Too little, too late
Vick's apology rings hollow considering circumstance
Thoughts on the news of Michael Vick's long-awaited plea agreement ....
• Through a spokesman, Vick said he's sorry. Ironically, it was the same spokesman who stood near a courthouse a month ago and told us that Vick looked forward to clearing his good name.
Why is it I have a feeling that both statements were more than just a little disingenuous?
Vick apologized Monday, because he had no other good option. There's nothing quite like a display of sincerity that has been made mandatory by events. Vick deciding to "accept full responsibility for his actions and the mistakes he has made'' comes a bit late, if you ask me.
Late April, when the dog-fighting investigation was launched, would have been the time when sincerity and full disclosure might have gone a long ways. Before his entire world seemingly turned against him. But Vick needed almost four months, and a whole lot of dominoes to fall in the wrong direction, in order to arrive at this point of confession.
Vick and his legal team finally realized that their options had dwindled to two unpalatable choices: Strike a plea agreement and limit the damage to a life and an NFL career that has become a question mark. Or risk going to court for a trial that held far more potential to deepen his troubles, rather than deliver him from them.
So while I know it's good legal form to offer the apology as part of the plea agreement, especially in light of the effect it can have on the judge's mood during the sentencing process, excuse me for pointing out how hollow the mea culpa rings.
Vick's not the first person to say he's sorry, when what he really means is he's sorry he got caught.
• Last week, I saw that Atlanta attorney Dan Meachum, a member of Vick's legal team, was quoted saying that Vick is "a good kid in a bad situation.''
Whether Vick is a "good kid'' is open for debate, and who's really in position to make that judgment with any certainty? But I know this much: If he is a good kid, he's a good kid who put himself in a bad situation. Michael Vick has only Michael Vick to blame for the crossroads his life and football career have arrived at.
Like a lot of privileged people who get used to having things their way in life, Vick never learned that there were consequences to his actions until it was too late. He figured his fame, his connections and his wealth could keep him protected. They couldn't. At least not from his self-destruction.
For those who still consider themselves Vick supporters, don't even try to point this in another direction. You know who to blame. Michael Vick's name has now become a cautionary tale. He had it all, and he thought that meant he was immune to losing it.
• There are so many losers all around in the Vick saga. First and foremost, Vick himself. No matter what, life will never be quite the same. But the Atlanta Falcons and their fans are losers too. They bought into Vick in a big way. The NFL is a loser for having a player it once trumpeted so publicly disgraced. And there are losers too among all those people who defended his innocence, and believed right up until the end that Vick's fingerprints weren't all over this grisly story of inhumane cruelty to animals, and the gambling that accompanied it.
They all lost something. But let's not forget the ultimate losers in this case were the mistreated animals themselves. Vick's apology does nothing for them.
• I'm just wondering if we're going to hear again from those wise men of all wise men, Deion Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Clinton Portis and the like? I seem to remember that Sanders told us Vick might love his dogs as much as any dog lover, it's just in a different way. He loved them because they fought for him.
Now that we know Vick and two of his co-defendants killed some of those dogs by hanging them from trees in their backyard, I want to hear Deion's latest take. And what about those dogs that just wouldn't die by hanging, but had to be finished off by having their heads held in five-gallon buckets of water until they drowned?
If that's the way Vick and his buddies "loved'' their dogs, please explain it to us again, Deion. Because I'm just not getting it.
• If Vick is back in the NFL some day, and I'd say the odds favor a comeback happening eventually, he'll have to launch the mother of all public relations campaigns to help ease his way back into the public eye.
The most logical suggestion I heard of what that campaign might look and sound like came from ex-Bengals quarterback Boomer Esiason. Vick would have to become an outspoken advocate against animal cruelty, write a big fat check to PETA or the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and repeatedly offer himself as an example of the good that can come from having made grievous mistakes.
If it comes off being authentic, America loves a story of redemption more than anything. There's a second chance waiting for him out there somewhere. But he's got a long road to travel between here and there.
Posts
2 comments:
Interesting Blog Spot. The following is my response to some people taking an aggresive attitude in a blog I write in. There agression was in response to some fellow bloggers critical stance towards Micheal Vick
"Posted by: ron artest | August 21, 2007 9:12 PM
vick is a dogfighting champion. stop hatin!"
