What's troubling is the fact that so many people are impressed with Vick's contrition after he seems to have apologized for an imaginary friend.
Within the transcript of Vick's apology given at the Richmond Federal Courthouse are numerous references about "Michael Vick" (NFL caricature) by Michael Vick (dog strangler).
- "I totally ask for forgiveness and understanding as I move forward to better Michael Vick the person, not the football player."
- "If I'm more disappointed in myself more than anything is because of all the young people, young kids that I've let down who look at Michael Vick as a role model."
- "I got a lot of down time, a lot of time to think about my actions and what I've done and how to make Michael Vick a better person."
I know that Vick is in no way the first athlete to refer to himself in the third person (see Deion Sanders). However, Vick is the most recent ath-lebrity looking to appear contrite in order to salvage what he can of a career spinning recklessly into the abyss. My question remains, who's really sorry? Michael Vick the person or Michael Vick the football player?
Forgive my incredulous response, but Vick apologizing for Vick - as opposed to appologizing for himself - is like Sylvester Stallone apologizing for Rocky after being busted for steroids. One is a real person in real trouble. The other is a character who will fall off the entertainment radar until the former serves their time. One is a human being stuck in shit so thick no publicist can spin them out and the other is a statue in Philadelphia or name on a jersey.
I know this may seem to be a semantic debate calling for pronouns from a person who is admittedly "not a public speaker." I just think if Falcons owner Arthur Blank is going to get pulled in hook, line, & sinker - and not make any move to cut Vick - he might want to know whose holding the rod: Michael Vick or Ookie.