Search Helium

Home > Pets & Animals > Animal Rights & Issues

Should the NFL add cruelty to animals to their personal conduct policy?

Results so far:

No
28% 119 votes Total: 420 votes
Yes
72% 301 votes

No

by Hamlet Pericles

Created on: October 04, 2007   Last Updated: July 12, 2008

Absolutely not! The NFL should not add cruelty to animals to their personal conduct policy. Why would the NFL do such a thing? Didn't the NFL revise their policy before the 2007 football season started? Yes. When commissioner Roger Goodell unveiled the new policy, all of the players, coaches and teams were put on notice. They understood if they did anything awful (or even criminal) that would embarrass or tarnish the NFL's reputation, then they will be punished.

The revised personal conduct policy, in regards to players, is strict (it has a pit bull's bite to it) and has punished players and will continue to do so if need be. Even before the new policy was rendered, the NFL disciplined players for their off the field activities.

In 2004, under the old policy, then commissioner Paul Tagliabue suspended Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back Michael Pittman for three games for crashing his car into a car carrying his wife and young son; he was also fined.

In the 2006 football season, Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chris Henry was suspended by Goodell for two games for violating the substance abuse policies; he was also fined.

Miami Dolphins running back Ricky Williams is infamous for violating the drug policy and has not played an entire season in the last two years. Williams was suspended for flunking various drug tests due to smoking marijuana. He is currently seeking reinstatement. The list of disciplined players does not stop there, there are many more.

Under the revised conduct policy, misbehaved players will suffer a great deal, especially monetarily. The new policy is harsh and will give players a chance to think about conducting themselves badly (or unlawfully) before they do whatever act is deemed inappropriate. In fact, the new policy will allow players to think for an extensive period of time as they sit out on suspension.

For example, Tennessee Titans corner Adam "Pacman" Jones was suspended the entire 2007 season for his constant off the field troubles. Jones has not been convicted of any crime since his inception into the NFL in 2005, but his constant run-ins with the law are plentiful, including an involved shooting at a Las Vegas strip club earlier in the year.

Michael Vick, Atlanta Falcons superstar quarterback, was suspended indefinitely by the NFL for his involvement with dog fighting. His problem is incredibly severe because he has to deal with a prison sentence (that may send him to federal prison for over a year or more) after pleading guilty to many charges involved with dog fighting.

The question - should the NFL add cruelty to animals to their personal conduct policy - is obviously precipitated by Michael Vick's dog fighting situation, but it's rather pathetic to ask such a question. It's not necessary because the revised policy has concrete language that states if any player conducts himself badly/unlawfully, he will be dealt with swiftly and severely. The revised policy doesn't have to state every single criminal offense, or anything that may be a violation. If that were the case, then the policy would be a novel.

People need to understand this: Just because the NFL does not have animal cruelty in its personal conduct policy does not mean it will not punish those players who illegally hurt animals or whatever they do that is deemed a cruel act against animals. Vick is an example; he is suspended indefinitely.

In all, the NFL has better and much important issues to worry about. Cruelty to animals would be the last thing on their agenda because the revised policy covers a great deal of what is a violation and unacceptable, including animal cruelty; there does not have to be a specific language that states the obvious. The personal conduct policy is solid and needs no modification.

Learn more about this author, Hamlet Pericles.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Yes

by K.C. Neal

Created on: September 14, 2007

Even as I sit at my computer typing, my 2 sons are in the yard playing football. My oldest is 13 and my younger son is 8. They will have 10 children in our yard within the hour playing football with them. As they play, they will all dream of being an NFL star one day.

This one simple fact in itself is reason enough to suspend Michael Vick from the NFL and add cruelty to animals to their personal conduct policy. It is a crime of the highest nature to excuse an illegal activity such as dog fighting for role models such as Vick. This may be done since there is not a specific clause in the conduct policies regarding animal cruelty. Accountability is as much, if not more, a part of being a role model as is the talent that brought him into the positions of the fame that he has earned.

But, the fact that he has let down millions of fans down is not a concrete reason to suspend Vick from the NFL. After all, he is only human, and we all make mistakes. But, the fact that he has broken the law in such an especially heinous way, over an extended amount of time, is reason. This is a cruelty issue that must be addressed.
And a precedent decision must be made by the NFL, regardless of how it may effect the league or the Atlanta Falcons financially. Only by being very specific with issues can appropriate action be taken in future cases.

Commissioner Robert Goodell, no doubt, has a big decision on his hands, as this will effect so many people. The fans, the team, the league, the endorsement companies, and Michael Vick himself will all have to realize the extent of the crime of dogfighting once Goodell's decision is made. Had there been a policy already in place, the issue of what to do in this case of animal cruelty would not be so disputable.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have issued numerous statements regarding the issue and brought it to the forefront of the press. They organized a peaceful demonstration outside the league's headquarters as Goodell was trying to meet with officials of the ASPCA chanting "Sack Vick". PETA is a very strong organization that will put the pressure on the NFL in an extremely negative way if the appropriate actions are not taken against Vick, and policies are not put into the personal conduct portion of the league's agreements.

Because no sanctions have already been imposed on Vick, PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have already begun to issue statements to the press against the NFL. They are frustrated with the "let's wait and see" attitude that is being taken by the league. And they are simply speaking out for the millions of dog (and other animal) owners within this country, if not the world.

It is such a shame that some adults do not yet realize the severity of cruelty to animals, but as we have seen over the past few months, not only is cruelty done in the privacy of homes, but for actual financial gain in a public sector. The NFL, earlier this year, actually was working with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals. So, if the NFL is actually working to prevent the cruelty to animals, then why counteract that with ALLOWING the actual promotion of animal cruelty such as dogfighting? And only with written policies can these allowances be deemed unacceptable and intolerable, as far as further NFL play is considered.

And it IS a fact that Vick was not alone in this ordeal, and that he is not the only one in the country to commit this crime. But, he WAS caught, and no matter how many other people are involved, he should be held accountable. That is not to say he should be held accountable all alone, but the debate that is in question around the country concerns Michael Vick and his actions. And the NFL need only be concerned with their player in question. And they must know that whatever action is taken will effect further incidences similar to this particular injustice against animals. Therefore, putting a "Cruelty to Animals" clause in their personal conduct policy is more than warranted.

Michael Vick is an adult who made it to the top with determination and drive and countless hours of hard work. He is to be commended for that. But, in those moments when he had to make a decision to fund this type of criminal behavior, he had to consider that if he was caught, it could be the end of his career. But, without a clause specifically speaking to the crime at hand, was he just tempting the system?

The NFL needs to be grown-up about this issue, and realize that grown-ups need guidelines too. It is sad to acknowledge that this type of behavior needs to be in writing in order to get the point across that it is wrong. You would think that the whimpers of the animals being abused would be enough.

But, as we have seen in astonishment, that it was not. So, let's put the pressure on the NFL. You write out their plays on a chalkboard, so write out their morals in a contract so that they can realize what is right and what is wrong.

Learn more about this author, K.C. Neal.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.


CONNECT WITH US

Read
our blog
Helum for writers

Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills

Join our active writing community
Helium Content Source for Publishers

Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all

Get custom content today!

INFORMATION


Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA