Vick Sentenced to 23 Months For Dog Fighting [Archive]

View Full Version : Vick Sentenced to 23 Months For Dog Fighting

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

duckman

07-17-2007, 04:28 PM

hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2940065

Michael Vick has been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with the dogfighting probe of his house in Virginia.

The Falcons quarterback was indicted for conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in animal fighting venture in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District in Richmond, Va.

Three others -- Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor -- also were indicted by the grand jury on the same charges.

MikeVic

07-17-2007, 04:33 PM

So this means... he'll miss the season or what?

Lathum

07-17-2007, 04:34 PM

Awesome, if he is guilty I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

MrBigglesworth

07-17-2007, 04:38 PM

At least the Falcons have that good backup, Schaub.

D'oh!

dj_morton

07-17-2007, 04:38 PM

He's overrated

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 04:39 PM

Awesome, if he is guilty I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

+1.

This news makes me very happy. If he's found guilty, I shall be happier.

Welcome to the Joey Harrington era, Falcon fans!!

larrymcg421

07-17-2007, 04:40 PM

There are plenty of good flights available from Miami to Atlanta. Culpepper should get on one now.

Lathum

07-17-2007, 04:44 PM

Reading the article on ESPN it doesn't look good for Vick

Young Drachma

07-17-2007, 04:44 PM

Wow. Not surprising, given all of the b.s. they were going through to try to nab him on something.

Good use of federal money, IMHO.

Fidatelo

07-17-2007, 04:48 PM

I hope he goes to jail for a long time for this crap.

Travis

07-17-2007, 04:53 PM

Did I just miss the day at school where stuff like this was taught to be cool, fun or somehow appropriate? Just reading the way they would deal with a losing dog if it didn't die in the ring is enough to turn my stomach, let alone actually being at one of these events.

And yes, I know I'm a hypocrite because of the burger I had at lunch and all that, but I just can't twist my brain around finding the enjoyment in something like this for the "sport" of it.

Eaglesfan27

07-17-2007, 04:59 PM

So this means... he'll miss the season or what?

I doubt it. The legal system moves slowly. It probably won't go to trial until after the season is over and I'm not sure the commish will suspend him until after the trial.

Eaglesfan27

07-17-2007, 05:00 PM

And yes, I know I'm a hypocrite because of the burger I had at lunch and all that, but I just can't twist my brain around finding the enjoyment in something like this for the "sport" of it.

I think there is a huge difference between eating an animal to nourish onself and watching two fight for "sport." If he is guilty, I hope Vick goes to a rough jail.

Eaglesfan27

07-17-2007, 05:04 PM

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 05:06 PM

I doubt it. The legal system moves slowly. It probably won't go to trial until after the season is over and I'm not sure the commish will suspend him until after the trial.

That might give D.J. the chance to get ready. He'd be one of very few guys that could keep the area interested in the Falcons.

Karlifornia

07-17-2007, 05:06 PM

Better buy this jersey while you have a chance

EDIT: whoops...link doesn't work...It's a Vick #7 jersey with the name "OOKIE" on the back

st.cronin

07-17-2007, 05:08 PM

MrBigglesworth

07-17-2007, 05:09 PM

I doubt it. The legal system moves slowly. It probably won't go to trial until after the season is over and I'm not sure the commish will suspend him until after the trial.
What does the CBA say about this? Was Pacman already found guilty, before he was suspended? The commish, with his dedication to cleaning up the NFL, might just be willing to suspend him if he can get away with it.

Lathum

07-17-2007, 05:10 PM

What does the CBA say about this? Was Pacman already found guilty, before he was suspended? The commish, with his dedication to cleaning up the NFL, might just be willing to suspend him if he can get away with it.

Pacman wasn't guilty. I believe the comish can do what he wants here.

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 05:10 PM

Live feed of Atlanta sports talk radio:

http://790thezone.com/multimedia/listen_live.aspx

Lathum

07-17-2007, 05:11 PM

Live feed of Atlanta sports talk radio:

http://790thezone.com/multimedia/listen_live.aspx

I can only imagine what they are saying.

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 05:12 PM

I doubt it. The legal system moves slowly. It probably won't go to trial until after the season is over and I'm not sure the commish will suspend him until after the trial.

This is true. His trial wont be for a long, long time. It will be interesting to see how the Commish treats this. If I recall, he and Vick had some meeting right before the draft where Vick assured him everything was fine. Goddell has shown that he is more than willing to suspend players before they have had their day in court. Though, in each of those cases, the players were repeat offenders.

Regardless of whether he is suspended or unable to play for legal reasons, it should be one hell of a distraction for Vick and the rest of the Falcons.

JediKooter

07-17-2007, 05:12 PM

Boy, that trade San Diego made that landed them LT and Brees is looking better and better each year.

Noop

07-17-2007, 05:12 PM

Wow. Some of you are...

sabotai

07-17-2007, 05:13 PM

I can't understand how or why anyone would get enjoyment out of something like dog fighting, and how a person can be so cruel to an animal to drown them or beat them into the ground. I hope I never do. And I hope Vick goes to jail for a long, long time.

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 05:15 PM

I can only imagine what they are saying.

I'm rather curious. The Stews were pretty much hilarious when this first came up, jumping down the throats of Vick's posse for being golddiggers who should have stepped up from day one and taken the blame. So far, it sounds like they're waiting to get a feel for the public reaction in the A-T-L, and they'll play to that.

sabotai

07-17-2007, 05:15 PM

Wow. Some of you are...

Are what?

Eaglesfan27

07-17-2007, 05:16 PM

I'm curious about how Noop was going to finish that too.

bulletsponge

07-17-2007, 05:19 PM

Awesome, if he is guilty I hope he gets thrown into a pit of trained attack dogs.

fixed for ya

Radii

07-17-2007, 05:23 PM

Wow. Some of you are...

why bother posting?

Lathum

07-17-2007, 05:24 PM

Are what?

please, do tell

gkb

07-17-2007, 05:28 PM

Watching ESPN, some reporter reading information from the indictment indicates that Vick and his associates killed 8 dogs that were unable to perform by "drowning, hanging, and beating them into the ground." Assuming he is guilty, I hope he never plays another down in the NFL.

I completely agree with you.

I don't get the whole dog fighting thing and listening to sports talk show callers try to defend it by comparing it to the UFC makes no sense.

MrBigglesworth

07-17-2007, 05:29 PM

I'm rather curious. The Stews were pretty much hilarious when this first came up, jumping down the throats of Vick's posse for being golddiggers who should have stepped up from day one and taken the blame. So far, it sounds like they're waiting to get a feel for the public reaction in the A-T-L, and they'll play to that.
I was just listening and they were talking about movies or something, and Flavor of Love. Atlanta sports talk radio is a lot different than Philly sports talk radio.

larrymcg421

07-17-2007, 05:29 PM

Wow. Noop is...

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 05:30 PM

I was just listening and they were talking about movies or something, and Flavor of Love. Atlanta sports talk radio is a lot different than Philly sports talk radio.
They're now talking/arguing about it. Like I said, I think they're getting a feel for what the audience is expecting from them. Remember, this story *just* broke a few minutes ago.

Crapshoot

07-17-2007, 05:32 PM

I think there is a huge difference between eating an animal to nourish onself and watching two fight for "sport." If he is guilty, I hope Vick goes to a rough jail.

"".
Its the same reason I don't get hunting for fun, vs. hunting for food. I'm not sure when killing something was seen as a "fun" activity.

ISiddiqui

07-17-2007, 05:33 PM

There are plenty of good flights available from Miami to Atlanta. Culpepper should get on one now.

Yep... and Petrino should be paying for the flight. Now, it may take until next season to have Vick convicted, but Goodell may just suspend him at any time.

Travis

07-17-2007, 05:34 PM

Comparing it to UFC? Wow, I hadn't heard any arguments like that, but I've really only read articles/discussion here and had talked about it with a group of my friends, most of whom are UFC fans, so probably very good reason none of us made that "leap".

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 05:34 PM

I completely agree with you.

I don't get the whole dog fighting thing and listening to sports talk show callers try to defend it by comparing it to the UFC makes no sense.

You can see where people would try to draw parallels between the two, but the significant difference is that the UFC guys had a choice. They chose to make a living trying to fight.

