Brett Favre, Donovan McNabb, and (sigh, again) Michael Vick

Once again, I’m directed back to my soapbox by the writing talents of Jemelle Hill, a periodic contributor to espn.com since she joined ESPN in 2006 and once again, Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick featured prominently in her writing and this time she threw in Brett Favre as the (very old) cherry on top.

Before I go any further, I want to throw out a small disclaimer. First of all, I never read a particular writer’s work simply to disagree with them. I’ve listened to Hill on various sports talk shows on ESPN and found her to be a person fully capable of speaking intelligently about sports. I am singling out her articles because they hit very definite nerves with me and for all I know, that might be the point. Lastly (for the disclaimer part, that is) I do believe that sexism and racism exist in the world today and they do exist in the world of sports. I also believe that legitimate claims of both racism and sexism are lost in the uproar of false claims which is nothing short of sad. I have been required to take sexual harassment classes at every job that I have worked, including especially intense classes when I became a supervisor as well as in my current job where I am a government contractor. Nothing I’m about to say should give you the impression that I am “ok” with sexual harassment. I’m not; end of story.

DONOVAN MCNABB

My first issue that I’d like to discuss is related to Hill’s article of December 28th (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5963154) in which she talks about the situation that Donovan McNabb finds himself in with the Washington Redskins and my issue is very simple. Hill explains very eloquently the pickle that McNabb put himself in by signing a huge (fluffy) contract extension with the Redskins. However, when she talks about why McNabb has been supplanted as the starting quarterback of the Redskins, she never mentions race. She cites what head coach Mike Shanahan and offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan said about McNabb, saying he lacked the “cardiovascular endurance” and “familiarity” to run their two-minute offense.

I only bring this up because Hill dedicated an entire article to talking about black quarterbacks in the NFL and mostly spoke about Donovan McNabb. Granted, Vince Young was mentioned as was Jason Campbell but neither of them have the track record of McNabb and he was the one that Hill focused on.

So, in a nutshell, which is it? Is Donovan McNabb struggling this year because he is playing for a new coach in a new system for a team that isn’t very good? Probably. Did he get benched, not once but twice, because he was black? I will readily admit that it is possible because I don’t know if Mike Shanahan is racist or not; I’ve never met him. However, I find it far more likely that he was benched the first time for his struggles and not his skin color.

Hill very explicitly said that she was not calling anyone out as being racist when she wrote about black quarterbacks a while ago but when it comes to the situation that McNabb is in now, she didn’t even mention that factor. I sincerely hope and believe that his situation has nothing to do with race. He’s been one of the top quarterbacks in the NFL for a decade and he’s having one of his worst seasons as a professional. Is it a coincidence that he went from a team that had a combined winning percentage of .616 (108-67-1) during his time in the NFL to one that has had a winning percentage of .455 (80-96) over that same time span?

BRETT FAVRE

Ah yes, the guy that Roger Goodell wants to see play forever… and at the same time, wants him out the door as soon as possible. There is little question in my mind that Brett Favre is a diva. He is also one of the best quarterbacks ever to pick up a football. The last few years have exemplified his “me-first” mentality and along the way, he has had three different head coaches fired in his last three seasons with three different franchises. Coincidence? Umm, if you think it is, I can get you a really good deal on a brand new…

Never mind.

Last year Favre was fantastic for the NFL at large and specifically the Minnesota Vikings who haven’t had a decent quarterback since Daunte Culpepper’s last season in 2004. Every team stacked the box against Adrian Peterson and before he knew it, Favre was facing man coverage in the secondary with linebackers and linemen intent on hitting Peterson. In short, it was the best possible situation for him to be in and he exploited it like the first ballot Hall-of-Famer he is. He had the best season of his illustrious career.

And then he had to be convinced to come back for this season (this was warning flag number one for me). Secondly, everything went right for the Vikings last year until they ran into the Saints. The odds of replicating that success were slim (warning flag number 2). Lastly, Favre was a year older and it was no secret that he and head coach Brad Childress didn’t really see eye to eye (number 3).

This season has been a train wreck for the Vikings but there is hope for the future. Rookie QB Joe Webb started against the Eagles and played a fantastic game and Brett Favre is retiring. Put those together with a solid defense and running game, and they’ll be competitive again next year (although with a healthy Packers team, the Bears, and the Lions return to respectability, it will be very hard for the Vikings to come out of this division).

