Friday column: Gladwell might be barking up right tree

In a recent New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell drew a comparison between dogfighting and football, especially pro football.

He drew an analogy between the damage done to dogs in the pit and the damage done to players on the field, between the disposability of dogs and the disposability of players.

I first thought Gladwell had gone around the bend. But after looking at Roger Goodell’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I’m not so sure.

In his article, Gladwell brought up Michael Vick, who spent 19 months in prison for running a dogfighting ring. One of the things that intensified the reaction to Vick’s actions was his lying about them, his refusal — until forced — to accept responsibility for the terrible physical damage he had caused.

The long failure to accept responsibility was one of the reasons Goodell made Vick jump through so many hoops to get reinstated to the game — including a
4 1/2-hour interview with Goodell so the commissioner could determine if Vick’s remorse was sincere.

Which brings us to Wednesday’s hearing on the NFL and head injuries, where Goodell refused to answer a straightforward question from committee Chairman John Conyers.

In the wake of studies connecting football head trauma with dementia and other cognitive problems — including a study sponsored by the NFL — Goodell was asked if he believed there was a a injury-disease connection.

His response was to tout the league’s desire to make the game safer. A longtime politician, Conyers knows stonewalling when he hears it. “I just asked you a simple question,” he said. “What is the answer?”

Goodell responded that a medical expert could give a better answer than he could. Well, as a matter of fact, they did, and cited for the committee “growing and convincing evidence” of a link between the football and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a condition that has resulted in depression, rage and suicide.

I understand why Goodell wouldn’t admit what seems to be increasingly obvious. If he admits the truth, he admits liability, and he knows there will be consequences. Much like Vick knew that if he admitted to sponsoring dogfights, there would be consequences.

More and more, the NFL is looking like Big Tobacco when it denied that smoking causes cancer. And a little bit like a certain former Atlanta Falcon who denied having anything to do with brutalized “animal athletes.”

Eventually Vick was compelled to admit the truth about his activities, and the damage his “sport” caused. One day, the NFL and Goodell will be compelled to admit the damage their sport caused and continues to cause.

When that happens, I wonder if former players and their families will want to interview Goodell for 4 1/2 hours to see if he truly is remorseful.

Contact Jim Gordon at gjames43@msn.com.