Not so Goodell: Timing Just Isn't His Thing...
Since August 8, 2006 Roger Goodell just doesn't seem to have a fair and balanced center as can be demonstrated by his assessing a small fine for cheating the entire sports world of more than one fair and honest Superbowl.
More recently, Michael Vick's case also isn't just one of those little technical snafu's. This is Roger Goodells' normal mode of operandi, "Stuck like a deer in the headlights."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but doesn't consistently failing to make fair and competent evaluations of rule violations problematic? Then adding to the chaos, failing to assess an equitable and timely penalty actually inflict more damage to the NFL than the original violation?
More over, Mr. Goodell's repeatedly falling back to a standard, " Indefinite Suspension", is actually detrimental to both the league and the player.
What should have happened in Michael Vick's case that would have been better for both Michael and the League?
First: Within two weeks of Michael's conviction, Roger Goodell should have suspended Michael for a specific period of time based on his violation against the NFL rules.
Second: If that time period has expired, then Michael Vick should be allowed to play football.
Roger Goodell's inability to fairly asses a penalty given such clear cut circumstances only magnifies an already painful and damaging situation.
If the rule violation was committing a felony without the loss of human life, should the suspension be one or two years?
If during the interview process, Michael Vick was also caught misrepresenting the facts directly to the Commissioner, (not the recommended way to influence any Judge), would it be reasonable to asses a full two-year suspension?
Then, if Michael has not played in a game of professional football in the two years since the infraction, then he has successfully completed the suspension.
No, this is not an article proposing leniency for Michael Vick. This article's intention is to solely outline the ineptitude currently occupying the NFL Commissioners Office.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?