Posts

It's just a feeling, but I can imagine a time in the not distant future when Michael Vick is embraced by the general public and his detractors are characterized as no more than zealots, who are more concerned about welfare of animals than people. (This is of course a very popular way to minimize the concerns of animal rights activists.) What prompts me to say this now?

Two things:

1. Vick is out of prison and a free Michael Vick is probably a good (enough) investment.

He will serve the remaining two months of his sentence in home confinement, and then his prison term will end on July 20. Once he is more or less free from his legal obligations, there are enough people interested Vick, either as athlete or celebrity, to help him clean up his image. Of course this group includes people associated with professional sports and the NFL (e.g. agents, NFL teams). Let's not forget the league itself. There is a lot of interest in Michael Vick. Handled in the wrong way, Vick is a PR disaster waiting to happen. However, handled properly, all of that interest might be parlayed into a windfall for the sport. If we're being honest, the NFL is full of criminals. As long as the league is seen as being tough with them, history tells us that that fans are willing to not only tolerate them, but celebrate them.

None of this is to suggest that Vick's appeal is limited to his value to the National Football League.

First there are the media outlets and advertisers. Whether you love him or hate him, it's pretty safe to say that you are interested. (It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see this post quickly become the most popular on the site.) As unfortunate as it may be, it doesn't matter why we why read, or watch, or listen, to stories involving Vick. Success is measured quantitatively. It's about the numbers.

This isn't to suggest that Vick is suddenly a likable character. I highly doubt we'll see any endorsements from Vick for a very long time, and advertisers will be careful to position whatever they're promoting at a safe distance. But if Vick plays football again, his first game back will likely result in huge ratings, and if it's my job to sell anything from deodorant, and non-dairy whipped topping to computers, and cars, I want that sort of exposure. As long as I don't claim that Vick uses the product, the risks are absolutely minimal. Well, advertisers are jerks, right? They'll do anything to make a buck. The rest of us are better than that. We would never get in bed with such a disreputable character as Vick in the name of promoting our own interests. Maybe that is true for some of us, but apparently not the Humane Society of the United States.

It has been widely reported that The Humane Society will work with Michael Vick. This according to Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society President and CEO.

From an article by ESPN from May 20, 2009 on the subject of reports that Vick and the Human Society will be working together:

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society, says the group plans to partner with Vick in developing programs aimed at eliminating dogfighting.

...

Pacelle said he was approached with the idea of working with the former star quarterback several months ago by Vick's representatives. After meeting with Vick at the federal prison camp, Pacelle said, he decided just within the past week that working with Vick was the right move for the society and its missions.

...

Pacelle said that in their meeting, Vick "clearly expressed remorse and contrition, but that's not what convinced me to think about plugging him into these programs.

He may be able to move the ball down the field. But it's up to him to make the most of the experience."

Pacelle continued: "If he's sincere about it and in it for the long haul, then he can be an agent for change. If he's not sincere about it, it's a failing of his, not of ours."

Of course working with a group like the Humane Society will surely be a positive thing for Vick. However, Pacelle himself expresses doubt about a) Vick's sincerity and willingness to live up to his end of the bargain and b) whether the arrangement will of any benefit to the Human Society.

Personally, I think this is a despicable move, and one that is unlikely to have a positive impact. There are any number of problems with Pacelle's rationalization. I'll mention a couple.

First, is that Pacelle is reading Vick's situation wrong. The lesson to be learned from Vick isn't that participating in dogfighting is wrong. He wasn't convicted of attending dogfights or even betting on dogfights. He was convicted of conspiring with others to stage dogfighting events and building and maintaining training facilities for profit. I hazard to guess that few if any of the people Vick will talk to on behalf of the Human Society have the wherewithal, or for that matter the intention, of committing these crimes. What happened to all of the other people involved in the dogfights Vick was responsible for? I don't know either, but I'm guessing not much of anything.

