some places have the three strikes rule) but more than this and they should spend far longer in the "pen". I went to school with a guy (and was actually friends with him at the time) who killed a guy by bashing his head into the sidewalk for owing him some drug money. He served 1.5 years in jail (Mike Vick served 2). As fate would have it, 15 years later he has just been charged in another killing. The victims mother was the sister of the first man he killed.
I thnk second chances (and perhaps third depending on the offense) are a good thing, more than that I have an issue with.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
Possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana is a class D felony.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:06 PM ^
In Florida it's 20 grams. Should those convicted of a felony there not be able to play pro sports OP?
August 27th, 2009 at 10:47 AM ^
They should have the right to play for anyone who wants to hire them. Or work any job that wants to hire them. Why should sports be different?
If a team wants to invest millions of dollars on the chance that a convicted felon keeps his nose clean, that's their business.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
As in most places the city the team is playing in pays taxes for the stadium they play in. Essentially the team is a byproduct of tax payer money - the owners, generally speaking, understand there is way more than just "is he good" in the equation - you have to gauge the fan base because without the fans you've got absolutely nothing.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:48 AM ^
I appreciate your position but I have no real problem with Vick playing again. He did a bad thing and deserved to be punished (I wonder, though, would Americans clamor for a Spanish bull fighter to be sent to prison, or welcome him as an exotic and even heroic personality? More, how many Americans eat pork, when pigs are as smart as dogs?)...Anyway, Vick was punished. He was in federal prison for two years and lost all his money. It's not even clear that the NFL can deny Vick the ability to play because of his criminal record. People have a right to work and earn a living and they can sue if that right is denied...Some people seem to argue that Vick is making too much money. How much is too much? Can he make $30,000/year? $40,000? Can he manage a Dennys? Can he pump gas? What exactly should he be allowed to do and who gets to decide? Vick happens to be a guy who can play football at an elite level. That's what he knows how to do. It would be an unusual step, and one that smells a bit like the action of a totalitarian state, for the NFL or a government to deny him permanently the ability to pursue his vocation.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^
We agree that second chances are a good thing. I also like the analogy of the bullfighter, well done. It is a stretch with the pig thing though. I have no idea if they are as smart as dogs or not, but they aren't tortured (as a rule) before they are brought to your plate. As I say, I agree with everything else you said, but that is a stretch. +1 on the bullfighting though!
August 27th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
Actually, my wife read a book recently about what goes on with pigs and other animals, and from what I understand, it ain't pretty. If I want to eat pork, I pretty much need to buy it myself, as she tends to boycott it in the grocery store. Same thing with veal. I happen to be a meat lover, and have few scruples with where my meat comes from, but if you're really interested, I'm sure someone at PETA could help you. Also, I would think that AA, of all places, would have many enlightened vegans who could comment more intelligently on such topics.
I'm not sure why, and can't articulate it, but there does seem to be something different between dog fighting and the treatment of animals raised for food. Somehow, if someone is hunting or fishing for food, I can live with it. But raising dogs to kill other dogs, inflicting pain on them to cause them to be more vicious, etc., etc., crosses some line somewhere on what can be done.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:38 PM ^
I think the fundamental difference is teaching animals to hurt and kill each other in the name of your own entertainment, and the other is killing something, albeit often brutally, for your own nourishment.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:09 PM ^
Some of what goes on in CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or where animals are raised before they go to slaughter) can be pretty ugly. Stuff like castration without anesthesia, docking of tails, sows kept in cages so small they can't turn around, etc. There's lots more information on the internet if you want it, but I won't go into the gory details here.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:49 AM ^
people should expect pros to be role models. It's nice when they are, but a lot of athletes come from a bad upbringing.
If you are going to have high expectations from people in media, you should have higher expectations for yourself and people around you. How demanding are you of teachers, parents and yourself?
August 27th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
I think it is up to the employer if they want to hire someone with a troubled past. I believe this applies to all jobs not just sports.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:56 AM ^
To the OP:
Tell you what. You go ahead and have too much fun at a party one night and do something stupid like get in your car and drive. YOu pay your penalty, do the time, or whatever the court deems appropriate. See if you think it's fair that you're not allowed to work anymore.
Criminals who pay the court appointed penalty are square. If they're not, then WHY HAVE A PENALTY IN THE FIRST PLACE?
August 27th, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^
I agree, but let me add a slight distinction. Penalty does not ensure rehabilitation. In fact, prisons often do a terrible job of rehabilitation. It's part of the reason why recidivism is such a large problem in this country. The idea of "penalty" or "punishment" serves more as a deterrent, IMO. I know not to park in front of a hydrant because I could get a ticket. If someone said "don't do it" but didn't enforce it, people would more often than not do it.
What's more important though, is how society treats ex offenders once released. Often times, they struggle to find jobs, and ultimately go back to previous behavior. Imagine if Vick were banned from the NFL or any other professional leagues? Where would he be today? What would he be doing?
August 27th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^
I would lose my job in a heartbeat. I'd lose my security clearance and probably be unable to work in this specific field again. I know I would be able to find some job, but the current high-paying position I hold would be gone.
