The commish, Roger Goodell, has made the decision to reinstate Michael Vick so that he can play in Week 3 against the Chiefs. Thanks for nothing Commish. Is it just me or are we just really making more about this whole Michael Vick thing than necessary. I mean, we don't have to go back into this, but yes he killed some dogs and he lied about it. So freakin what?!?!?
I'll go into this briefly. I am a dog owner, love the dog, she's great. BUT, I own her. I paid for her. She is not a PERSON. The dogs he killed were HIS dogs. He paid for them. They are pets, not kids, not anything else, pets. Just the other day, I went to get dog food for my dog. While I'm there this kid comes in, as he does almost every two or three weeks to buy a mouse (based on the conversation between him and the sales rep at Petco). Either he is running some crazy experiments that require he replenish his mouse population or he is feeding something that particularly likes to dine on mice (my assumption is a snake). What's the difference here?
Anyway, the Commish should have just allowed Vick to play the entire season. He already served his time and his debt to society. Why make it linger on longer than that? Dante Stallworth accidentally killed a man (and lost his licenses because of it) and he is suspended for a year. When he comes back he won't be conditionally reinstated. Goodell has already said he can play once he gets back. Where are all of the DADD/MADD groups? Nowhere. But Vick kills some animals and PETA is posted up outside of his crib. Does this make any sense?
I digress. I'm just glad that Vick can now play in the NFL again. He shouldn't be kept from earning a living in the way that he was previously. Besides, he'll end up being the starting QB for the Eagles in 2010 or 2011.
What's your take on Vick getting back on the field? Is it good for the Eagles? Does Donovan see that he is training his replacement?
No comments:
Post a Comment