Then, to add an ocean full of salt to Brett Favre’s numerous wounds, back in October the NFL began its investigation into the “sexting” allegations leveled against Favre by former Jets employee Jenn Sterger. This investigation came to a head yesterday when the NFL fined Favre $50,000 (or how much he earns for 3 minutes of game time this year) for failing to cooperate with the commissioner’s office in this investigation. This brings me back to Hill and the article she wrote for espn.com today. In a word, Hill was outraged at the insufficient punishment handed down by Commissioner Goodell and said that his credibility in matters of “player conduct” was less than before this ruling.

Here’s the problem; “The league said it couldn't determine whether the inappropriate images originated from Favre during his tenure as Jets quarterback.” That is right from Hill’s article. They couldn’t determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Favre was indeed the one harassing Sterger. Should he be punished if we’re not even sure whether or not he was the one who did it? That doesn’t seem quite right…

I have a cell phone and have had one for several years. In the state of Colorado (where I live) it is illegal to text while driving so there have been numerous occasions where I will receive a text and then hand my phone to my passenger so they can read me the text and then reply. Is it my phone? Yes. Do I pay bills for its monthly usage? Yes. When my passenger has my phone am I in control of what gets sent out? Absolutely not.

According to the NFL (and common sense) we have no way of knowing exactly who it was that sent the picture messages to Sterger unless we have a witness who is willing to come forth. Even then, would that testimony stand up in a court of law? That is dicey…

I am deadest against sexual harassment but I am even more against miscarriages of justice and to punish someone without that evidence is exactly that; a miscarriage of justice. To contrast this case with the highly publicized case of Adam “Pacman” Jones, Jones had several chances to shape up his act and failed to do so, resulting in a huge suspension without ever having been charged with a crime. As far as we know, up until this point, Favre has only been guilty of being a diva and has not been implicated in any other crimes… which brings us to yet another point. Sterger’s case shouldn’t be against Favre, it should be against her employers, the New York Jets and by extension, the NFL.

When sexual harassment cases come about in the business world, the most the harasser can face is termination of employment. If the employer fails to act appropriately, they can be held liable in civil court. In my opinion, Brett Favre was fined for two reasons; one, he wasn’t as forthcoming as Goodell thought he should have been and two, the NFL needed a scapegoat to try and avoid a lawsuit from Sterger.

I have two more points before I sign off and one of them, I will admit, is semantics. The NFL released a statement saying that Favre was being fined for "a failure to cooperate with the investigation in a forthcoming manner" and that Favre was "not candid in several respects during the investigation resulting in a longer review and additional negative public attention for Favre, Sterger and the NFL." Immediately after putting forth that quote, Hill says that this is a “very fancy way of saying that Favre lied”. Really? Where did the NFL say that he lied?

“Not being forthcoming” and “not candid” are not necessarily synonyms of “lying”. I’m not trying to get into a war of words with Hill (which she will certainly win), I’m simply trying to state that acting as if a person is innocent until proven guilty is a good thing and since the NFL has no absolute proof that Favre is guilty of these allegations, what more can they do? Make an example of him when this would be his first run-in with the league? No.

Lastly, Hill compares this duplicity to Michael Vick’s duplicity at the NFL draft several years ago when Goodell asked him if there was any truth to the rumors of his involvement in dogfighting rings. When asked, Vick said no. Goodell then tacked a short suspension onto the tail end of Vick’s prison sentence for that lie. The big difference here is simply that Goodell has no proof that Favre lied. Shortly after Vick said no to the Commissioner, he was indicted, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for the crimes he lied about. NONE of that has happened yet to Favre.

You may or may not believe it but I gave Vick the benefit of the doubt when he said that he had nothing to do with it. Maybe it really was happening on one of his properties without his knowledge. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to give Favre that same benefit of the doubt.

Did Favre simply lie and then get away with it because it’s impossible to verify whether he did or not? Maybe, but until it can be proven, the word “alleged” still belongs in any sentence relating Favre to this harassment. There is nothing “alleged” about what Michael Vick did.



It would be going too far to call Brett Favre a hero of mine but I have enjoyed following his career over the past 15 years or so that I’ve been truly cognizant of the NFL. If there’s one way I can sum up those years, between players getting shot and killed in nightclubs or Vick helping to torture and murder dogs or Favre sending pictures of his endowment to female co-workers without their consent, it’s this:

The NFL’s off-the-field shenanigans are threatening the on-the-field product. I sincerely believe that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is trying and I have one message and challenge for him:

Try harder…