Michael Vick is doing home detention and now people are talking about him, saying he's a changed man and he deserves a chance to play in the NFL. Hey, I've read he has a right to play in the NFL.
A right?
Give me a break. There is no right to play in the NFL. There is a right to free speech and a right to own property and a right to freedom of the press. Show me the right to play in the NFL.
Playing in the NFL is a privilege. He forfeited that privilege by murdering dogs. I say the league should turn its back on him.
A right?
Please.
To read my column on Vick click here.
Wow Lowell, I didn't realize you're such a forgiving and compassionate person.
Michael Vick is sorry he got caught. Period. He's not sorry about anything else. And I've never heard him apologize to the dogs he murdered. If the Niners or Raiders sign him I'll never attend one of their games again. Never.
The NFL should turn it's back on Vick. Unfortunately there will be some crazy owner that will become desperate for attention and think that Vick could help their team.
Avenues like the NFL Network and the Internet will keep rumors swirling around for a long time. Especially if a team needs a QB due to injury or poor play, Vick's name will not disappear like it should.
I listned to the ESPN announcers today. They believe the commishoner owes it to Vick to give him a chance to make money to pay back everyone he owes money too. There were a few other comments, but the jist was he has to be allowed to play to see how he will act in the spotlight. I say no second chance.
The NFL has players who beat up women, who've killed other PEOPLE. Take drugs, drive drunk, molest minors. Have I missed anything? Yeah, dog-fighting is repugnant. He served his time. I never thought he was a very good quarterback, but if he could guarantee your team a 15-1 season everyone would look the other way. He's just not that good.
It is unfortunate that you do not believe in second chances. Someday you might need one. I hope you do not get it.
I mostly agree with Bob In Pacifica. Vick is probably talked about more than his talent warrants.
With that said, it's really tough to ignore this post's (and the linked column's) thick-skulled, narrow-minded, rationale.
If I understand correctly, Lowell's argument is that playing in the NFL is a privilege allowed only by the NFL, independent of our judicial system. That is to say, the NFL runs on its own set of higher moral standards.
The only problem is that it doesn't.
I wonder, Lowell, how you can write an entire column denouncing Mike Vick's potential reinstatement without even mentioning Leonard Little, the Cincinnati Bengals, players with DUI's, or any of the NFL's other morally objectionable figures?
You could say that those players shouldn't be allowed to play either, but where do you draw the line? Should a player with tax evasion history be allowed to play? How about someone who cheats on his wife? What about steroid users?
Your attempt at a column is, at best, incomplete. Incomplete, and reckless.
Drawing ethical lines in the sand is a very delicate and complicated endeavor; not something to be addressed as haphazardly as you have.
At least 73 active NFL players (as of the '08 season) have been arrested for DUI:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnaTKdEd2Oku49jQSXADjkk5nYcB?slug=jo-nflduis052009&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
According to Lowell, one player organizing dog fights is a bigger, more serious issue. Why so silent on their ban from the NFL?
THE COHN BIZARRO ZONE
Yeah Lowell, think about this next time you want to murder dogs for money and sport.