Those dogs had no choice. A dog's fate is pretty much at the hands of its owners. A dog has very little control of what happens to it and is completely dependent on the mercy (or lack thereof) of people.

st.cronin

07-17-2007, 05:35 PM

They're now talking/arguing about it. Like I said, I think they're getting a feel for what the audience is expecting from them. Remember, this story *just* broke a few minutes ago.

They couldn't see this coming? Seemed inevitable to me.

larrymcg421

07-17-2007, 05:36 PM

Plus, I don't know of losers in UFC getting strangled and buried in someone's backyard.

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 05:36 PM

Yep... and Petrino should be paying for the flight. Now, it may take until next season to have Vick convicted, but Goodell may just suspend him at any time.

Yes, because that lethal one-two punch of Culpepper and Harrington worked out so well for the Dolphins last year...

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 05:37 PM

They couldn't see this coming? Seemed inevitable to me.

It would be very difficult to understand the A-T-L unless you'd ever lived there. Over 90% of my adult life has been spent there, and I honestly am not sure what the reaction of a good number of fans will be if he's on the field this fall.

path12

07-17-2007, 05:37 PM

I don't think there would be much fuss at all if Goodell suspended him based on the indictment. This is the sort of crime that most agree is horrendous.

Well, except in Atlanta maybe.

larrymcg421

07-17-2007, 05:38 PM

Yes, because that lethal one-two punch of Culpepper and Harrington worked out so well for the Dolphins last year...

Better to take a chance that Culpepper may be healthy than put your trust in Harrington. At the very least, Culpepper can work with Shockley and help get him ready. If I was a Falcons fan, I wouldn't want Harrington showing Shockley anything.

Crapshoot

07-17-2007, 05:39 PM

It would be very difficult to understand the A-T-L unless you'd ever lived there. Over 90% of my adult life has been spent there, and I honestly am not sure what the reaction of a good number of fans will be if he's on the field this fall.

Now I'm genuinely curious - what do you mean? As in, a large majority won't give a shit, or that they are unpredictable?

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 05:39 PM

Better to take a chance that Culpepper may be healthy than put your trust in Harrington. At the very least, Culpepper can work with Shockley and help get him ready. If I was a Falcons fan, I wouldn't want Harrington showing Shockley anything.

Harrington could show Shockley how to tickle the ivories.

st.cronin

07-17-2007, 05:40 PM

It would be very difficult to understand the A-T-L unless you'd ever lived there. Over 90% of my adult life has been spent there, and I honestly am not sure what the reaction of a good number of fans will be if he's on the field this fall.

That's fine, I was just responding to you saying that this *just* broke. It may have just happened, but we've known this was going to happen for, what, a month now? If I were in the media I think I'd have my take ready.

st.cronin

07-17-2007, 05:42 PM

The UFC comps aren't especially helpful, for this reason, too: That's a niche sport, that a lot of sports fans find repugnant.

Lathum

07-17-2007, 05:42 PM

I don't think there would be much fuss at all if Goodell suspended him based on the indictment. This is the sort of crime that most agree is horrendous.

Well unless you're Noop.

fixed

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 05:43 PM

Now I'm genuinely curious - what do you mean? As in, a large majority won't give a shit, or that they are unpredictable?

If you think the O.J. trial and aftermath was racially charged, you haven't seen the racial divide over Vick in Atlanta lately.

Radii

07-17-2007, 05:45 PM

I don't think there would be much fuss at all if Goodell suspended him based on the indictment.

There's always some fuss when someone is suspended without a conviction, isn't there?

Seems like most of us have already convicted him(which is what I assume Noop's point was, I'm just baffled why he decided to post without actually making the point). I'll agree with the *if* he's guilty, he needs to be out of the NFL, I'm always a little uncomfortable with seeing action taken prior to someone being found guilty though.

Noop

07-17-2007, 05:46 PM

Some of you are to excited by this news.

Radii

07-17-2007, 05:46 PM

If you think the O.J. trial and aftermath was racially charged, you haven't seen the racial divide over Vick in Atlanta lately.

Its too bad my drive home is only 10 minutes, or I could have provided the "680 The Fan" perspective as a counter to the Stews. :D

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 05:47 PM

Example of what I mean...the last few blog entries at ajc.com...

Man the cross burners came on early so they could get their say in. If my memory isn’t too hazy didn’t the guys at Duke get indicted too. I forgot though, they were “kids” and the accuser was a stripper so they obviously had to be innocent. Its not a surprise to me at all that Michael Vick was indicted. The feds took over the case from the county officials who just happened to be Black. Hmmmmm sounds suspicious to me. They ALWAYS go after a Black man that has any kind of power and doesn’t act like a Bojangles! Can anyone on here honestly say they have heard of the federal government taking over a case involving dog fighting. What happened to the drug case that the county folks got the indictment for? Nothing because they were too busy trying to nab a big fish. Now all of you good ole boys will say you aren’t racist or race has nothing to do with it. Please, you all come on here and bust Black guys up when you got guys like Chris Benoit and Dany Heatley killing people right here in metro Atlanta. Patrick Kearney has a rape occur at his house and no one gets indicted by the feds or the state. I don’t hear any of them being called thugs, bums or any of your other code words for what your really want to say. Most of you are just mad because your wives and daughters dream about us. You get on this blog and dog out Vick, Barry Bonds, and any other Black man that doesn’t act like a tom when you racists are scared to look a Black man in the eye. You all know you talk much noise on here but when you go to work tomorrow you will be scared to look a real Black man in the eye. Racist cowards!
By MJ
July 17, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportstalk/entries/2007/07/17/what_will_become_of_vick.html#comment-1396784)
What a piece of garbage Michael Vick is!! They should take this guy and put a wet rag in his mouth and electrocute him and see how Vick likes it. Those poor animals did not deserve that kind of life or fate. I hope this guy rots in jail and the NFL boots him out like they did Pac Man!! Vick is such garbage!! No one, at least anyone w/ a soul, can ever again root for a sh*t stain like that.

By Dannotdan
July 17, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportstalk/entries/2007/07/17/what_will_become_of_vick.html#comment-1396785)
Even the most closed minded Vick fans have to draw the line at this point. It will be very interesting to see if Blank chooses to place Vicks interests above the team or if he does the right thing and show this lowlife the door.

By Joshua Patterson
July 17, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportstalk/entries/2007/07/17/what_will_become_of_vick.html#comment-1396787)
Damn, I bought season tickets this year.

By Doug Cain
July 17, 2007 6:43 PM | Link to this (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportstalk/entries/2007/07/17/what_will_become_of_vick.html#comment-1396794)
Alert..Alert..Black people are now lawyers, doctors and yes, NFL quarterbacks! I have never participated in these sick bile driven blogs but sense everybody else does, hell, why not. But me, I am sticking up for the black side of things! Yep, We have come a long way and still have a ways to go. Can you hear us? Soon your neighbors, your bosses, even your spouse! How funny! Ahhhh….looks like the cream is rising to the top after all. Oh and tell DA MAN that OJ Simpson is dating another wh…

By Rutuger
July 17, 2007 6:43 PM | Link to this (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportstalk/entries/2007/07/17/what_will_become_of_vick.html#comment-1396795)
To the clueless fools who type in all caps and scream that “Vick ain’t gilltee!” and that everyone who thinks otherwise is a racist hater,
Do you realize the rest of the country (and world, for that matter) has been laughing at you for months? You few embiciles are absolutely humiliating our city. Congratulations. PS. To the guy who wrote “conspiracy don’t mean you committed no crime,” Conspiracy IS a crime, dingus—it’s an agreement b/w two or more people to commit an offense, plus any overt act in furtherance of that offense. That’s the point.

By Rev Al
July 17, 2007 6:44 PM | Link to this (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportstalk/entries/2007/07/17/what_will_become_of_vick.html#comment-1396796)
Discrimination.. The white man trin to keep a brotha down!!!

By John C
July 17, 2007 6:44 PM | Link to this (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportstalk/entries/2007/07/17/what_will_become_of_vick.html#comment-1396797)
My oh my. What are the bruthas gonna do now? They can’t admit Mike Vick is a scumbag. I know, they’ll say he was framed because he’s black. That’s what they’ll say. Po’ black folks roused by the PO-LICE. Nuthin ever changes.

path12

07-17-2007, 05:48 PM

Some of you are to excited by this news.

