Many Saints fans have followed the Michael Vick case with much enthusiasm because, as any fan could tell you, before last season the Saints had never defeated a Vick-led Falcons.
So Saints fans, perhaps more than all other NFL fans, are genuinely excited to see Michael Vick go to jail and receive an indefinite NFL suspension – and a fair one at that.
I must respectfully disagree with the opinion that ran in this place last week that said the NFL “doles out punishment based on the players themselves, not the crime in question.”
Cited as arguments were the way the NFL handled the Adam “Pacman” Jones situation this season and a situation concerning Leonard Little of the St. Louis Rams in 1998.
First, Little’s incident happened nine years prior to the current NFL Conduct Policy, so comparing him to Vick is comparing apples and oranges.
Jones, former Bears defensive lineman Tank Johnson, and wide receiver Chris Henry of the Bengals were all suspended before the season began for violating the NFL’s new conduct policy. Jones received a yearlong suspension with the possibility of its being reduced with good behavior. Johnson and Henry both received eight-game suspensions.
Since entering the NFL in 2005, Jones has been arrested five times and been questioned by police 11 times, but he has never been formally charged or pleaded guilty to a crime.
Vick pleaded guilty to some of the dog fighting charges against him while he maintains innocence in saying he never profited from the fights.
He also admits, in his summary of facts that through the collective efforts of Vick and two of his co-defendants, six to eight dogs were killed because of poor performance in “testing” sessions.
It’s obvious why Vick received a harsher punishment than Jones. It’s not because Vick is a superstar, but because he pleaded guilty to federal dogfighting charges, and Jones has never been convicted.
Evidence or not, Vick committed and admitted to a federal crime. Jones hasn’t. Until that day, the punishments are fair.
To say Jones should be punished for a crime he may or may not have committed is jumping to conclusions, punishing not based on actions, but by word of mouth.
Both are being punished based on their actions alone, not who they are.
