I like Howard Bryant, really, I do. He's written two very good books- "Juicing the Game" and "Shut Out" that I own, and I was happy to hear that he was joining ESPN.com after stints with the Boston Herald and Washington Post. But his first piece, in which he argues that the NFL Players' Association failed in its duties by failing to stick up for Michael Vick when the league barred him from training camp, is one of the more bizarre arguments to emerge from the Vick affair.
Bryant's argument is not so much to defend Vick, but to criticize the NFLPA for not standing up for their guy in a worst-case scenario, thus sending a message that they won't stand up for players in better circumstances. Baseball's more powerful union, for instance, always backs their guys against the owners even when they're clearly wrong- see Spittin' Roberto Alomar, Steve Howe's drug suspensions, etc. Gene Upshaw needs to stop kissing up to the commissioners' office and start being more assertive.
It's an interesting argument, and an original one, but Bryant's wrong. There are certain acts that are indefensible- Vick and the dogs, Leonard Little's drunk driving and killing a woman, Rae Carruth- that the union doesn't need to declare its support for. Vick has no constitutional right to have the union take his side; he has lawyers for that.
Bryant's certainly correct that Gene Upshaw hasn't done a great job as NFLPA head. Upshaw's failure to help the numerous retired players plagued by concussions is shameful, and the union's next major collective bargaining victory will be its first. But failing to protect Michael Vick is far from the worst of Upshaw's screw-ups.