Some of us are dog lovers. I have no tolerance for torturing them.

larrymcg421

07-17-2007, 05:48 PM

I think if solid evidence that is publicly released directly implicates him, then there is no need to wait for a long trial process to hand down a suspension.

Radii

07-17-2007, 05:49 PM

Some of you are to excited by this news.

I think that a lot of people will view this as a good sign that a famous person potentially involved in criminal activities isn't being given a break b/c he's rich or famous. I think that's a very good and important part of this situation.

path12

07-17-2007, 05:49 PM

There's always some fuss when someone is suspended without a conviction, isn't there?

Seems like most of us have already convicted him(which is what I assume Noop's point was, I'm just baffled why he decided to post without actually making the point). I'll agree with the *if* he's guilty, he needs to be out of the NFL, I'm always a little uncomfortable with seeing action taken prior to someone being found guilty though.

I agree with you in principle. However, there's been a helluva lot of smoke at this fire.

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 05:52 PM

[quote]
By Terrell in the ATL
July 17, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportstalk/entries/2007/07/17/what_will_become_of_vick.html#comment-1396655)
Are all the poor-speaking, unable-to-write-in-English VICK supporters all gonna get mad now and unleash their blind rage on the rest of us? Are they all going to riot and steal some TV sets all because their hero, Ookie, is going to be made to answer for his crimes?
Vick Supporters, all of you go kill yourselves. THAT will stick it to DA MAN and show Goodell and the NFL that they needs to show the proper RESPECT!
Heck, I won’t cry if Blank gets put in jail, too![/quote

Radii

07-17-2007, 05:53 PM

I agree with you in principle. However, there's been a helluva lot of smoke at this fire.

Oh I absolutely agree. I'm not saying I'm opposed to a suspension necessarily, but that it would make me stop and think twice. As upset as the whole story makes me, if he's suspended and later found to be innocent in a court of law, that's a really bad thing IMO.

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 05:55 PM

I have no problem with a suspension prior to a conviction in any case. The NFL is a private business, and should have the right to protect its business interests. Same for the Falcons.

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 06:07 PM

Example of what I mean...the last few blog entries at ajc.com...

Those blog entries at ajc.com remind me of pretty much every "comment" section found on free.com (Detroit Free Press) or detnews.com (Detroit news) following a column or story about even the slightest controversial topic. For whatever reason, all the crazies seem to post their "comments" on newspaper websites. It hurts my head to even look at them.

While the comments on ajc.com my be more indicative of how the majority of people in the A-T-L are split about Vick, I'd never use the comments on either Detroit area newspaper as indicative of anything other than the ridiculous "opinions" of a few crazy-ass people with too much time on their hands.

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 06:07 PM

I have no problem with a suspension prior to a conviction in any case. The NFL is a private business, and should have the right to protect its business interests. Same for the Falcons.

Agreed.

Ben E Lou

07-17-2007, 06:10 PM

Those blog entries at ajc.com remind me of pretty much every "comment" section found on free.com (Detroit Free Press) or detnews.com (Detroit news) following a column or story about even the slightest controversial topic. For whatever reason, all the crazies seem to post their "comments" on newspaper websites. It hurts my head to even look at them.

While the comments on ajc.com my be more indicative of how the majority of people in the A-T-L are split about Vick, I'd never use the comments on either Detroit area newspaper as indicative of anything other than the ridiculous "opinions" of a few crazy-ass people with too much time on their hands.

See, I've talked to plenty of people *in person* who I wouldn't consider crazies who reflect similar positions from both sides of the fence on Vick. It really is amazing.

As a side note, newspaper web sites allowing unmoderated blog-style commentary is one of the more shameless and obvious examples of selling out all principles for hits that I konw of.

st.cronin

07-17-2007, 06:11 PM

Gary Sheffield thinks those people are nuts.

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 06:22 PM

See, I've talked to plenty of people *in person* who I wouldn't consider crazies who reflect similar positions from both sides of the fence on Vick. It really is amazing.

Wow. I wonder what it is about Vick that does that to folks.

As a side note, newspaper web sites allowing unmoderated blog-style commentary is one of the more shameless and obvious examples of selling out all principles for hits that I konw of.

Amen to that.

Eaglesfan27

07-17-2007, 06:28 PM

Some of us are dog lovers. I have no tolerance for torturing them.

Exactly. I potentially put my career on the line because I refused to do experiments on dogs. The thought of someone purposefully hurting them revolts me.

sabotai

07-17-2007, 06:33 PM

As upset as the whole story makes me, if he's suspended and later found to be innocent in a court of law, that's a really bad thing IMO.

Just the fact that he owned property on which dog fighting (at least training for it and they found a lot of buried dogs there) would be enough for me to suspend him, and that's not a fact that is in dispute.

JonInMiddleGA

07-17-2007, 06:50 PM

It would be very difficult to understand the A-T-L even if you'd ever lived there.

Modified and subsequently QFT ;)

Router Help

07-17-2007, 06:56 PM

Blank must presume Vick is innocent and let the legal process take its course. Commissioner Roger Goodell must do the same. Vick must be treated as a first-time offender in the league's new conduct policy, so he must be found guilty or admit guilt before the commissioner can suspend him.

From John Clayton's article on ESPN's front page. Looks like they may not be able to suspend him yet.

Buccaneer

07-17-2007, 07:00 PM

So it doesn't matter what the first-time offense is?

Fidatelo

07-17-2007, 07:03 PM

Maybe I'm too white, or maybe I'm too Canadian, or maybe I'm just out of touch... but what does this mean?

"They ALWAYS go after a Black man that has any kind of power and doesn’t act like a Bojangles!"

I even looked up bojangles on urbandictionary and I still don't get the reference.

Tigercat

07-17-2007, 07:06 PM

I cannot understand any kind/level of community solidarity towards a guy like Mike Vick. Mike Vick is millionaire who regardless if he is directly guilty or not, brought this upon himself.

Mike Vick is not a black man being persecuted, hes a rich man trying to walk away from serious crimes that happened on his property.

Mike ____ who lives on middle class street and makes 30k a year would have a hard time not facing punishment if the house he owned was raided and obvious dog fighting evidence was found there.

Poor poor Mike Vick. :rolleyes:

Router Help

07-17-2007, 07:07 PM

st.cronin

07-17-2007, 07:16 PM

Huckleberry

07-17-2007, 07:18 PM

This isn't a state indictment. This is a federal indictment. Federal prosecutors do their work before they get the indictment, not after. This is all generally speaking but getting indicted by a federal prosecutor is much more likely to result in a conviction, statistically speaking.

And reading the indictment tells me Vick is indeed in a world of trouble. They have 4 eyewitnesses that are likely willing to testify.

Noop

07-17-2007, 07:21 PM

If he played wide receiver or running back, he'd be fine, but since he has the audacity to play a white man's position, he gets singled out.

-noop

All that huh?

larrymcg421

07-17-2007, 07:22 PM

Am I the only one who wishes Noop would just say what the fuck is on his mind instead of these cryptic three word statements?

MrBigglesworth

07-17-2007, 07:23 PM

If he played wide receiver or running back, he'd be fine, but since he has the audacity to play a white man's position, he gets singled out.

-noop
We have a pretty good black quarterback here in Philly, and there are still a lot of racist haters. I can only imagine what it would be like if McNabb really couldn't play the position, as the case is in Atlanta.

One favorite phone call of mine to sports radio was the guy who wanted a pocket quarterback along the lines of Steve Young, not a running quarterback like Warren Moon.

Noop

07-17-2007, 07:25 PM

Am I the only one who wishes Noop would just say what the fuck is on his mind instead of these cryptic three word statements?

I don't understand.

Buccaneer

07-17-2007, 07:27 PM

I don't understand.

Lots of laugh.

Karlifornia

07-17-2007, 07:33 PM

Am I the only one who wishes Noop would just say what the fuck is on his mind instead of these cryptic three word statements?

