Wednesday, July 18, 2007

The troubling case of Michael Vick

I've always enjoyed watching Michael Vick play quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. His speed and athleticism are simply amazing. He can make plays that no one else can.

That having been said, the indictment against Vick (and others) for supporting and participating in dogfighting is profoundly disturbing. It's disturbing partly because I have pets of my own. It's disturbing because apparently a lot of evidence has been gathered suggesting that dogfighting did go on at a home owned by Vick, that the dogfights themselves (as I gather they always are) were brutal (in a typical fight, the winner was the dog who lived; the loser, the dog who died from his wounds), that dogs not ready or not able to fight were killed in brutal ways, that Vick knew of, agreed with, and supported all this. And indeed, is it really credible that dogfighting on a large scale could be going on at a home Vick owned, completely unknown to him?

That having been said, in our society, we're innocent until proven guilty. Vick must have his day in court. And there's the dilemma for the NFL and the Falcons--they can't assume Vick to be guilty. They must stand by him, allow him to play, until the legal process plays out. Mike Vick says he's innocent. We'll see. In the meantime, what else can the league do but allow him to be with the Falcons as usual, as training camp begins? I don't see how the NFL can adopt a guilty-until-proven-innocent policy.

But if Mr. Vick admits guilty in this matter, or is proven guilty, I believe the league should suspend him indefinitely. For multiple seasons, making Pacman Jones' suspension look like a tea party. There is no place in the National Football League, or in society, for this kind of brutality against defenseless animals. UPDATE: Michael Wilbon of the Washington Post has a good column as well on this case, pointing out how Vick has put everything--his NFL salary, his endorsements, over $100 million in all--at risk because of this. Not smart.