A second lesson might be that you should not risk your career in professional sports, and the 100+ million dollar salary that goes with it, to fund a penny-ante dogfighting circuit. This may in fact be the lasting lesson. (It wouldn't surprise me if we never again hear about a professional athlete bankrolling a dogfighting operation.) Unfortunately it doesn't address the problem Pacelle is concerned about unless we assume that a significant number of the people responsible for these operations are pro athletes. I'd be willing to bet that's not the case.

Lest we loss sight of the fact that what Vick has done are monstrous acts of callous cruelty. Let's not forget that the charges against Vick also included multiple allegations of abuse against animals, including that Vick and two co-defendants “executed approximately 8 dogs that did not perform well. Furthermore, that the executions were allegedly carried out in a variety of brutal ways, including “hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog’s body to the ground.”

Apparently for Vick, it was not enough to torture the dogs until they were deranged enough to kill each other on demand, and then watch the brutality play out. Nor was it sufficient to execute dogs that were not effective enough killers. Beyond this, Michael Vick found it necessary to kill the dogs in a variety of contemptible ways. This is certainly not the most efficient way to dispose of dog, so we can only assume that killing these dogs was about more than simply getting the job done.

It would seem that the Humane Society was not the only organization entertaining the idea of establishing a relationship with Vick with the goal of discouraging people from participating in dogfighting.

From the Huffington Post:

PETA is apparently in talks with disgraced NFL quarterback Michael Vick to be a spokesperson:

"I'm familiar with [the plan]," said Dan Shannon, director of youth outreach and campaigns for PETA. "We have been in discussions with Michael Vick, with his management team, about the possibility of him putting out a public-service announcement with PETA when he's out of jail. We want him to discourage people from taking part in dog-fighting. I can do it until I'm blue in the face and it might not convince anybody. Michael Vick sure can. He can say, 'Look, I did it, I was wrong, and it ruined my career.'"

The Huffington post updated this story to report that PETA subsequently stepped away from the idea because of details of Michael Vick's involvement:

From the Huffington Post:

A PETA spokesperson wrote in to say that Vick won't be working for them (and they get around to calling him a psychopath, too):

To clarify misleading stories regarding PETA and Michael Vick, PETA withdrew its offer to do a TV spot with Michael Vick last winter when a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report on Vick's dogfighting activities revealed that he enjoyed placing family pets in the ring with fighting pit bulls and that he laughed as dogs ripped each other apart.

I'm not a fan a PETA, and for all I know this could be just another self-servicing stunt. I wouldn't put it past them to pretend to entertain the idea of working with Vick for the opportunity to renounce the guy while everyone is paying attention.

Let's just get something straight. Immediately before Michael Vick went to prison he was running a dogfighting operation and killing dogs. The very next thing that happened was that he went to prison for two years. That brings us to now, and we're supposed to believe that Vick has some new insight related to the treatment dogs. I don't see how.

As for the prospect that Vick might someday genuinely understand that what he has done is morally wrong and cultivate a new respect for these animals, remember that he had pet dogs at the same time he was tormenting and killing dogs for sport. So, unless a dog somehow saves his life, I'm not buying the fact that Michael Vick sees dogs as anything other than soulless creatures here for our amusement who don't deserve even the slightest respect or consideration.

That's reason 1 why I believe that Michael Vick is well on his way to public acceptance. Thanks to the efforts of the Humane Society, and many others, who see Vick as an opportunity to further their own agenda, in a relatively short amount of time we'll see a seemingly endless stream of contrived evidence of the new Michael Vick. Especially for sports fans, for whom complex moral questions concerning right and wrong conveniently reduce to simple wins and losses, accepting Michael Vick will be all too easy. (Assuming of course he helps to win games.)

For what it's worth, I will never do anything to support the Humane Society for the rest of my life.

2. Donte Stallworth

On March 14th, 2009 Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth was driving his 2005 Bentley while drunk when he hit and killed Mario Reyes, 59.

From Yahoo Sports:

Stallworth, 28, received the sentence after pleading guilty to a DUI manslaughter charge for striking and killing Mario Reyes while driving drunk March 14 in his black 2005 Bentley. The athlete also reached a confidential financial settlement with the family of the 59-year-old construction worker.

