Of Dogs and Eagles

A superstar athlete who is caught breaking the rules should no longer be allowed to play professional sports. Just ask Alex Rodriguez.

Oh, wait.

OK, OK, well, in any event, a superstar who commits grievous physical and/or emotional harm to other living beings should certainly be ostracized from society and ineligible for large-scale displays of public adulation. Just ask Michael Jackson.

All right, all right, wait, we can do this.

Umm. . . OK! A SUPERSTAR ATHLETE who COMMITS GRIEVOUS PHYSICAL AND/OR EMOTIONAL HARM TO ANOTHER LIVING BEING should, at the very least, NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO PLAY PROFESSIONAL SPORTS. Just ask Kobe Bryant or Mike Tyson.

DAMN IT!

This isn't working, is it?

Of course we're talking about Michael Vick. For those of you who haven't followed the news for the last couple of years--or who were only paying attention to frivolous stories like the election or the war in Iraq--Michael Vick was the quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. Almost from the start of his professional career, Vick was a star. During his five seasons in the NFL, he was considered not only among the best quarterbacks in the league but one of the best athletes as well--a player who could almost singlehandedly win a game with either his arm or his legs, a player who gave defensive coordinators nightmares.

All of this ended prior to the 2007 season when Michael Vick pleaded guilty to running a dog fighting ring in Virginia. He was immediately suspended from football. He recently completed a two-year prison sentence (including several months under house arrest) and was reinstated to the NFL. The Atlanta Falcons had made it clear virtually from the moment of Vick's arrest that he was finished with their team, so it remained to be seen where Vick would end up. Would any NFL team risk the public-relations fallout from signing him?

Indeed. Yesterday, the Philadelphia Eagles signed Vick to a two-year deal.

Now, let us make one thing perfectly clear: The Solipsist is an animal lover. Granted, we're more of a cat person, but we harbor no ill will toward dogs or, indeed, any four-legged creature. We think what Vick did was loathsome, and we wouldn't hire him. Then again, since Vick has shown no evidence of writing ability, we probably wouldn't hire him even if he won the Humane Society's Man-of-the-Year Award. If we were running a football team, though. . . .

Look, is anyone really surprised? We have problems with the argument that Vick should never have been allowed to play professional football again. If Vick were, say, a plumber, would you confiscate his wrench and ill-fitting jeans? Of course not.

You may object: A plumber doesn't make $1.5 million dollars a year and have major endorsement deals. This is true, but it's not Vick's fault that professional athletes are grossly overpaid (if you think they are overpaid, which we don't exactly, but that's a topic for another post). In fact, one could argue that Vick is underpaid. Consider that the New York Giants just signed Eli Manning to a six-year contract extension worth over $15 million a year. Now Manning is a Super-Bowl winning quarterback with a terrific public image--about "as controversial as a bowl of corn flakes," according to one commentator--but Vick is undoubtedly a superior athlete (whether he's a better quarterback is, again, another topic). The point is, had Vick's career proceeded as expected, he would have been making significantly more than he is now. As for endorsements, we don't foresee sponsors burning up the phone lines to Vick's agent any time in the near future, no matter how well he does on the field.

Some will argue that it's not just the money they object to: It's the fact that, as a professional athlete, Vick is a role model. For better or worse, this also is true. But this, too, could be an argument in favor of reinstating him. If what Vick did in secret was horrific--and it was--then could he not now use the very public platform of an NFL quarterback to try and undo some of the damage? To speak out against the very crime for which he was convicted? To serve as a spokesman for animal-rights organizations, perhaps? At least to donate and help raise money for the APSCA?

Let us again be clear: We do not condone what Vick did. We are quite happy that neither the Giants nor the Jets signed Vick, and if anything this just gives us one more reason to jeer the Philadelphia Eagles (not that we really needed one). But Michael Vick committed a crime, was convicted, and served his sentence. And while what he did was loathsome, is it worse than alleged rape (Kobe Bryant) or rape (Mike Tyson)? Is it worse than cheating at the sport you chose to play (Alex Rodriguez, et al.)?

You may agree that it is worse, and more power to you. You may also argue that it is not worse, and that those other players have no right to continue playing the sports they're playing. Again, more power to you. And if you owned a football team, you would be within your rights--indeed, you'd be morally obligated--not to employ Michael Vick.

But it is hardly surprising that somebody did. Maybe it's a sign of the sickness of our society, but this is the society that we've got. The only way that's going to change is if the Eagles suffer financially because of the Vick decision--perhaps they will. In the meantime, though, they made a sound football decision. Call it what it is, cynical opportunism; or disingenuously (see yesterday's post) call it faith in the rehabilitative and redemptive power of incarceration; it hardly matters. What matters is what Michael Vick does now, both on the field and, more importantly, off.