Since Michael Vick is dominating the national sports news right now, maybe I should ask the general public about its opinion in the matter.
Case for reinstatement:
Vick, if he returns to football shape (big if), can still wow fans. Football is his business, and do you really think he is a danger on the football field? Vick has served his debt to society in his more than 20 months in federal custody. Why should he be punished any further than the extent of the law?
And he served his debt during the prime of his athletic career. Despite losing millions, he has also lost time and earning potential. Ask any athlete past the age of 33 if they would like two years of their late 20s back. If reinstated, Vick would be better able to pay his creditors. Vick could also serve as an ambassador against animal cruelty. There is no greater platform.
The United States is the land of second chances. Why not give the man a chance to redeem himself? Others have been given that chance in this country that gives out harsher punishments for stealing a car than $1 million.
Case against reinstatement:
What he did to his dogs is enough for many people to never see him in the NFL again. But since we pretty much all think that what he did to the dogs was heinous (I sure hope so. If it isn’t in your case, you better re-examine yourself), lets move forward.
Vick had his chance at a prolific career, but he squandered it. Think of the many athletes that are struggling to make an NFL roster, and then think of Vick, who made millions and squandered it. Not only did he get convicted of dogfighting charges, he initially lied to the NFL commissioner and the league.
Vick is a felon, which means that he cannot even vote. The NFL can choose against hiring felons just like many major companies do. There is a message here for young athletes as well: If you get convicted of a felony, you can still play in the NFL. Dangerous precedents here.
Which side do you fall on?
- Russo