Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
2. Goddell's most recent statement about Michael Vick (essentially: "He can come back if he shows remorse") is insanity. The guy was kicked out of the league, stripped of every endorsement, convicted and sent to jail. He has served his time and surely hasn't been out there saying he'd do it again. Now I understand this is an emotional issue, but let's step back here for a second. Players have beat the shit out of their wives and girlfriends, been busted and sent to jail for participating in massive drug trafficking schemes and assaulted people half their size. None of these players, after having escaped punishment or served their time, have been required to show remorse. The NFL can make up whatever rules it wants, of course. There is no right to play on one of their teams. And Michael Vick is clearly a jackass. But I think this whole thing is nuts, especially this latest league requirement.
|
There may be no right to play on an NFL team, but 32 teams jointly act through the league to decide who can and cannot play would -- one might think -- raise some sort of antitrust flag. Presumably the justification for the league is that for the health of the enterprise as a whole, it needs to set some standards, or there will be a race to the bottom by the teams, and the entertainment value of the product as a whole will suffer. I don't see why it's the place of the league to punish Vick, per se -- that's the job of the criminal justice system. But the league will suffer if it's seen to welcome back an unrehabilitated criminal, and it seems legit to let it protect itself in that regard. Perhaps that's a fine line?
