Geoff Decker’s whereIstand blog

Thanks everybody! I’ll be here all night.

Offensive and “too soon” jokes aside, let me spin you my take on the whole Vick fiasco.

Actually, I don’t really have one and I’m making my points up as I go here… bear with me.

The more I glance this issue over and actually read the words out loud, the more I begin to take offense of the mere suggestion that a man should not get a second chance.

I wonder how most of the liberal PETA protesters feel about second chances…how they feel about the death penalty. Because judging from their presence outside of Vick’s court hearings these last couple weeks, I wouldn’t be surprised if they wouldn’t mind seeing the man dead.

I won’t try to draw attention from the severity of Vick’s crime. What I will do is make a case for people who should, at the very least, have a shot at rehabilitation. Now, for those of you who haven’t heard Vick’s public statement today, you should do yourself a favor and tune in.

His word in print don’t really do them justice, but as someone who has grown up rolling my eyes at professional athletes as they apologize via written statements, VIck’s words at least appeared to come from something other than his lawyer. Without so much as a paper in front of him, Vick spoke for five minutes and sounded, well, contrite.

TIme will tell. As he said, Vick “has a lot of down time to think about what he’s done.” If he does that and consciously self-improves and becomes an advocate for PETA (doesn’t seem far fetched after reading this blog entry on PETA’s web site), isn’t it possible that this man should be allowed to return to the NFL?

whereIstand Tags

• PETA
• Should Michael Vick be banned from the NFL?

People,

What I’m about to tell you might at first sound offensive and anti-democratic but is nevertheless the truth. You’ll be better off with the knowledge because with it, you can stop and think before you speak next time…before you utter the most annoying, illogical and cowardly phrase: “Innocent until proven guilty”

Here’s the revelation: That phrase is bullshit. Our forefathers made this a part of their government — specifically the judicial wing — as a way to protect individuals from unjust incarceration, not as a way for idiot commentators to cop out on taking a stand. The “innocent until proven guilty” plea has gotten so out of control recently that its being used in contexts where law isn’t even applicable:

Roommate #1: Dude, did you take the last bong hit without asking me?

Roommate #2: Bro, I’m not saying anything till I speak to my lawyer. Innocent until proven guilty….bitch

Another instance is with Lance Armstrong. He’ll never be proven guilty because this issue isn’t exactly a legal matter. Still, people step to the plate and claim his innocence, citing passed piss tests.

The fact is, these people aren’t looking at facts objectively. They are incapable of seeing beyond the character of the man — which is highly admirable and respectable — to admit that Lance cheated at some point during his 7-year run as greatest cyclist in the world.

David Walsh, an investigative journalist has now written two books (LA Confidential; and most recently, From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France) detailing the 7-time Tour champ’s drug usage.

Similarly, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, two investigative journalists with the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote a book detailing Barry Bonds excessive performance-enhancing drug use. Sure enough, this is acknowledged as the source that proved Bonds’ guilt. Its worth noting that Bonds’ has maybe a little better character than Marlo Stanfield from The Wire. But not much.

The Armstrong books include testimony from a former teammate who witnessed Lance admit to a doctor as he was being diagnosed with cancer that he used. It includes a former trainer for the Postal Service team who publicly said that Lance gave her needles and asked her for make up to cover up marks on his arms from injections.

Look, am I saying these people are telling the truth? Not necessarily, no.

Am I saying that Lance 100% used? Obviously not.

But I do at least think he used and at the very least have some sort of circumstantial evidence to support my opinion. The people that claim he is “innocent until proven guilty” simply don’t want to believe that an American icon and a face for cancer survivors would do something like this.

Of course, what these same people probably don’t understand is the culture of cycling and the competitive nature that the world’s top athletes have: that they’ll do anything to win.

Its been happening elsewhere in sports too. Recently with Barry Bonds and Michael Vick; previously with OJ Simpson.

With Bonds, his time in court may still come. With Vick, his already did, the process of which made people who formerly supported him, like Clinton Portis and Emmitt Smith, look like idiots.

And, finally, with OJ Simpson — the case study that shows why people have no business saying things like “innocent until proven guilty”.

whereIstand Tags

• LanceArmstrong
• DavidWalsh
• BarryBonds
• ClintonPortis
• EmmittSmith
• Did Lance Armstrong use performance-enhancing drugs?