Sometimes I wonder....

digamma

07-17-2007, 07:34 PM

As a born and bred Atlantan (and a full fledged white boy), Mike Vick is the best thing that has ever happened to the Falcons. He was drafted two years after the pipe dream Super Bowl Dirty Birds had turned back into the top five pick in the draft Falcons. Pro football was pretty much dead again in the city. He's kept people interested for six years, which is pretty much the longest run of sustained interest in the Falcons, well, ever.

I'm disappointed things have turned out this way.

larrymcg421

07-17-2007, 07:37 PM

digamma

07-17-2007, 07:38 PM

That's a good point.

vtbub

07-17-2007, 07:46 PM

Any chance he gets released from the Falcons?

Noop

07-17-2007, 07:54 PM

I find it interesting reading some of your responses. I don't like what he is accused of doing but I am not going to throw a fucking party because he is going to jail. I don't need to say what I think because some of you feel like you know what I am thinking... A few of you I have had spats with in the past so I won't even bother replying to anything you all have to say...

st.cronin

07-17-2007, 07:56 PM

Any chance he gets released from the Falcons?

I think that's incredibly unlikely. It would definitely be ballsy.

GoDukes

07-17-2007, 07:57 PM

I doubt it. The legal system moves slowly. It probably won't go to trial until after the season is over and I'm not sure the commish will suspend him until after the trial.

Is it right for Pacman to get suspended for a bunch of incidents (that don't necessarily result in conviction or even trial), but Vick not to get suspended for something that's just as sick (IMO)?

DeToxRox

07-17-2007, 07:57 PM

I think that's incredibly unlikely. It would definitely be ballsy.

It'd cost them way too much. It's the only reason Pac Man is still a Titan and he makes a fraction of Vick.

GoDukes

07-17-2007, 08:00 PM

Some of you are to excited by this news.

I am. I love justice.

Noop

07-17-2007, 08:02 PM

Edited because that was trollish on my part sorry.

stevew

07-17-2007, 08:21 PM

It would have been so much easier if Kyle Boller just decided to fight dogs instead.

Young Drachma

07-17-2007, 08:33 PM

Young Drachma

07-17-2007, 08:34 PM

And I realize most folks don't agree and I'm not interested in debating the case, because I don't really care all that much. Justice will be served however it needs to be. I just wanted to say what I thought.

MikeVic

07-17-2007, 08:42 PM

stevew

07-17-2007, 08:42 PM

Lathum

07-17-2007, 08:44 PM

It may be 3 years per count, which could add up. Plus once they cross state lines I believe the feds have to get involved.

Radii

07-17-2007, 08:46 PM

But all things being equal, this is a pretty egregious waste of federal resources. Fine him to the high heavens. I realize it's a crime and he'll pay whatever price there is. I also think that plenty of people will squeal on him and tell whatever lies they're induced to tell, simply to get the feds off their back. After all, this is the sort of indictment that can make a US Attorney a household name.

I would have thought this too until this case became big news, it sounds like there is a fairly large(both in numbers and dollars) underground world of dog fighting and there has been a significant move by the federal government to put a dent in it, and I completely applaud it. This doesn't not appear to be random federal involvement in a case to "get" a big athlete for lots of money, this is part of an ongoing crackdown into a big illegal business.

Huckleberry

07-17-2007, 08:49 PM

Radii

07-17-2007, 08:51 PM

Will Vick really get in a lot of trouble? It's not like he personally made the dogs fight, and choked them out or held them under water by hand.

He let the people doing that use his property, right? Did he even organize this? Shouldn't you be more angry at the people that actually did those horrible things?

If you believe the reports and the information that's come out in the media, Vick is a "major player" in dog fighting, owning dogs, and betting large amounts of money on his own dogs in fights. There was a big story on ESPN awhile ago from an anonymous source saying that he has seen Vick at dog fights and that there is serious concern in the dog fighting world that Vick will freak out and out a ton of people to protect himself, followed by interviews with people in law enforcement stating that this anonymous source is an informant whose information has led to 30+ arrests over the last couple years and his information is believed to be very credible.

So really I guess how much trouble Vick could get in depends on who is willing to come forward and what they're willing to testify to and if there's any evidence available to back up witnesses, etc.

MikeVic

07-17-2007, 08:57 PM

Damn. I didn't read it, truthfully. Just went by what I thought I heard on TV. Looks like I missed key information.

He sure likes aliases, doesn't he? I wonder if I should now change all my online names... I can't wear his jersey anymore. I feel sorry for those dogs. They had no choice.

Tigercat

07-17-2007, 09:00 PM

It's expected this would be a big story. The glee is a bit premature and of course, misguided. But not surprising.

I'm not a Vick fan and I think he's shot himself in the foot far more times than one can count, by simply not being smarter about stuff. But he's not the first athlete to do that and won't be the last.

But all things being equal, this is a pretty egregious waste of federal resources. Fine him to the high heavens. I realize it's a crime and he'll pay whatever price there is. I also think that plenty of people will squeal on him and tell whatever lies they're induced to tell, simply to get the feds off their back. After all, this is the sort of indictment that can make a US Attorney a household name.

In the grand scheme of whatever else is happening out there, I think this is insignificant at best.

Cruelty to animals, especially domestic animals, in many ways is a window to cruelty to humans. This is no way close to as big a deal as the death of human bigs, but its still a big deal.

Edit to add: Everywhere I have lived, anytime there was a big cruelty to domestic animals case, it lead the local news. (Big city or not) How well we treat those animals close to us is indicitive of our compassion we can have towards each other. There is a reason so many sick human beings started off hurting animals.

path12

07-17-2007, 09:10 PM

It's expected this would be a big story. The glee is a bit premature and of course, misguided. But not surprising.

I don't know that the reactions I've seen would constitute glee. This isn't a happy story for anyone. My take is that if they're indicting they likely have some evidence. And if it proves that he is guilty of this, I cannot respect a person who would do such a thing. Doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

Radii

07-17-2007, 09:21 PM

I don't know that the reactions I've seen would constitute glee. This isn't a happy story for anyone. My take is that if they're indicting they likely have some evidence. And if it proves that he is guilty of this, I cannot respect a person who would do such a thing. Doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

I agree with this. I really don't understand why people say there is glee or celebrating in this thread except for seeing the justice system work/ignore fame. If he isn't guilty I hope he's found as such and forgiven and continues to play football.

Fidatelo

07-17-2007, 09:23 PM

JPhillips

07-17-2007, 09:39 PM

My bet is that Goodell does nothing until there's a conviction. Vick isn't the first NFL guy to get busted for dog fighting and Goodell doesn't want to have the dog fighting subculture that exists in the NFL exposed to the public.

st.cronin

07-17-2007, 09:44 PM

JPhillips

07-17-2007, 10:05 PM

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 10:48 PM

But all things being equal, this is a pretty egregious waste of federal resources. Fine him to the high heavens. I realize it's a crime and he'll pay whatever price there is. I also think that plenty of people will squeal on him and tell whatever lies they're induced to tell, simply to get the feds off their back. After all, this is the sort of indictment that can make a US Attorney a household name.

I think this is money well spent. It's a heinous crime and it needs to be dealty with severly. The high profile nature of the accused (Vick) makes this prosecution and the money and effort spent on it all the more worthwhile. A stronger message will be spent to a much wider audience.

If you're going to prosecute someone for running a massive, interstate dog fighting operation, going after one of the country's most well recognized athletes. where there is a mountain of evidence to support your case, is the way to go. Most bang for your buck.

If you think this is an egreious waste of federal resources, you should really take a closer look at what the federal government spends it money on.

Brillig

07-17-2007, 10:51 PM

If it all falls on Vick it's not that much of a problem for the league. If, however, Vick starts talking and names other players, past and present, the league could face a serious problem. My bet is he'll wait and see how this plays out and hope that he can get by without it all blowing up.

It wouldn't be a problem for Goodell - wasn't on his watch. On the contrary, he gets to be the guy who 'cleaned up football'. Looks good on the resume. I doubt we could go so far as to say that Goodell is looking forward to this, but I don't think he's got any sort of concern that this will turn out to be a huge problem for the league as a whole.

