MediaStrike Banner

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Pennsylvania's 7s

The Ben Roethlisberger's crime vs. Michael Vick's crime is hackneyed, but I won't let it pass without getting my two cents in. While there are exceptions on both sides, the prevailing narrative seems to be that Roethlisberger is "on the road to redemption", while Vick is still "that guy who killed dogs". I call BS.

The fact is that Vick was convicted of his crimes, while Roethlisberger was never even tried for his alleged transgressions is a striking difference. Yet few argue that that is because Vick was guilty and Roethlisberger is innocent. Ben himself has apologized for... um, stuff; Commissioner Goodell clearly believed there was wrongdoing; even those telling "redemption" tales believe Ben was in the wrong. After all, what else would he be redeeming himself from? What this means is that Vick has served his time for his crimes, while Roethlisberger has gotten off scot-free, save for a six game suspension, knocked down to four for good behavior (read: Not raping anyone for a little while).



Here's the thing: Last I checked, one does not pay his debt to society by winning football games. In the system set up in this nation and most in the world, that's done by serving time. It seems to me Michael Vick, not Ben Roethlisberger, should be the redemption story.
Post a Comment
discussion by

Labels