Quote from omegapoint:
An interesting question to mull is the social statement giving Vick another chance will cast into the public opinion. Owners wrestling with adding Vick to their roster must be considering how it will reflect on public percepion of their values and team image. By adopting Vick are they demonstrating how low they'll stoop to win? Of course they will have the obvious rationalizations of their actions, saying it was all business and helping the team is the only motivation to add him. Maybe Al Davis will confirm his contribution to the history of sports quotes.
Is bringing Vick aboard a statement that offhandedly condones his
unacceptable habits and company? The public forgets quickly, if he wins they won't care how many dogs died for his amusement or how that behavior imprinted on kids.
The league is full of violent criminals, many of whom did things worse than Vick. I don't condone what Vick did or his whole gansta image, but he served two years in prison, is bankrupt and despised by a good percentage of the country.
What worries me more than any possible mixed message sent by Vick's reinstatement is the concept that the Commissioner can ban players for any reason whatsoever if he feels they reflect badly on the league. I see a lot of potential for the typical PC speech and thought control to seep into this. What if a player denounces Obama? What if a player does so in a racially insensitive manner? We've already had players called on the carpet for comments about homosexuality. What's next? Does a player risk his job if he says he's against homo marriage? No one ever dreamed that a beauty contest winner would lose her crown for saying that, but it happened.