Without the plea deal, the DUI manslaughter conviction could have netted Stallworth 15 years in prison. After his release from jail, he must serve two years of house arrest and spend eight years on probation. The house arrest provisions will allow him to resume his football career, his attorney said.

It has been reported that Vick has turned his life over to God. Hey, maybe there is a God after all. If so, this dead construction worker and the farce of a legal resolution in the Stallworth case is surely God's answer to Vick's prayers.

The comparisons were inevitable and started to appear immediately. Of course the circumstances of the two cases are somehow left out of the discussion and the whole thing is reduced to this:

Vick killed dogs and received 2 years in prison.

Stallworth killed a person and received 30 days.

Aren't people more important than dogs?

Shouldn't the punishment for killing people be substantially more severe than the punishment for killing dogs?

Of course, this doesn't begin to describe the actual situation in either case, but it's enough to shift the conversation about Vick from what he did to what he didn't do, as in "Hey, it's not like he killed anyone."

If we were capable of getting past the superficial characterization of the two cases and the misleading comparison, we might realize how dissimilar they are.

Vick was not charged with killing dogs. He was indicted of federal conspiracy charges. Furthermore, he was given a harsher penalty than he would have otherwise because it was determined that he lied in statements to authorities about his involvement in the killing of dogs related to the case.

Stallworth did not intend to kill anyone. He made the unfortunate decision to drive his car after drinking. His impaired state most likely contributed to the death of Mario Reyes, but he didn't intend to harm anyone. The conscious decision was to drive. Had he been pulled over before the accident, that crime for a first offender like Stallworth, would qualify as a misdemeanor. It's likely Stallworth would have had his license suspended for 6 months, been required to participate in alcohol education and treatment, and been assessed a relatively modest fine. There is a very good chance that he would not have seen any jail time as a result of this. Furthermore, under current NFL policy, Stallworth would have been fined but not suspended for even a single game.

Let's keep two important points in mind.

First, aside from his poor judgement Stallworth conducted himself admirably by all accounts. He stopped immediately after the accident, called 911, submitted to roadside alcohol testing, and otherwise cooperated fully. Compare this to Vick, who was uncooperative to the point of lying to investigators.

Lastly, before we judge Stallworth's decision as extraordinarily bad, we should keep in mind that 54 players have been arrested on charges of drunk driving in the past 3 years, 18 per season, a figure which may actually represent a decline. Furthermore, these numbers put the drunk driving arrest rate for NFL players at a level that is in fact disproportionately low when compared to the broader class of all men ages 21 to 35. The fact is that Stallworth's grievous decision is in fact quite common.

To compare Vick to Stallworth we would have to be talking about Stallworth conspiring to kill Reyes and then murdering the man for sport. These crimes of course demand far harsher penalties than Vick's sentence, regardless of cooperation or contrition. No one is suggesting that it should be otherwise. Alternatively, we'd be talking about Vick unintentionally hitting and killing a dog with his car. If this was in fact what Vick had done, it's unlikely that it would even have been considered a crime worthy of prosecution.

Comparing these two cases is utterly absurd. But that isn't all there is too this.

The inconvenient truth of the matter is that Stallworth faced 15 years in prison, and the outcome, which sees the NFL player serve less than 30 days, would not have been possible without the victim's family pleading for this end to the case. It may be uncomfortable to think about, but the sentence is based in large part on an undisclosed cash settlement. Essentially, the Reyes family put a price tag on Mario Reyes life, and Stallworth had the money to pay it. You can't blame Stallworth for wanting to salvage his life. On the other hand, you won't get an argument from me if you believe the Reyes family are despicable, morally corrupt people, who were not only willing but apparently quite eager to exchange the life of Mario for a big check. I wonder how much of that undisclosed cash settlement will be donated to charities working to eliminate drunk driving.

Is Vick a monster? In a world where we identify the Reyes family as victims while they run from the funeral to the bank, who cares?