Honolulu_Blue

07-17-2007, 10:52 PM

But all things being equal, this is a pretty egregious waste of federal resources. Fine him to the high heavens. I realize it's a crime and he'll pay whatever price there is. I also think that plenty of people will squeal on him and tell whatever lies they're induced to tell, simply to get the feds off their back. After all, this is the sort of indictment that can make a US Attorney a household name.

In the grand scheme of whatever else is happening out there, I think this is insignificant at best.

I'd rather see the federal government go after this type of heinous crime then spend the billions and billions of dollars on the "War on Drugs." If I had to prosecute a pot head/pot dealer or a head of a dog fighting ring, I'm going after the dog fighting guy every time.

Synovia

07-17-2007, 10:59 PM

It'd cost them way too much. It's the only reason Pac Man is still a Titan and he makes a fraction of Vick.

PacMan is still a titan because hes one of the top 5 corners in the league, and hes the best return guy in the league.

VIck is going to jail. Federal indictments have like a 95% conviction rate. Hes done.

Fidatelo

07-17-2007, 11:59 PM

Are people possibly overlooking the pressure that interest groups like PETA are likely applying to the government on this one? Black, white, whatever, this is a chance for animal rights groups to bring a major animal cruelty issue to light with the general public, and I'm guessing they are likely lobbying pretty hard for this case to be taken as far reaching as it can go.

Groundhog

07-18-2007, 12:10 AM

I can see it now: While in prison, Vick pieces together a team of troubled and disillusioned inmates, leading them to a hard fought and valiant loss against a team made up of prison guards, with everybody learning a valuable lesson that life isn't about winning or losing; it's about being a man and giving it your all, regardless of your background.

MrBigglesworth

07-18-2007, 12:19 AM

In 2007 a crack dog fighting unit was sent to prison by a military court
for a crime they probably committed. These men promptly escaped from a
minimum security stockade to the Atlanta underground. Today,
still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune.
If you have a canine problem - if no one else can help - and if you can find
them - maybe you can hire: The V-Team.

wade moore

07-18-2007, 05:47 AM

I find all of the indignation about this pretty irritating...

Vick is suspected of financing/spear-heading a HUGE dog-fighting operation... I don't care if it's Vick, the kid next door, or Donald Trump. He should be fully investigated, prosecuted, and if found guilty - the book should be thrown at him.

This is not the feds throwing money to frame some big name, this is the feds throwing money to try and get to the "top" of the organization. Again, if what they are claiming is true, he was financing with 100's of thousands of dollars to make these fights happen - the feds will always try and get the guy at the top, even if he's not a superstar, black athlete.

Bee

07-18-2007, 07:02 AM

I guess to me the biggest surprise is this is Vick's first offense. I never really followed his "off the field" antics, but I always got the impression from a distance that he was one of the "bad boys" of the NFL.

Dr. Sak

07-18-2007, 07:14 AM

If this is all true I hope he gets the book thrown at him. I have zero tolerance for people who treat animals poorly.

If he does play this year I wonder how many opposing teams will feature the song "Who Let the Dogs Out" when the Falcons come to town?

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 07:17 AM

I agree with SD's assessment earlier that I would have no problem with a suspension before trial/conviction or plea. The NFL is a private business and as such, its primary concern is its reputation and ability to continue making money. To the extent having an employee indicted on federal charges is bad for its business, they should be permitted to take whatever action they deem necessary. Innocent until proven guilty is for the criminal justice system.

Now, having said that, there's what the NFL should do, and what the NFL can do. They may not have a choice here. What's strange about what John Clayton reported that someone posted earlier, is...did the changes to the personal conduct code take a step backwards in some respects? I'm trying to recall what happened during the Rae Carruth issue - was he suspended? Was it a first-time offense? What if we get a first-time offender under this policy who is charged with murder or attempted murder or rape, etc.? I find it hard to believe that Goodell would box himself in to a policy where a player has to have had a history of issues before he could act. But maybe that was the trade-off for stepping up the policy.

The reason I think he has to act here is that road games are going to be a vicious freak show. Barry Bonds ain't got nothing on what Michael Vick would be in store for if he plays with this hanging over his head. And I'm sure the NFL would police the banners and such, but does the NFL really want 60K people chanting "dog murderer!" and booing at him everytime he steps on the field? This is setting up as a nightmare, and although it will obviously hurt the Falcons, I think for everyone's sake, he should "voluntarily" decide to take the season off to "dedicate his time to fighting these outrageous and untrue allegations" against him. That way the NFL is spared the headache, and he doesn't have to be suspended.

miami_fan

07-18-2007, 07:43 AM

Maple Leafs

07-18-2007, 07:52 AM

albionmoonlight

07-18-2007, 08:31 AM

I honestly can't see why the feds would bother to deal with this, under than the high profileness of the defendant. What is it, like 3 years in jail max for the crimes he was indicted on? I suppose they could backend him with some cruelty charges and whatnot, but unless they are planning to trying to RICO him out, it's not really worth the feds rescources.

The indictment contains a RICO allegation (18 U.S.C. § 1952). The maximum punishment is at least 5 years and possibly up to 20 years, depending on whether the government decides to classify the alleged crimes as "crimes of violence," a needlessly complex term of art in the federal criminal law beyond the scope of this meager post.

I doubt that Vick will see anything like this much time. Federal sentencing is a strange beast, though. Most of the conduct that can jack up your sentence does not need to be proven by the jury or even alleged in the indictment. Once a jury finds you guilty of X, then the judge has the ability to increase your sentence for any wrongful activity related to X.

The indictment alleges that, among other things, firearms were used in the commission of the alleged crimes, and that lots of money changed hands. These things can jack up a federal sentence in no time if a prosecutor feels inclined to push them.

In sum, I don't think that Vick will see much, if any, jail time. But, the indictment and alleged activity could certainly support a pretty large sentence.

Synovia

07-18-2007, 08:32 AM

Now, having said that, there's what the NFL should do, and what the NFL can do. They may not have a choice here. What's strange about what John Clayton reported that someone posted earlier, is...did the changes to the personal conduct code take a step backwards in some respects? I'm trying to recall what happened during the Rae Carruth issue - was he suspended? Was it a first-time offense? What if we get a first-time offender under this policy who is charged with murder or attempted murder or rape, etc.? I find it hard to believe that Goodell would box himself in to a policy where a player has to have had a history of issues before he could act. But maybe that was the trade-off for stepping up the policy.

Clayton has no idea what hes talking about. Goodell pretty much has full discretion here. Both Pacman and Tank have been suspended without convictions. As to the guy asking about PETA, etc. The Feds tend to do their work before indicting. If theyre indicting this quickly, theyve got an open and shut case. Hes going to jail, and for the max time.

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 08:44 AM

Clayton has no idea what hes talking about. Goodell pretty much has full discretion here. Both Pacman and Tank have been suspended without convictions.

He's saying that because Vick is a first-time offender, he has to be convicted or plead to be suspended. Tank and Pacman don't fall under this same scenario because they are repeat offenders, giving the Commissioner discretion to suspend them without a conviction. Although I thought Tank was convicted, or at least pleaded out, which is why he went to jail...? In any event, Vick isn't in the same classification as Pacman under the NFL rules on this subject.

RedKingGold

07-18-2007, 08:48 AM

Clayton has no idea what hes talking about. Goodell pretty much has full discretion here. Both Pacman and Tank have been suspended without convictions. As to the guy asking about PETA, etc. The Feds tend to do their work before indicting. If theyre indicting this quickly, theyve got an open and shut case. Hes going to jail, and for the max time.

