While it seems cold to talk about anything other than Virginia Tech tonight, a brilliant column was written by sportswriter J.A. Adande in the LA Times today. He wrote it before the senseless slaughter of college students at Virginia Tech, and most likely would not have written it afterwards, given how classy he is. However, due to the brilliance of his writing, I wanted to answer his article before it loses its timeliness.
J.A. Adande is one of the best sportswriters in America. His column awhile back about the death of his mother was a column for the ages. Today he wrote about NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s suspension of Tennessee Titans defensive back Adam “Pacman” Jones. For those of you who were following the story prior to today, Pacman Jones has had several incidences with the law over the last couple years. After the successful almost 20 year reign of former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, Roger Goodell has big shoes to fill. Rather than be tentative, he started out bold. He realizes that the NFL has some tarnish on it’s sterling platinum reputation, and that tarnish is NFL players getting in trouble with the law. From Darryl Henley to Rae Carruth, the news has been headline grabbing for the wrong reasons. Roger Goodell suspended Pacman Jones for a whole season, the largest suspension ever doled out for violations of the league’s conduct policy.
Some say Pacman Jones was made an example of, as a warning to all the other players. I doubt this was the case, but if so, it would not be fair. Each situation should be judged on its own merits, nothing more or less. This brings us to J.A. Adande. He stated that since Pacman only has one conviction, punishing him for ten incidents goes beyond fairness. It is rendering people innocent until proven guilty. Like the Duke rape case, a rush to judgment could be lethal for Commissioner Goodell if Pacman turns out to be innocent of his other alleged scrapes (The conduct rules do not require convictions. That can be debated at another time…the rules itself do not require convictions, which is all that is currently relevant).
A year is a lifetime in football. The average life of an NFL player is 3 years. Even if Pacman lasts 10 years, taking away 10% of his earning power is a stiff penalty, not to be given lightly. I am not implying the Commissioner acted recklessly, but football players do not have 30 year life spans. The bottom line is this…if the Commissioner is going to give such a severe penalty…he had better be right. Pacman is not just being banned from playing a game. He is being banned from working.
Despite the enormous respect I have for Mr. Adande, he is most likely wrong for one reason…we do not have all the facts. Commissioner Goodell knows more than we do. Unless he is Mike Nifong, he values his professional integrity enough to not make a rash decision for the sake of flexing muscle. I suspect (and if I am wrong I will issue a mea culpa to Mr. Adande) that Pacman’s situation is worse than we know, and that Mr. Goodell is sparing Pacman as well as the league. By suspending him for reasons only he, Pacman and some police might know, he is giving Pacman a chance to keep some dignity. As of this writing, Pacman is debating appealing the suspension. If he is innocent, he should fight tooth and nail, and he should win. If he is guilty, he should immediately drop his appeal. Otherwise, his other misdeeds will be exposed and he will be ridiculed.
So what is causing all these problems? It is not guns. Many people own guns, and they obey the law. It is not poverty. The poorest NFL players are wealthier than most. It is not “hip-hop culture.” Snoop Dogg (who has his own legal troubles, to say the least) does not make other people break the law. To say that young black men follow him and other rappers is to say that those young black men do not have minds of their own, which is as untrue as it is insulting. I am a young, white conservative republican. I like Snoop Dogg, and I have never shot anyone, nor do I plan to. The record does not make me do it.
The problem is other aspects of our society’s obsession with “bling.” No, I am not talking about the jewelry itself. The most gaudy jewelry I have ever seen has been worn by 65 year old Jewish women, and they were not out killing each other for it. The problem is not even racial. So if it is not racial, economic, or religious, what is it? Youthful.
That’s right, I am blaming young men. Young women do not try to be “bad-@sses.” Old people are not obsessed with “representing.” Senior citizens do not “call each other out,” and young women do not “throw down.” (Trash talking on the field is fine. When Cincinnati Bengal Chad Johnson sent Cleveland Browns defensive backs Pepto Bismol with a note saying his play on the field was going to make them sick, it was hilarious. It was also not a crime. It was creative chest thumping that got no one killed).
Young men go to the bars and the clubs, and they have to be tougher than the guy across from them. If one guy has a $100,000 car, the other guy needs a $200,000 car. If one guy drinks 10 beers, the other guy has to drink 11. If one guy has 3 pieces of bling, the other guy needs 4. Backing down is not an option. Walking away is weakness.
I do not go to bars or clubs in LA, and I drive a beat up car nobody most people would not condescend to steal. I wear no jewelry, and I do not talk trash to strangers. I mind my own d@mn business. Does this guarantee my safety? No, but it helps. The country music song “I aint as good as I once was” reminds me that I am simply too old for bar fights and chair throwing.
I am not saying young men should not wear expensive jewelry. However, they should not emasculate other young men who have inferior jewelry. I will not ridicule a man for having a girlfriend that might be less pretty than mine. I will not go to a strip club and throw around $80,000 just because I can (Pacman). Is this illegal? No, but it is unwise. A rich man walking in a poor bad neighborhood does not “deserve” to be beaten up, but it is still bad judgment for him to do this.
Roger Goodell is trying to protect his enterprise. Yes, it is his. He is responsible if it gets tarnished on his watch. Also, in a rare show of unity, the players union supports the crackdown on player conduct. When a union is praising a management policy…dispute should go out the window. What is lost in all of this is that Mr. Goodell might be doing more good for Pacman Jones than we will ever know. Maybe he isn’t…but he very well could be.
As I sit back and watch the carnage at Virginia Tech, I cannot help but think of the NFL superstar who showed everyone Virginia Tech…Michael Vick. What if this tragedy had happened a few years ago? “Superman,” (Michael Vick) would not be thrilling audiences today.
No, his life is not more valuable than those who died just because he is famous. Those who died today could have been the next great scientist, Noble Peace Prize winner, President of the United States, or Oscar winning movie star. We will never know.
I am more than aware that the analogy is not perfect. However, aggressive male behavior could have been the cause of today’s tragedy. Maybe the killer felt “dissed,” “emasculated,” or humiliated in some way. Maybe he felt he had to “represent.” I do not know. What I do know is that Some tragedies are preventable.
Pacman Jones has to decide if he wants to be a star NFL player or a young male statistic underground. It is Mr. Pacman Jones that needs to be questioned, not Mr. Roger Goodell. If the facts prove otherwise, then Mr. Goodell should back down. However, we should not claim to know what Mr. Goodell knows, which might be worse than we suspect.
I look forward to seeing Pacman Jones in 2008. May his career be successful. During his year off, I hope he stays out of trouble. From Tupac Shukar to Biggie Smalls, from coast to coast, this country has lost talented people needlessly. May Pacman not join them anytime soon. May the league support Roger Goodell’s crackdown. Until proven otherwise, it is justified, timely, and fair.
eric