As a licensed professional, my provincial association can kick me out for having a criminal conviction. Not only that, but a sports team is not required to hire convicted felons, although they don't seem to have any qualms about doing so. To me, it shows what the team owners are made of.
Everybody is happy to excuse violent nasty criminals.
I see some merit in what you are saying: it rankles that because this guy has athletic ability, more doors are going to open to him to aid in his (presumptive) rehabilitation, whereas Joe Average Felon is going to find more doors close than if he was an average citizen. I also understand what you are implying in that professional athletes do become role models for kids, etc. and that they can be limited by the clauses in their contracts that purtain to conduct that has negative impacts on their team and/or the league (ironically this is how the Falcons voided Vick's contract when the charges came out and he was convicted).
I also see the other side of the coin: at what point do we allow a guy like Michael Vick to step out of the shadow of what he has done and paid his price for doing, and get on with his life? Do we allow people to be redeemed, to come forward and say " I was wrong, I've paid a price for it. Kids, please don't do what I have done"? The role model angle has another side in that he also provides an example for those who have made mistakes, that it is possible to make ammends and rise above your past.
Now I agree with the statement about team owners only caring about winning and not caring about the character of their players: thats why someone like Stallworth can still be playing in New England less than 18 months after killing a pedestrian when he was drunk driving...