As taken from the NFLPA (http://www.nflpa.com/RulesAndRegs/ConductPolicy.aspx#4) website, the Conduct Policy is summarized as:

General Policy
Engaging in violent and/or criminal activity is unacceptable and constitutes conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. Such conduct alienates the fans on whom the success of the League depends and has negative and sometimes tragic consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator. The League is committed to promoting and encouraging lawful conduct and to providing a safe and professional workplace for its employees.
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons Covered by Policy
The following persons ("Covered Persons") shall be considered subject to this Policy: (i) all players under contract; (ii) all full-time employees of the National Football League, its Member Clubs and related entities; (iii) all rookie players once they are selected in the NFL College Draft; and (iv) all undrafted rookie players, unsigned veterans and other prospective employees once they commence negotiations with a Club concerning employment.
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prohibited Conduct
It will be considered conduct detrimental for Covered Persons to engage in (or to aid, abet or conspire to engage in or to incite) violent and/or criminal activity. Examples of such Prohibited Conduct include, without limitation: any crime involving the use or threat of physical violence to a person or persons; the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime; possession or distribution of a weapon in violation of state or federal law; involvement in "hate crimes" or crimes of domestic violence; theft, larceny or other property crimes; sex offenses; racketeering; money laundering; obstruction of justice; resisting arrest; fraud; and violent or threatening conduct. Additionally, Covered Persons shall not by their words or conduct suggest that criminal activity is acceptable or condoned within the NFL.
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons Charged With Criminal Activity
Any Covered Person arrested for or charged with conduct prohibited by this policy will be required to undergo an immediate, mandatory clinical evaluation and, if directed, appropriate counseling. Such evaluation and counseling must be performed under the direction and supervision of the NFL Vice President of Player and Employee Development. Failure to cooperate with evaluation and counseling (including being arrested for or charged with additional criminal activity during the evaluation and counseling period) shall itself be conduct detrimental to the National Football League and shall be punishable by fine or suspension at the discretion of the Commissioner.
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons Convicted of Criminal Activity
Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nob contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner. Such discipline may include a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League. Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a second criminal violation will be suspended without pay or banished for a period of time to be determined by the Commissioner.
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons Engaged in Violent Activity in the Workplace
Every employee is entitled to a safe and professional workplace free of criminal behavior, violence and threats against personal safety. Criminal conduct in the workplace or against other employees is prohibited. Any Covered Person who commits or threatens violent acts against coworkers, regardless of whether an arrest is made or criminal charges are brought, shall be subject to evaluation, counseling and discipline, including termination of employment.
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty to Report Prohibited Conduct
To ensure the effective administration of the policy, the League must be advised when a Covered Person engages in Prohibited Conduct. The obligation to report an arrest or criminal charge extends to both the person involved and to the Club or League entity for which he or she works. Persons subject to this policy who are arrested or charged with Prohibited Conduct must report that incident to their Clubs or to NFL Security at (800) NFL-1099. Failure to report an incident will constitute conduct detrimental and will be taken into consideration in the final determination of discipline under this policy.
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appeal Rights
Any person disciplined under this policy shall have a right of appeal, including a hearing, before the Commissioner or his designee. Except for the enforcement of discipline, no other requirements set forth in the policy will be stayed pending the completion of the appeal.

What is important to note is that there appears to be no implied penalty for simply being charged with a crime. Rather, counseling is required and the penalty is issued for not cooperating with counseling. My guess is that Vick's meeting with Roger Goodell over the NFL Draft might have fulfilled that requirement, or now that Vick has been officially charged, that counseling has not yet been set.

However, note the difference in language between those charged with a crime and those convicted. Basically, this seems to imply that a NFL Employee cannot be suspended for being charged with a crime unless convicted. Yet, there is also the caveat that those who are convicted or admit to a second criminal violation will be suspended or banished (not fined).

What does this "admit to" mean? It's pretty ambiguous. Does admitting mean another indictment? Does it mean public or private acknowledgement? Does it mean simply getting questioned for another crime? Clearly, this term is to give the NFL more leverage when dealing with multiple offenders who have yet to be convicted, such as PacMan.

Thus, it appears that the difference between Vick and PacMan likely is that PacMan has been involved in enough offenses that there was an "admission" of a second criminal violation, whereas this is Vick's first offense.

So, in short, it does appear that the league conduct policy does allow Vick to assert his claims within due process of the law, but he should find himself fortunate that no charges came of the water bottle incident, or the league would not find its hands as tied.

BrianD

07-18-2007, 08:50 AM

I agree with you 100%. But after Mike Nifong, I will wait for the final verdict.

Waiting for the final verdict is always prudent, but this case has a totally different feel than the Duke case. Once the initial report of the dog fighting came out, things quieted down quite a bit. There wasn't a steady stream of news conferences while the prosecution tried to figure out if they were right and then tried to hide the fact that they were wrong. This is a case where a lot of background work was done and then the big announcement was made. I don't want to see Vick be guilty of this, but I guess we'll find out soon if he is.

Is there really a dog fighting subculture in the NFL? I had never heard that before and it seems strange that it never really came out before this if it is true. If it is true, it would be more disturbing to me than all of the steroid talks in baseball.

Synovia

07-18-2007, 08:52 AM

Pacman has NEVER been convicted of anything, so therefor, hes the same as Vick in this. Multiple "incidents", no indictments (until now)

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 08:56 AM

Is there really a dog fighting subculture in the NFL? I had never heard that before and it seems strange that it never really came out before this if it is true. If it is true, it would be more disturbing to me than all of the steroid talks in baseball.

SI's story from a month or so ago discussed the couple of other cases brought against NFL players, one of whom got off in some manner (either acquitted or charges dropped) and another pleaded (IIRC). I don't remember their names, but obviously they weren't of Vick's stature. But who knows who else is/was involved. Before now, Vick wasn't on the radar of most of us, yet in the business and with PETA, he was well-known. And look at the involvement he's alleged to have. There could be guys out there not involved like Vick is alleged to be who attend fights, maybe bet a bit, who no one knows about.

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 08:58 AM

Pacman has NEVER been convicted of anything, so therefor, hes the same as Vick in this. Multiple "incidents", no indictments (until now)

Yeah, I don't see anything in that quoted section of the policy that covers Goodell's new ability to suspend for multiple incidents (excluding convictions), nor the "3 strikes and your out" policy.

Kodos

07-18-2007, 08:58 AM

It's sad that it has come to this. But it illustrates nicely that just because you are a gifted athlete, it doesn't mean that you are a good person. I abhor cruelty to animals. I hope they nail his ass to the wall. And I hope he never plays another down of football. Blank should release him, financial implications be damned.

Bee

07-18-2007, 09:01 AM

Well for what it's worth according to the Washington Post article today:

The league's amended conduct policy says that Goodell may discipline a player even if the player has not been convicted of a crime.

MikeVic

07-18-2007, 09:04 AM

RedKingGold

07-18-2007, 09:06 AM

If someone can define exactly what the NFL means by "admit to" instead of convict, that'd be a step in the right direction.

Bee

07-18-2007, 09:09 AM

Here's a link to the amended personal conduct policy.

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/Personal%20Conduct%20Policy.pdf

While it states a first offense is generally not cause for suspension, it sounds to me like Goodell has a lot more freedom than the ESPN article made out.

RedKingGold

07-18-2007, 09:16 AM

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 09:18 AM

"Unless the case involves significant bodily harm, a first offense will generally not result in discipline until there has been a disposition of the proceeding."

RedKingGold

07-18-2007, 09:21 AM

While it states a first offense is generally not cause for suspension, it sounds to me like Goodell has a lot more freedom than the ESPN article made out.

Unless the case involves significant bodily harm, a first offense will generally not result in dicipline until there has been a disposition of the proceeding...

So, while the NFL does have flexibility around this rule, it does seem they are somewhat abiding it with Vick.

RedKingGold

07-18-2007, 09:21 AM

"Unless the case involves significant bodily harm, a first offense will generally not result in discipline until there has been a disposition of the proceeding."

What he said. :)

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 09:24 AM

It all depends on what kind of fight the NFLPA would put up. I'm sure Goodell could construct a good argument why the general rule doesn't apply here. If he's inclined to suspend, I still think a voluntary leave of absence is the way to go. If Vick is determined to play, though, and the NFL doesn't want the PR nightmare during the season, then I could see them suspending him and letting a court decide. Isn't that the way it works - he makes the decision, he decides the appeal, and then it can be taken up outside of the NFL?

spleen1015

07-18-2007, 09:25 AM

I agree with you 100%. But after Mike Nifong, I will wait for the final verdict.

:D

This is hardly the result of a local DA trying to move up the political ladder by convicting athletes from a well renown local college.

The fact that the federal government has indicted him is a pretty damn good indication that the dude is guilty. He'll plea his way out of it somehow and won't server any jail time.

