OT: Michael Vick- Fair treatment or not?
With the prospect of Michael Vick reportedly about to sign with a team in the next few days, there have been several media articles and interviews discussing the fact that Roger Goodell has ruled that he will have to miss the first few games of the season, even after spending approximately 20 months in jail.
I find Goodell's ruling to be entirely reasonable and defensible (more about this in a sec) but several commentators have remarked that they believe Goodell's ruling to be unfair given Vick's jail sentence. The argument is that with his debt to society served, he should immediately be eligible to return to playing (presuming he would be given a chance to play immediately). To punish him "again" the argument goes, is therefore unfair. On last week's "sports reporters," one reporter even argued (paraphrasing) "how can Roger Goodell, unilaterally do this? Where is the players union? He should not have the right to decide this without arbitration like they have in Baseball. Who is he, God?" The other two panelists seemed to agree.
Well, I'll tell you who Roger Goodell is: the boss. And the boss decides when you can return to work. You know, the guy or woman who all of us in the real world (except Brian and few lucky others) report to?
Arbitration? Please tell me how many of us, after breaking federal law, company (NFL) rules, and lying to the face of our boss, have the chance to go to arbitration prior to getting our old jobs back?
None of us have the right to work at our chosen profession, we have to A-qualify, and B- stay in the good graces of our bosses, or we lose the chance to do so. Michael is lucky to return, and to his credit is not trying to challenge the ruling.
That's what I think anyway.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:55 PM ^
The NFL is not a normal place of business. Arguing that it is one is just stupid.
August 14th, 2009 at 7:36 AM ^
Well reasoned, well argued. I guess since it's not "normal" then you can't apply usual standards of conduct.
"Well you really committed there, especially when everyone knows you don't go full retard" That line from Tropic Thunder now has new meaning for me.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:06 PM ^
that this will not end well.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:15 PM ^
I thought he got off easy. You are representing the league and you are running a large illicit operation. You were being paid ridiculous money and pissed it away. This isn't smoking weed, it is running fucking dog fighting. Pass an IQ test before he is allowed back.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:46 AM ^
I see your attempt at a put down but what does "taking an IQ test" have to do with anything with his views? Taking one side doesnt make one smarter than the other.
August 14th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^
If you think he got off easy, what are your thoughts on Donte Stallworth exactly? I am a dog lover, but at the end of the day they are animals and when one dies it doesn't affect me the way it does when human friend or family member dies. Stallworth killed another human being while driving drunk and got a far less sentence than Vick. I went to school with a guy who smashed a guys head into the sidewalk until his brains were leaking onto it because he owed him some money for drugs......He got convicted of man slaughter and served exactly the same amount of time as Vick did, no joke at all. You think he got off easy........I don't agree.
Edit* what I am trying to say is that the justice system has shown it values the lives of animals more than that of human beings in these examples, which I think is insane. I also don't think Vick got off easy, his sentence seemed appropriate while the others mentioned seemed ridiculous.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:16 PM ^
Absolutely not.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:16 PM ^
This dead horse has been beaten severely. It is between "family values" and "Charles Woodson won the Heisman 'got dang Yankees'" on the dead horse scale.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:19 PM ^
Fair treatment is funny. Michael Vick was responsible for the deaths of some dogs... Stallworth KILLED A HUMAN BEING.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:21 PM ^
He spent over a year and a half in jail. Stallworth killed a guy and spent one month in jail. I know Stallworth will be out this year, but I'd rather spend one year out of the NFL and one month in jail than 20 months in jail.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:37 PM ^
Stallworth was driving and happened to be under the influence when someone jumped in front of his car. Vick knew exactly what he was doing the entire time. Not saying Stallworth isn't in the wrong, as getting behind the wheel when you're over the legal limit is one of the dumbest most irresponsible things you can do, but he didn't willfully kill someone.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:43 PM ^
The police report said Stallworth was alert and fully aware of his actions.
August 14th, 2009 at 7:00 AM ^
It's not like he was tanked and swerved into a guy on the sidewalk. From what I've heard, the guy jumped out in front of him, and he tried to stop. I'm not trying to say that the results of his actions aren't as bad as what Vick did... a dead human being is on a completely different level than dead dogs, but Stallworth didn't have the thought process "I'm going to torture and kill something today."
August 13th, 2009 at 8:37 PM ^
He's an Eagle.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:39 PM ^
Legally, Vick has paid his debt to society. However, it is difficult to seperate what is legally right from what feels right emotionally. Part of me is glad to see him back, while a very small fraction would love to see Vick stuck in a cage with fifty underfed and angry pitbulls.
I guess one of the hallmarks of civilization is allowing the "civilized" part to win out over the more base emotion. Besides, no amount of punishment is going to erase what was done to the dogs. I would hope that Vick is used to educate the public and help end the practice of dogfighting in the US.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:17 PM ^
I think that one can legitimately debate whether the sentence he received was enough. I do, however, have a problem with Goodell suspending players for things that occur outside his purview (IE, the field of play).
Goodell is well within his rights to suspend players for their behavior on the field, for drug tests, and the like. It's the job of the legal system to punish their behavior off the field.
