The League

Doug Farrar
Writer

Doug Farrar

A FootballOutsiders.com staff writer

Vick Doesn't Deserve a Second Chance

CLICK TO REACT Facebook

Well, since I'm an animal lover who believes that the collusion scandal of the 1980s was far more harmful to baseball than the steroids issue has been, I guess that tells you where I stand...

Look, nobody denies that performance-enhancing drugs have given baseball a black eye of Rocky Balboa proportions, but what Michael Vick participated in and financed was so horrible, it's difficult to remember without an acute sense of disgust. Go back and read the Sports Illustrated article about the dogs that were saved from the Vick dogfighting operation -- if you can get past the first five paragraphs without wincing, you're stronger than me. There has to be something so vile in the character of someone who would support such an operation that we have to take a step back and wonder if it is worth having that person involved in the sport we watch, analyze and write about.

I know the argument is that Vick will have served his time and will show proper remorse, and that people deserve a second chance. But while people deserve second chances, sometimes they don't get them. Sometimes, the things they have done are horrible enough to drive a stake through any good memories we have of them, and it's best to move on without that person tarnishing the game. The NFL is under no obligation to reinstate Vick, and if Commissioner Roger Goodell does reinstate him (as I believe he will), it can not end any way but badly.

Most likely, Vick's skills -- substandard for the quarterback position and eroded after years away from the game -- will come up short, and we'll be left with what? A fringe "celebrity" with a reality show on an off-network? An ex-con, trying to sell his story to the highest bidder?

I don't know -- maybe it's better to swallow the pill, reinstate him, and get the inevitable decline over with. At least then, Vick wouldn't be like Pete Rose, rattling the cage until the noise becomes intolerable...

By Doug Farrar  |  March 4, 2009; 9:59 AM ET  | Category:  Atlanta Falcons , Doug Farrar , Michael Vick , Steroids Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Vick's a Tougher Sell | Next: March 6th Winner: INKYDOG

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Hey guy Vick didn't murder a human being, and even in our society people who committ murder against human beings get a second chance so get real, he's served his time, he lost his livelihood, he's being sued by everyone, he'll have to liquidate some of his assetts, he's been publicly shamed and humiliated, how much or what more punishment do you think is required???

Posted by: 72Redskins | March 4, 2009 2:12 PM

how much or what more punishment do you think is required???
Posted by: 72Redskins


not sure, do you think Vick has ever been grabbed by his ankles and repeatedly smacked against concrete?? Maybe we could allow someone to place him in water and shock him with some electric cables.

And by the way, this argument that "they weren't humans, therefore not as serious", so let him play - all I can say is that I hope you never own a dog if this is how you feel about it.

Posted by: obx2004 | March 5, 2009 9:09 AM

The depth of hypocrisy displayed by people who choose to judge Vick on his cruelty to animals has no bounds. Life for chickens and cows are barely better than Vick's dogs, yet nobody points their righteous indignation towards their source of hamburgers. By the look of Doug's picture, I am assuming he hasn't been denying himself any meat. Their are millions upon millions of animals that are treated cruelly to satisfy our urges, yet you waste column space on a minor criminal who harmed a handful of animals? I have a dog and I am as disturbed by their treatment as anyone, but I also understand that being a meat eater gives someone no room to judge.

Posted by: benstuplisberger | March 5, 2009 10:40 AM

Michael Vick is a young man he made a mistake, and he was jailed for it. He deserves a chance to prove himself worthy, and the alternative is we force him into a life of crime in order to make a living.
What he did to the dogs was awful, but to continue to abuse him would also be awful, and could lead to his destruction. So let's give him a little humane concern.
He can redeem himself.

Posted by: duggieWP | March 5, 2009 1:06 PM

Dude, let me tell you something, if your such an animal lover, than stand up to the inhumane killing of innocent dear, bear, turkey, quail, duck or any other defenseless animal killed every day to be showcased on some pathetic individuals wall as a trophy. Or the tv shows and magazines that glorify it. People like yourself are some of the biggest liars in this world. Just because dogs were involved, oh that makes it different? No, there is no difference, and when you try to justify the difference then its not about the animals, but the individual you have a problem with. Me, I'm an animal lover. I resent mistreatment and cruel behavior of all animals for sport or fighting, so instead of running behind the crowd with this insane reasoning of which you've put so much thought into I'm sure, how about speaking the truth and get down to the real reason you don't want Vick to play again.

Posted by: skynz71 | March 6, 2009 7:49 AM

Hey Dude,

why don't you include Clemens, Rodriguez and the other fair haired icons in your indictment. Vick and Bonds haven't done anything worse than them.

Posted by: tyson6790 | March 16, 2009 11:10 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company