I hope there's not any organized crime involved in all of this. Vick may not be around long enough to blow the whistle.

flere-imsaho

07-18-2007, 09:32 AM

Any chance he gets released from the Falcons?

Not unless he's actually convicted, I'd think. The potential loss associated with releasing him, and then having him acquitted, would probably be too much for the organization.

I agree with SD's assessment earlier that I would have no problem with a suspension before trial/conviction or plea. The NFL is a private business and as such, its primary concern is its reputation and ability to continue making money. To the extent having an employee indicted on federal charges is bad for its business, they should be permitted to take whatever action they deem necessary. Innocent until proven guilty is for the criminal justice system.

Absolutely. If I get indicted on these charges, for instance, the best I can probably hope for is suspension with pay until the trial resolves. However, as Illinois is a work-at-will state, I'd probably just be fired. The NFL is a business - people need to understand this.

Thomkal

07-18-2007, 09:34 AM

Don't know what to think here. Let's not forget Vick could be innocent here, stranger things have happened. And let's not forget our old friend "reasonable doubt." He most certainly will have lawyers who are very good at finding that. But I'm sure the federal govt made damn sure they had a solid case against him before indicting him. They don't want to be made to look like fools after all.

So I'm guessing there's a lot of evidence and witnesses which put Vick in the middle of all this, contrary to his denials. If people are coming forward saying Vick knew about it and participated in it, then I'll find it harder and harder to believe his denials.

I think the NFL and the Falcons are in a tough spot here. If they suspend him right away, they probably have every Sharpton, Jackson, etc out there on their case saying it was racist to suspend him. And if it turns out he's innocent or there's reasonable doubt, you can bet there will be a lawsuit from Vick against the NFL, if such an action is possible in this case. The Players Association will be in a tough spot too and could cause problems if Vick is suspended now.

If they don't suspend him, they will be under fire from animal rights activists, league sponsors/advertisers, and probably some politicians. Sounds like there won't be a trial until after the season is over so he will play the whole year with this cloud over the league's head. Will Vick be able to focus on playing?

If he's really guilty of all this, it would be wonderful if he just came forward and begged for mercy and we don't have to go through the circus that the trial will be. That won't happen of course, and if he tells the commissioner he had nothing to do with it and then is found guilty of it, he should be suspended for life.

Huckleberry

07-18-2007, 09:41 AM

Not unless he's actually convicted, I'd think. The potential loss associated with releasing him, and then having him acquitted, would probably be too much for the organization.

As stated before, federal indictments have an incredibly high conviction rate. Around 95%. Federal prosecutors do their work before getting an indictment. State prosecutors generally do their work after.

As for the Discipline Policy, it's pretty obvious there was significant bodily harm involved. The policy doesn't specify human bodies. That's the position I would take as commissioner. ;)

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 09:50 AM

As stated before, federal indictments have an incredibly high conviction rate. Around 95%. Federal prosecutors do their work before getting an indictment. State prosecutors generally do their work after.

As for the Discipline Policy, it's pretty obvious there was significant bodily harm involved. The policy doesn't specify human bodies. That's the position I would take as commissioner. ;)

I'm of the opinion that even if he's acquitted, enough evidence is likely going to come out during the trial that proves he had some involvement in this business. And that's going to factor heavily into whether he can play in the NFL again.

Barring some bombshell that proves he really has never had any involvment in dogfighting and that he's a victim of his family and circumstances, he's basically in a lose/lose situation. This case is high profile enough that the Feds aren't going to plead him down to something that wouldn't get him suspended from the NFL for at least half a season. They're committed to this now that they've named him, so they've got to go all-out. So that means he's got to go to trial. And by doing that, the papers are going to be filled with detail after detail of his involvement in dogfighting on a daily basis. Maybe it doesn't prove the specific charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but to the public, he will be guilty of being involved in the business to some extent. And I'm fairly certain Arthus Blank, of all people, will not keep someone with such a tarnished image as the focal point of his team. Maybe some other team takes a shot at him, but I still have to imagine the public outcry would be great.

In short, I think the guy's pretty much fucked.

Arles

07-18-2007, 10:01 AM

Vinatieri for Prez

07-18-2007, 10:08 AM

To clear things up a bit regarding the NFL conduct policy:

1) As has been pointed out, with respect to first time offenders, they "generally" won't be suspended. Goodell won't let that kind of restriction stand in his way of protecting the NFL from what would be a complete fiasco in my opinion (fan reaction at games, pressure from interest groups at games by picketing, etc.; press asking questions about it to Vick, the team, and the league every frickin' week). Not to mention the league worked with the feds and probably have a pretty good idea how strong the evidence is. Not to mention it appears that Vick flat out lied to the commissioner in April when they met in person and Vick denied any knowledge of, let alone participation in, the dogfighting. I am almost positive he is going to get suspended.

2) In addition, there is the whole new angle of gambling that is involved. In addition to the conduct policy, there is a separate NFL gambling policy, which states that "associating with gamblers or with gambling activities in a manner tending to bring discredit to the NFL" can lead to "severe penalties" including suspension for life. Vick is charged with conspiracy to utilize interstate commerce with intent to promote and manage a business enterprise involving gambling. I think this kind of gambling could be defined as a "discredit to the NFL." This gives Goodell more ammo with respect to a suspension.

In sum, Goodell has more than enough ammo to suspend him. John Clayton and others have no idea what they're talking about (terrible journalism frankly), and I believe he will be suspended until the issue is resolved. Apparently, Virginia has a rocket docket which could see this thing go to trial in 4-6 months.

Fonzie

07-18-2007, 10:09 AM

PFT.com has some interesting takes:

------------------
POSTED 9:50 a.m. EDT; UPDATED 10:17 a.m. EDT, July 18, 2007

VICK'S CASE IS ON THE "ROCKET DOCKET"

Though some legal pundits (including yours truly) have suggested that the case of the U.S. versus Michael Vick a/k/a Ookie could drag on for a year or longer, the action is pending in the infamous East Coast "Rocket Docket" -- the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

As Lester Munson of ESPN.com points out in an excellent item that almost balances out the crappy column penned on Tuesday night by Len Pasquarelli of ESPN.com, the Vick case could be buttoned up within four to six months.

If so, it's hard to imagine Vick playing football, or doing so effectively, in the 2007 season. We therefore wouldn't be surprised if the Falcons end up giving him a paid leave of absence while the matter is pending, which could balance the team's desire to continue to support Vick (and thus justify the investment it has made in him) with the need to create the impression that action is being taken to address this serious situation.
---------------------

POSTED 8:42 a.m. EDT, July 18, 2007

IS THIS REALLY A "FIRST OFFENSE"?

As we continue to listen to the parade of sock puppets who are quick to point out that Falcons quarterback Mike Vick is not subject to a suspension under the Personal Conduct Policy because he is not a "repeat offender," something has occurred to us.

Doesn't the indictment of Mike Vick set forth a series of numerous offenses, necessarily making him something more than a one-time offender?

In most cases, an NFL player is arrested as a result of a discrete event. Driving drunk. Possessing marijuana. Punching a friend or loved one. Biting a friend, loved one, or an officer of the law.

In this case, Vick has been charged with a pattern of activity extending over a period of more than five years. He is formally accused of conspiring to maintain an illegal gambling enterprise and of conspiring to engage in dog fighting. The "overt acts" listed in the indictment constitute multiple and independent violations of the law.

So this isn't a situation where Mike had too much to drink and blew a 0.08 or higher. That's a "first offense." The charges against Vick reflect a blatant and ongoing series of illegal incidents that continued merely because he hadn't gotten caught.

In our view, the only difference between Vick and Pacman Jones is that Jones periodically was questioned by police and/or arrested. But both have engaged in an ongoing series of misbehavior, and it's easy to conclude that the things that Vick allegedly has done are, when considered together, worse than anything that Pacman ever allegedly did.

--------------------
POSTED 11:57 p.m. EDT, July 17, 2007

GAMBLING ANGLE COULD PROVIDE GOODELL WITH AMMO TO SUSPEND

At a time when some segments of the "real" media are focused on whether Commissioner Roger Goodell may suspend Falcons quarterback Mike Vick based merely on an indictment related to dog fighting, there could be a separate NFL policy that provides Goodell with an avenue to take action.