To your analogy - Goodell is not his boss, nor his employer. His employer is the specific team. If, for instance, the Cowboys want to suspend Adam Jones, their employee, for his latest strip-club adventure, they are well within their rights - they sign his paycheck. If teams choose not to bid on Vick's services due to his crimes, they are well within their right - they're under no obligation to pay, or hire him. I work in hotels - it's the hotel's choice to hire a convicted felon, not the Illinois Hotel and Lodging Association's choice.
Goodell's actions are tantamount to a scarlet letter on Vick - it discourages teams from signing, and employing him, due to the threat of a year-long suspension hanging over his head. It prevents Vick's shot at a second-chance, something my primal self feels he shouldn't have, but the part of me that's civilized knows is deserved.
August 14th, 2009 at 7:14 AM ^
First, Chitown's reply is how an intelligent person offers a counter opinion. Brodie, take notes.
Regarding Goodell's power to punish behavior off-field as opposed to on-field: didn't Vick also violate the NFL standard of conduct, which is part of his contract? Violating a contract clause is an "on-field" punishable offense. And lying to the commissioner is also not an off-filed event.
Regarding the analogy: there is not enough space here to properly debate the issue, which is a legitimate one. But the NFL by definition is a collection of semi-autonomous local businesses that join together for common benefit and submit their authority over certain aspects of the business to a commissioner. It would be like the head of the Illinois Hotel and Lodging Association's having the ability to veto certain business practices of your hotel. The NFL is a benign cartel within a single company IMO, not 32 independent businesses. If the individual owners cede and accept the power over personnel, which they do, to Goodell, then how can you say he shouldn't have the power?
And lastly, as we see now, this was no scarlet letter, as he is now employed.
August 14th, 2009 at 2:59 PM ^
I don't owe you an argument just because I put forth my epinion. We're not on the debate team, you know.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:17 PM ^
This is a good question:
Arbitration? Please tell me how many of us, after breaking federal law, company (NFL) rules, and lying to the face of our boss, have the chance to go to arbitration prior to getting our old jobs back?The problem is that it neglects the fact that there are probably thousands of people that could do most of our jobs. I'm sure there are tens of thousands (probably even more) that could do everything I do in my internship right now. However, there are only several dozen people in the world or less that can do what Michael Vick does. If you had that rare of a skillset, and it was going to make your company millions, you'd have a much easier time getting your job back under any circumstances.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:17 PM ^
paid his debt to society but not to the NFL. He lied to Goodell when asked directly about his connection to dog fighting. If any of us were to have fibbed to our supreme leader of employment about an issue as significant we would no longer have a career opportunity within that corporation.
I wish all bosses had the power of Roger Goodell. Managers would have to deal with much less bullshit if that were the case.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:23 PM ^
Anyone who says Vick shouldn't be suspended because he's already served jail time is basically the stupidest fucking person ever. If that means there are fifty thousand stupidest fucking people ever, so be it, but since when would a non-athlete get to just up and resume their job no problems after becoming a convicted felon. I have heard this argument and it makes me want to punch people in the face. Vick's suspension is more than just.
HOWEVA. The overreaction to this whole business from the very beginning has been astounding. What Vick did was pretty reprehensible, yes, and frankly Vick is not exactly the epitome of a quality human being. But it was dogs. OK. Dogs. People are/were actually protesting in the streets over this, and it's absurd. I think the sort of thing Shawn Kemp is famous for (not his basketball skills) is actually worse. I like the idea of dead dogs better than multiple women scattered across the country depending on an irresponsible chump to pay for raising a kid who isn't ever gonna meet his dad. I like the idea of dead dogs better than one of our own football players helping to feed the violence in Mexico and Colombia. I like the idea of dead dogs better than a hockey player beating up an old man over 20 cents. People have been ready to string up Vick by the balls over this and it's getting old. It got old about two weeks after he was arrested.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:22 PM ^
He served is debt to society. Dog killing is not good but when people in the league drunk drive and kill people should get way more punishment.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:05 AM ^
Vick should be allowed to do whatever he wants for whoever wants to hire him...once he comes out alive from a bare handed fight to the death with a pit bull.
Aside from the illegality and immorality of killing dogs for sport, Vick hung out and gambled extensively with extremely shady characters with direct connections to organized crime. For that alone he shouldn't be permitted to play in the NFL.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:34 AM ^
What I think of the activity he was involved in is not the question here.
He was sentenced and served what the court stated. Welcome back to what you do well.
D Stallworth killed a man with his car while drunk at 7 am. He got a BS sentence and a fine. Rodger was right for booting his ass for a year.
I hate dog fighting, but welcome back to the rest of your life Michael.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:44 PM ^
I'd love to hear Mark Dantonio's thoughts on this.
August 14th, 2009 at 7:20 PM ^
There are some who are upset about Vick getting his job back. I think they are more upset with the fact that it is a high paying job. One that puts him in the public eye.
If he had worked for McDonalds before his conviction, and then regained employment with them after his release, would not people say..."Good for him, he is contributing to society" (?)