I'm not saying the guys shouldn't be allowed back into society. I'm also not saying that they should be kicked out for any minor infraction. I'm trying to draw a moral line somewhere between DUI and murder. I even think that Plaxico probably got too stiff of a sentence and I don't have a problem with him being reinstated after serving, if he's able. What I'm trying to say is that I think the people we hold up as someone to aspire to be should held to the same level of morality as the society that honors them.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:45 PM ^
Many of the professional athletes that we idolize never asked to be role models. They're out there plying their trade and earning a living like the rest of us. Like you, their only obligation is to follow the stated rules of the game (codes of conduct, etc.), not to answer to what society has to say about their level of morality (which is highly subjective to begin with, imo). You know the consequences to your career that would arise from getting a DUI, just like Michael Vick knew that there was a NFL code of conduct and a commissioner that would make him pay for his actions. But once he finishes his sentence, his suspension, his probation, etc., he doesn't owe the sport or the fans anything else than solid performance on the football field.
In my opinion.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
no problem with people getting second chances. everyone is intitled to one, i've gotten my one and i know that if i screw up again that i am not going to get another.
as for athletes they fall into the same category. they are normal people just like us, they just happen to be good at sports. my problem are with the athletes who screw up over and over again and keep getting 2nd chances.
do i hate vick for what he did, yes. but that is because i am a dog lover and i can't understand why anyone would ever want to hurt a dog in the ways that he did. but vick has served his time and is now trying to do and say the right things, and when you hear him talk there is remorse in his vocie. for that he can have his 2nd chance.
look at pac man, he has been a fuck up from the second he got drafted. but yet there are teams that are still willing to take chances on him regardless of what he has done. now granted he has never been charged with anything, which gets him by. but every NFL team knows what they are getting into with him and that just goes to show you that pro sports teams are more worried about winning than their own image.
the one good thing with the NFL right now is roger goodell. he is at least making the players responsible for their actions by not just giving them a mulitple game suspention. pac man was out for a year before goodell even thought about allowing him back in. vick still has to go through a evaluation period before he can play again. and now stallworth is done for the year without pay. if goodell was the commissioner when leonard little killed that person while driving drunk (same thing that stallworth did)he would have done for the year if not longer.
either way people are going to have their own opinons of these atheltes. but until the people that work for start stepping up and taking matters into there own hands these screw ups are going to still be playing no matter what the fans think.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
At least the "criminals" have paid for their mistakes (unlike players that use PEDs and remain on the field).
Vick is in bankruptcy court as we type and everyone there wants him in the NFL. About 70-80 percent of his salary for the next 6 years will got to taxes and creditors.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:16 AM ^
who is without sin cast that first stone.
geez oh pizza.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:24 AM ^
Here comes Tebow with an bucket full of stones
August 27th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
Not a right - just like driving a car. You qualify to get your license and then if you do enough stupid sh!t (as determined by your state) you get it taken away either temporarily or permanently.
I'm perfectly OK with Goodell playing moral police and trying to increase the image of the NFL since, after all, these guys are role models and sports are so deeply ingrained in our society there's no way to avoid that.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^
No - playing in the NFL is a JOB. You cannot legally prevent felons from working.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^
You can and Goodell has that power and has exercised it before... If we're going to treat the NFL like every other job in the world I want a d@mn good explanation why despite the fact that the US is 50% women yet there isn't a single one. Or why hispanics are the largest minority in the country but make up such a small % of the NFL.
The NFL doesn't play by the same rules - no professional sport does...
Just like no one has the "right" to play or work at Augusta National no one has the "right" to play or work for the NFL.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
"If we're going to treat the NFL like every other job in the world I want a d@mn good explanation why despite the fact that the US is 50% women yet there isn't a single one
Not as funny now that I reread it and understand what you were saying. I assume you were trying to say that there isn't a single woman playing in the NFL. I first read it as you having problems finding a single woman, and was going to make a dumb joke.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
I'll just guess here but if there were women playing in the NFL I'd bet a lot of them would be single! haha
August 27th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
You're using Augusta National's refusal to admit black people into the club as a reason for Vick not to play?
Your evocation of hispanics and women to suggest that the NFL avoids Affirmative Action hiring is impressively wrong-headed. Affirmative Action's purpose was never to bring extremely less-qualified minorities into a college or job - it was supposed to allow race to be a determining factor between comparable candidates. Until a woman can play left tackle in the NFL, the point is moot.
Further, the fact that Hispanics make up a large portion of the population has no bearing on how many hispanics are actually attempting to be NFL players (hint, a significantly smaller proportion then their representation in American society). It doesn't matter if they make up more than 10% of the population - if few try out, they won't make it.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:08 PM ^
The NFL is a private organization and as such can make any rule they like when it comes to employment. This is a direct corollary to Augusta National. They are a private club and have chosen not to allow females to be members. The NFL is a private organization and can make those rules and it has absolutely nothing to do with a "right". If the NFL was the only professional football league in the country you *might* be able to argue that but they aren't so while Vick may have a right to play football as his job that doesn't mean he has a right to be in the NFL.
