Last year, Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie emphasized that quarterback Mike Vick would have no margin for error.
As it turned out, he has some margin for error. Or, at a minimum, a margin or a lapse in judgment.
Lurie explained on Wednesday that the team decided to stand behind Vick after the events of the evening of his 30th birthday party because Vick committed a lapse in judgment, but that he engaged in no wrongdoing.
“You have to decide, is that chance based on wrong doing or a lapse in judgment to attend a party where he had no wrongdoing,” Lurie said. “That’s, I think, for all of us an interesting question. Those that hated that we signed Michael Vick, or were very upset that we signed Michael Vick and believe me, I understand that completely, would probably be quicker to jump and say, ‘He showed lapse of judgment. That’s a huge mistake. End of career.’
“I don’t feel that way. I feel as human beings, that was a lapse of judgment. Nothing he did was factually creating any wrongdoing. He shouldn’t have been there. But he was trying to appease some people from his old neighborhood and family. So, let’s give support, let’s not jump to judgment and let’s deal with the facts. That’s the best I think a CEO can do, an owner of an organization, or an employer. . . . In this case, it was a lapse in judgment of a decision, there was no wrongdoing.”
But what is “wrongdoing”? Though there’s no evidence that Vick had any role in the shooting of Quanis Phillips, the fact that Phillips was even at the party constitutes potential “wrongdoing” from the perspective of Vick’s federal probation, since the terms of the probation prohibit Vick from associating with convicted felons.
On that point, Lurie said he doesn’t know whether Vick had interactions with Phillips at the birthday party. So how can Lurie claim that there was no wrongdoing, since interactions with a convicted felon easily could constitute “wrongdoing”?
“I’m just basing it on the investigations exactly that there was no wrongdoing,” Lurie said. “We’ve been over this already.”
Right, but the key question was never answered. If Vick’s lapse in judgment resulted in association with a convicted felon, how can that not be “wrongdoing” if as a convicted felon on probation Vick was prevented by law from associating with a convicted felon?
Bottom line? The Eagles and the league gave Vick the benefit of the doubt. Which is fine. But Lurie never should have said that there was no margin for error when, in reality, there was.
