SEND TO A FRIEND

|

PRINT ARTICLE

Michael Vick & the Wheels of Justice

One of my reasons for lamenting the Michael Vick story is purely selfish: I love watching the guy play.

The Atlanta Falcons quarterback is one of the most dangerous weapons in recent NFL history. With NFL camps reporting this week, my football fan juices are starting to flow mightily. One of the compelling story lines was going to be whether Mr. Vick's singular talents could propel his team to the playoffs.

Now we'll have to see whether he ever takes another NFL snap.

He will be arraigned in federal court in Richmond, Va., tomorrow following a detailed indictment that places him at the center of a brutal dogfighting ring. At the same time a few hundred miles south, his teammates will open training camp. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has ordered Mr. Vick not to show up.

"While it is for the criminal justice system to determine your guilt or innocence," he says in a letter, "it is my responsibility ... to determine whether your conduct, even if not criminal, nonetheless violated league policies, including the personal conduct policy."

This is precisely the right thing to do, but the commissioner's bold action coupled with some public pronouncements from those of us in the opinion business have sparked misguided claims that Mr. Vick's rights have somehow been abrogated.

The question rains down: "What about the presumption of innocence?"

Is it possible that so many people misunderstand this concept? Do people really believe that the presumption of innocence is an obligation borne by employers and the general public?

Let me unburden anyone saddled with that misconception. The presumption of innocence is what we are owed by the judicial system, not our bosses or our neighbors. The NFL can suspend Mr. Vick until this is settled one way or the other. Columnists, carpenters and pastry chefs may speak at length about their gut instincts about the guilt or innocence of any defendant in the news.

So, having outed myself as one who believes Mr. Vick is guilty, I now must apparently justify my level of disgust, as well as my early comfort with my conclusion.

"Why don't you seem as upset with a white referee fixing NBA games?" asks one e-mailer. "Why don't you give Vick the same benefit of the doubt you gave the white lacrosse players at Duke?" asks another.

The whiteness invoked in both questions is wholly irrelevant. In the case of NBA official Tim Donaghy, I am thoroughly incensed at the prospect of any referee gambling on a game he officiates. But that simply does not rise to the level of visceral distaste I have for anyone operating something as vicious and violent as Mr. Vick's Bad Newz Kennels. Make it Tony Romo running the dog-fighting ring, or a black ref throwing games, and my feelings would not change.

As for the Duke lacrosse case, the comparison is simply silly. The Vick indictment is nearly 20 pages of solid observations by reliable witnesses that he was at the center of this bloodthirsty operation. On the other hand, accuser Crystal Mangum's accusations against the Duke players began to unravel almost immediately.

The Vick case is not piloted by a sinister local DA looking to score cheap political points. The federal batting average for prosecutions is astronomically high, a track record based on the feds' tendency to pursue only those cases featuring compelling evidence of guilt.

There are surely some who gleefully conclude Mr. Vick's guilt because it fits an unfortunately prevalent pattern of black athletes opting for ridiculous "gangsta" behavior egged on by the fringes of hip-hop culture.

That would be racist. But so, too, are those who rush to exonerate him for race-based reasons.

The wheels of justice will now turn for Michael Vick. The charges will be harder to duck than any linebacker he ever faced.

---

Sphere: Related Content

|

Email

|

Print

|

---

Related Topics: vick |

Sponsored Links