Oh - and women can kick field goals just fine by the way...
EDIT: Augusta National does allow black members by the way, they do have a rather famous one by the name of Tiger Woods after all...
August 27th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
You're wrong. Admittance to a private club and hiring an employee are two completely different things governed by two completely different sets of laws. Admittance to Augusta isn't governed by the Equal Opportunity Act.
And I'm sure that any woman who is one of the 32 best FG kickers on the face of the earth would get hired by an NFL team.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Because that one doesn't say anywhere you can't discriminate based on criminal history.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^
An EEOC comission found:
The Commission concludes that since the use of arrest records as an absolute bar to employment has a disparate impact on some protected groups, such records alone cannot be used to routinely exclude persons from employment. However, conduct which indicates unsuitability for a particular position is a basis for exclusion. Where it appears that the applicant or employee engaged in the conduct for which he was arrested and that the conduct is job-related and relatively recent, exclusion is justified.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/arrest_records.html
In other words, a vetrinary hospital would be justified in barring Vick, not the NFL.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^
Fair enough
EDIT: Just talked to the law student next to me and he confirmed that despite what was mentioned if the NFL really, really didn't want him in the league they could argue that employing him would be detrimental to the image and brand of the NFL - that would be entirely up to a judge/jury however. If they do find that employing him would be detrimental to the league that would give them just cause in not hiring him.
Professional sports and other high-profile organizations are alone in this as, say, a garbage company isn't going to be able to claim that you're tarnishing their brand name.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^
...My understanding is also that it is not clear that Vick has a right to play football or, conversely, that the NFL has the right to ban him. One thing in Vick's favor, though, is that the NFL is not exempt from anti-trust laws in the way that baseball is. This would help Vick make a case that he's being denied the right to work...Generally speaking, anyway, it is generally against the practice of US law to deny someone the right to participate in their profession as part of a criminal sanction. There are no "criminals," there are only people convicted of a specific crime (or crimes) who face specific penalties. Once that's done, it's done. We as a society very intentionally moved away from the days of the scarlett letter.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:20 PM ^
I agree that the reason is more likely that few try so how can the NFL be blamed for the lack of women or Hispanics playing in the league but In Canada affirmative action works differently I guess. I'll give you a quick example:
In the Medical School I attended they have a quota system and they need to fill so many seats with women, so many with black students, so many with out of country students and every visible minority is listed. I will give you one guess who gets the least seats.....
In this case lets say there are 10 seats allocated for white male students and 30 for Native Canadian people. If the 11 man had a 3.98 GPA and a Native Canadian had 3.0 but there were still seats left in the quota to be filled for the Native Canadian he gets in. This is common practice in universities in Canada.
This is a serious question and as a non-resident I have no idea, but I guess this doesn't happen in the U.S.?
August 27th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
Quotas for admission to school or hiring of jobs are illegal.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
I will have to advise people around here to try the U.S.A if they are having a hard time getting accepted here.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^
As mentioned below it's not quite as cut and dry but it does seem to have much more leeway than the law in Canada. And, either way, if you're Canadian and you want to go to a US school you're a non-US resident so that counts for something right? :)
August 27th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
While you aren't allowed to specifically call it a quota system you are strongly encouraged to make sure you hold certain percentages lest you want to catch the watchful eye of the Fed. It's much like how the federal gov't doesn't legislate highway laws any longer (they used to during the national 55 mph law) but if you want any federal money you had better do x, y and z.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
"The policy does not define diversity solely in terms of racial and ethnic status and does not restrict the types of diversity contributions eligible for “substantial weight,” but it does reaffirm the Law School’s commitment to diversity with special reference to the inclusion of African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American students, who otherwise might not be represented in the student body in meaningful numbers. By enrolling a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students, the policy seeks to ensure their ability to contribute to the Law School’s character and to the legal profession."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html
August 27th, 2009 at 2:36 PM ^
but the NFL has the right to hire whoever they fucking want to.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
new exactly what he was doing.
To go off in a tangent about Bertuzzi though, I'd like to say that I don't feel like he meant to hurt the guy, obviously. Scott Moore had previously delivered a hard blow to one of Bertuzzi's teammates, and he was defending him. I wish he hadn't sucker punched him from behind, and I certainly wish that injury hadn't happened. However, freak things happen in sports sometimes. It was an accident. If we want to argue that we don't want Bertuzzi on the Wings, it should be because of that incident. I'm convinced Bertuzzi regrets that. If we don't want him, it should be because he's not as good as he used to be. But jeez, give the man a break already. He's not a criminal. He's not a bad person. He made a mistake. Vick was the one who knew what he was doing before he did it.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
i think that a person deserves a second in most cases but some things are just not acceptable. I guess it all depends on what the person did. for example Kane incident. what would you in that case?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:46 PM ^
It's a case by case basis. If someone does something that morally reprehensible that the Commish decides it is against the best interests of the ethics of the League, then yes, they do not deserve a second chance. In Vick's case, if I were commish, I'd probably have told him to go pound sand and find a new job with that education he received at Tech. But I'm not the commissioner.