Three developments since yesterday: Vick's apology, Dan's mad at me, and your reaction.
1. Michael Vick's apology and contrition seemed pretty genuine to me. I believe that after serving his time he should be able to attempt to resume his NFL career.
2. Angry text-messages from Le Batard, who feels like this blog post misrepresented his column. Look, Dan certainly doesn't condone dog-fighting or exonerate Vick. But, sorry: When you devote an entire column to how some people see race playing a role here, you are playing the race card.
3. An ambitious parade of mostly thoughtful, lucid comments by you people. Nicely done!
Original post from yesterday:
My buddy Dan Le Batard is playing the race card again. I think it's his favorite hobby. We have discussed this on his radio show and off the air as well, so he knows how I feel. He is relentless. I find it almost funny. Dan takes quite seriously his role as unelected spokesman for the black community and sees race at play in just about everything.
Read his column on Michael Vick in [Monday's] paper. I'm sure it does represent how some people feel: that white authorities are making an example of a black icon. However I think in this case the vast majority of people -- no matter race, religion, gender or ethnicity -- believe dog-fighting (and killing) is terrible and abhor Vick for his role in it.
Vick entering his plea agreement and admitting his guilt kicks the legs out from under the race argument. If he strongly swore his innocence and still the government pressed the case, maybe you could argue an overzealousness based on race.But if ol' Mike has said "I did it" to charges as gruesome as the image of a horrifically maimed dog, who are we to argue?