"Perhaps the genius with the psuedonym "Ron Artest" is referring to the following article in ESPN.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2884063
ALthough I checked out this other blog to see if I could access the HBO real sport clip, I saw a short blurb on Vick and a video with some pretty graphic footage of what sort of harm these dogs suffer from dog fighting.
http://westsideslant.blogspot.com/
Am I "hatin" ask me. I don't think so. I suggest people look into the ASPCA blurbs on dog fighting for some perspective.
I thought PETA was insensitive in its post Vick plea deal statement while the SPCA statement on Sports Center was more measured and compassionate towards Vick, which is ok with me since I'm for second chances and rehabilitation.
The distinctions between dog fighting and hunting. well i'll take a stab:
1) Hunting is done seasonally in prescribed areas for the purposes of population control.
2) Hunters-- at least responsible and law abiding ones-- are licensed comply with the regulations in terms of season and geography of the animal hunted.
3) Hunting, ideally, is undertaken for the consumption of food with the bi product of population control- note that when prey animals overpopulate they become a danger to themselves and humans, because of the incereased likelyhood of human interaction.
3) Dog's, generally, unlike animals hunted or used for comercial consumption as foodstuff, have for over milenia been cultivated by humans to fill a wide range of useful social niches and utilities-- e.g., herding dogs, sled dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, dogs that assist police in anti narcotics at the airports, dogs that helped to sniff out the people in the context of catastrophes ala 9-11, dogs that help the blind, that are being trained to sniff out cancer, that provide companionship for the elderly etc., etc. I don't say what I am saying to be a bleeding heart but what has made the whole Vick story disturbing to me and perhpas many americans, whether dog lovers or familiar with dogs, is that it is the systematic nature of the dog fighting operations perpetrated on an animal that has and continues to have a pervasively positive degree of interaction with human society.
All that said, do hunters put use bait animals that are made defenseless so that the pit bull can strenghten its jaws? after a dear is shot if its still alive I believe its put killed instantly not electrocuted, drowned etc. Low level dog fighters will steal animals a bait animals and use and make them defenseless so that their "dawg" can become tougher.
Lastly, there are public safety concerns over dogs bred for the sole purpose of fighting, their agresssion if they are ever let loose, or even were to stray poses a danger to people and especially to children who may be seen as a bait animal to a large fighting dog.
I hope people understand that untill Vick decided to plea guilty. I was all for the innocent untill proven guilty line. I currently hope Vick learns from this experience. Perhaps the likely added suspension that Roger Goodell will likely place upon him once he returns from prison may give him time to prepare to make a come back. This is a country of second chances after all.
Lastly yes Marbury needs a publicist. I was one of the few people who interpreted his whole conversation on channel 5 about a month ago to be his an ill fated attempt at spoken word, and thought it was good for him to open up to the media. I hope he will think before he speaks, and hope that no dog fighting allegations ever come his way. For his sake.
Peace to all the intelligent fellow bloggers on this site. I hope we keep Nichols!
Ciao!"
That was my response. I am one of perhaps few people who believe in second chances for Michael Vick but I agree that he must undertake a sincere an thorough effort at rehabilitating himself and perhaps remedying the harm he has caused to so many fellow sentients.
I have a question to the blogger host. Are there specialized licensing laws or regulations that pertain to the keeping and ownership of "fighting dogs" like pit bulls?
If not are such laws being proposed? I think they ought to. Not so much for the purpose of stigmatizing the dogs in question put specifically for making it more feasible to keep tabs on such animals so that misuse may better be traked.
Tell me what you think.
bye
As the Chair of Animal Chaplains.com, I have been horrified to learn about dogfighting and the cruel torturing, maiming, and killing that takes place in it. I am saddened that celebrities like athlete Michael Vick and rapper DMX have been implicated in such unbelievably bloody crimes. The blogosphere seems to focus on the wrong questions, IMHO. Instead of, "Are animals as important as humans?", the real question should be, "Do animals suffer?"
Like humans, animals are sentient beings who feel pain. That is not only an intuitive reality, but a scientific fact. We are instructed by all of the worlds major faiths to care for animals in responsible, loving ways. It is our moral and spiritual obligation to protect them. Please join us on October 4th, 2007, in cities all around the world to celebrate "World Animal Day". On that day, animals will be blessed and honored, and we will hopefully all realize how lucky we are to have them in our world. For more information, search on the words "World Animal Day" for a celebration near you.
Nancy J. Cronk
Founder, Chair and Chaplain
Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains
www.AnimalChaplains.com
Post a Comment