Was Roger Goodells ruling on Michael Vick fair?
Osterhout: I thought the semi-punishment was about as fair as it could be. Roger Goodell had to impose some sort of punishment to appease the puritanical puppy lovers and maintain his image as a tough enforcer, but he couldn’t be seen as picking up the slack for the American justice system. Goodell came up with a nice compromise. Vick can’t play for the first six weeks of the season, but he can practice, and he might even return sooner if he says please and thank you. After spending 19 months in jail, Vick is going to need those six weeks to ease his way back into playing shape anyway. Also, this moderate punishment doesn’t scare off future teams that might be interested in signing Vick, so the man, theoretically, can get back to work. Hildenbrandt: I agree entirely. We knew he’d get back in eventually, and he’s paid his debt to society, so there’s really no reason he can’t resume football-related activities with an NFL team. I think Goodell is well within his rights as commissioner to
Related Questions
- Is it fair to say that, as a human, you enjoy the chaos and beauty of wilderness and nature, but not enough to prefer it over right angles, sterilized order, pathological security and rigorous predictability?
- How does FDA’s fair balance ruling for search ads affect portals such as WebMd?
- What year was the fair catch ruling applied in football?
