The New York Times Hasn’t Forgotten Michael Vick’s Sordid Past

After a playoff lost, retreading old ground.

Not sure what to make of this NYT piece today basically warning Michael Vick’s future employers that he’s a dog murderer.

I mean: Yes, he is. Undoubtedly, there are teams that will decide he’s not worth the trouble and beg off. (Certainly, there were some local fans who never forgave the Eagles for signing Vick.)  A 33-year-old QB who lost his starting position during the season might not be the most valuable commodity in the league anyway.

And the NYT writer, Juliet Macur, clearly wants to keep it that way.

Vick, who owns a family dog after having previously been barred from doing so, showed me the six-inch fuzzy teddy bear that he carries in his duffel bag for good luck. The bear was a gift from his three children last Christmas. Signs of a changed man? Maybe.

But the Eagles should make it easy for their fans. They should replace Vick with someone devoid of a dark past, someone who hasn’t been in prison for such a reprehensible crime. It’s a pathetically low bar, but it ought to be the bare minimum.

There’s something strange about this. Nobody should forgive Vick just because he has (or had) amazing talent. Nobody should give him a job just because, either. But there’s something beyond the usual levels of vindictiveness here’s that’s hard to comprehend, even taking Vick’s old crimes (for which he has been punished) into account.


  • bebleshbalm

    Michael Vick deserves to rot and so do the Eagles.

    • meandcharly

      You are an idiot

      • Ray

        You are the ultimate idiot for defending someone who tortured and killed dogs. It’s the same as if he did those despicable acts to a human being. Vick does belong in hell with the devil who hired him.

        • logic

          You are ultimately ignorant for choosing to read what you wish to instead of what was actually said. “You are an idiot” could be him defending the Eagles since the original poster said “and so do the Eagles” but instead you decided to assume the worst because you wanted to pick a fight. Also, I don’t think the United States agrees with your logic of “it’s the same as if he did those despicable acts to a human”. Were the acts wrong? Yes. Were they despicable? I wouldn’t disagree with someone who says yes. But I’m certainly glad Congress and the President don’t think like you, because then Vick probably would have gotten life in prison or the death penalty. And I have a feeling you would wish that fate for him, but then answer me this: what about people in charge of cockfights? Or someone who makes 2 rats fight? Where do you draw the line? So next time you try to develop an argument, think with your God/evolution-given higher cognitive reasoning instead of with emotions.

  • Earl J

    Obviously the NYT did no homework. Vick has been a model citizen and teammate since he served his time. Hard to believe they would be so clueless. He clearly would be the best current option for Jets based on their own roster and could not have had a worse year than Manning had with the Giants.

  • eray

    Shut the hell up people yall trippin over dogs and theres people murdering people everyday and gettin away wit it that fuckin crazy…smh