[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Vick pled guilty to a felony. Nobody has even suggested that Reid has committed a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, lemme break this entire situation down.
The OP is referring to Goodall's position on Vick PRIOR to his involvement becoming known and him pleading guilty, when it was only alleged that he owned the property, and it was being explained that he had no involvement with the criminal activity.

It was Goodall's position at the time that despite that claim, since Mike owned the property, he was responsible.

Anything that happened after that is results-oriented thinking, and irrelevant to Goodall's position at the given time.

Let's go over it again:

Situation A:
1. Vick owns property where criminal activity occured.
2. Vick's position was he was unaware of it, and had no involvement.
3. Goodall's position was that even so, if he owned the property, he was responsible.

Situation B:
1. Reid owns property where criminal activity occured.
2. Reid's position is he was unaware of it, and had no involvement.
3. Goodall's position is ????


Obviously, some will argue that Goodall is being inconsistent unless he takes a similar position.

Others will point to facts that came out afterward, ie. Vick's conviction, and justify Goodall's position based on the ultimate results.

Some will say it is a different standard for coaches and players.....some will say it is because one is black and one is white....and some will say it is because one situation involved the brutality of indefensible dogfighting, while the other involves a sympathetic situation of a troubled kid.

But, one position you might not see many people take is this, which I think is correct, at least in my opinion:

In both situations, Goodall is wrong to assert it is the person's responsiblity because they owned the property.

In Vick's case, he never had to retract that position, because the case played out in such a way as it was irrelevant. In short, Goodall made a bad decision, and he never had to address it because Vick ended up being ultimately involved and guilty in the case, so Goodall's previous bad position was moot.

In Reid's case, Goodall can do the right thing and stay the hell out of it, because it doesn't involve any conduct violation on Reid's part, and just because he owns the property doesn't make him responsible for another adult's actions.

You can call it Goodall being inconsistent and argue double standards....but two wrongs don't make a right, and Goodall punishing Reid just to appear consistent for the people who are crying foul, in that he may have wrongfully punished Vick had he not ultimately been involved, just isn't the right move.

Again:

1. Goodall made a bad decision in Vick's case, at the time he made it.
2. Because Vick was actually guilty, the bad decision never became an issue.
3. Goodall should not make the same bad decision in Reid's case, just to satisfy people who are crying that it would be inconsistent.

Hope that helps. Have a nice day. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]