The league's gambling policy prohibits "[a]ssociating with gamblers or with gambling activities in a manner tending to bring discredit to the NFL." Vick is charged with conspiracy to utilize interstate commerce with intent to promote, manage, etc. a business enterprise involving gambling. Indeed, the indictment contains multiple references to gambling arising from the dog fights in which Vick was involved.

Under the league's gambling policy, a violation may result in "severe penalties," up to and including a suspension from the NFL for life.

So if Goodell wants to take swift and firm action against Vick, he is not required to wait for the pending charges to be resolved. He can conduct his own investigation into the situation, and he can choose to suspend Vick under the gambling policy, if Goodell deems it appropriate to do so.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-18-2007, 10:14 AM

HAHA. It appears you and I were thinking on the same wavelength at exactly the same time. :)

Ryche

07-18-2007, 10:15 AM

Considering they know that there was dog fighting conducted on Vick's property, with or without his knowledge, that combined with the indictment on him should be enough for a suspension.

I think the Falcons' reaction to this will be interesting. This is a huge blackeye and distraction for them while the investigation is taking place.

If nothing else, this should give Petrino pretty much a free pass for the season.

Fonzie

07-18-2007, 10:18 AM

HAHA. It appears you and I were thinking on the same wavelength at exactly the same time. :)

Brilliant minds...something something...alike!

JPhillips

07-18-2007, 10:24 AM

which wants out of ATL more Petrino or Blank?

And Mora Jr. looks much luckier today doesn't he?

miami_fan

07-18-2007, 10:33 AM

:D

This is hardly the result of a local DA trying to move up the political ladder by convicting athletes from a well renown local college.

The fact that the federal government has indicted him is a pretty damn good indication that the dude is guilty. He'll plea his way out of it somehow and won't server any jail time.

I hope there's not any organized crime involved in all of this. Vick may not be around long enough to blow the whistle.

I am not saying that he is not guilty. I am not saying that the Feds don't have a good case. All I am saying is that while he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, there is a possibility of him being found "not guilty" of the charges for whatever reason.

miami_fan

07-18-2007, 10:43 AM

I am not a guy who has second favorite teams and the such, but I might take the Falcons on as a "second favorite" team if they were to cut Vick financial implications be dammed.

TroyF

07-18-2007, 10:49 AM

There shouldn't be anything racially charged about scumbags abusing dogs. If they find Vick guilty, he should never play another down of professional football and he should spend a long time in prison.

Ryche

07-18-2007, 10:53 AM

which wants out of ATL more Petrino or Blank?

And Mora Jr. looks much luckier today doesn't he?

If Harrington ends up the quarterback of Atlanta this year, I'd say Petrino would have a good shot at bringing Brohm to the team next year.

gstelmack

07-18-2007, 10:54 AM

This puts a new spin on the whole "maybe Michael will be a stabilising influence on Marcus" debacle a few years back, doesn't it?

M GO BLUE!!!

07-18-2007, 10:59 AM

If Harrington ends up the quarterback of Atlanta this year, I'd say Petrino would have a good shot at bringing Brohm to the team next year.

You beat me to it by five minutes!

With the number one pick in the 2008 NFL Draft...

Vinatieri for Prez

07-18-2007, 11:00 AM

Joey Harrington sure knows how to pick 'em, no? It's looking like for 2 years running he has taken a backup spot, only to become the starter very early on for the rest of the season (this of course assumes the Falcons don't pick up Culpepper or someone else).

Perhaps Jeff George can return to the team he loved.

gstelmack

07-18-2007, 11:01 AM

You beat me to it by five minutes!

With the number one pick in the 2008 NFL Draft...

Well, there are still teams like Oakland in there. My local sports radio station played this last night:

With the fourth pick in the 2008 NFL Draft, the Atlanta Falcons select Brian Brohm, Quarterback from Louisville.

JPhillips

07-18-2007, 11:01 AM

I don't think ATL will be that lucky. They have enough other pieces to go 8-8 or 7-9. I think it's much more likely that they'll end up with around ten with no great QB prospect available.

Synovia

07-18-2007, 11:13 AM

I am not saying that he is not guilty. I am not saying that the Feds don't have a good case. All I am saying is that while he has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, there is a possibility of him being found "not guilty" of the charges for whatever reason.

Theres always possibility, but the feds have 4 corroborating witnesses, all who took money from Vick at dog fights. They've got credit card statements and cell phone records. The amount of information in that indictment, and the speed at which it was handed down pretty much guarantees that they have more than enough evidence to put him away. Theres a good chance the rabbit hole goes a whole lot deeper though, and it ends up a LOT worse. Theres probably going to be RICO charges, which means they'll freeze his assets. Theres probably going to be state charges. This is going to get REALLY bad.

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 11:21 AM

Someone on another thread suggested that whatever suspension he gets should be converted to dog years.

MikeVic

07-18-2007, 11:22 AM

Someone on another thread suggested that whatever suspension he gets should be converted to dog years.

So he needs to get seven years in order to serve one?

Kidding, I know what you mean. ;)

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 11:28 AM

You know, I barely glance at those ads at the end of every ESPN article, but this one at the end of the Munson article caught my eye:

<TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px solid; BORDER-TOP: 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: 0px solid; WIDTH: 590px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px solid; HEIGHT: 137px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 590px; HEIGHT: 62px" vAlign=center align=middle bgColor=#ffffff><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; HEIGHT: 100%" cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=xr onmouseover="wMes('FreeSportsApparel.com');" style="WIDTH: 100%; HEIGHT: 100%; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" onclick="rDir('http://redir.adsonar.com/process/redir.jsp?p=rwBUfZ/dlWW4xz9t9/V5DI8mNSLyqBv3RKmO3AKFa6vRnRtAo6glqx8JSm-3q037GpdW074jH/EUxzvBFoRYDstkTgwsaepzmj-fKcGJlZkuLTIFUO-dysoDHJURRdyUvL-WFdjFFKql-2xBzIQygSMEOelcq4iET/1FSS9pmu0IExEFLe0vWb-lLBwEDZaaJ3YKgzXuQ2RUf6Vl81TYXk2vA6g-3b9yAk04MYzrGtJmlxAji0qrUGQTBncSTbH1JnPMtvtYipmWQuXyBOKZ/UzVF3yK6XoStgS4y-cu4a2l4Dn218wwdIWW1jKWELsOr5A5qEYM3qUGJTojFXKYZChQxNTeMQvjlCntVjFPMp9pEUH2P9Zw3pfjqsKIoEJuFkneEJFGsOleR6fz1YYfQ-avMXwMIVrfE2tZMXNyZlVgPB3gskJN4k8SDNSMvmnDFlfRvYOJKWEhm9LgltOpqQOdRsZpDn5iDwfMwRn0XGWcZb6NoVUiXHcmnJ2YUZK1z8pSHNn4nTe3VXJS-Mrk9cFkycZOg5dxpSgynEIEyK3bK2toX5FF0nbug21pXqTTY5oUQxezusLn95NP2vW0ZogmH8-QdjJiaZe42J9p3yya/lvT/XfTRH01Vy9FKhNS0qMnz7-zBTesTz3YScFrqB23O8fWZUMC645gj3AJBYQlH2hLdmtYuHez95D/2/8SwG8Sc=');" onmouseout=cMes();><TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 100%; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; HEIGHT: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="WIDTH: 100%; HEIGHT: 100%; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" vAlign=center align=left>Free Michael Vick Jersey (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)
Free Atlanta Falcons Michael Vick Jersey - Authentic - Only A Few Left (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)
www.FreeSportsApparel.com/Falcons (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I had two quick reactions:

First, that used to be an enticement to get someone to buy merchandise, but now it might really mean they're just unloading his jerseys.

Second, I wonder how long it will be until we see Jesse Jackson wearing a "Free Michael Vick" jersey.

Fidatelo

07-18-2007, 11:30 AM

I can't imagine watching a dog fight. We've been housing a friends dog for 3 days now, and our dog and this new one play-fight constantly. Even just the playing is hard to watch, it basically consists of them gnawing on each other, and sometimes I feel a need to break it up, even though they are clearly just playing. The thought of watching to dogs actually go at it is just revolting, never mind having purposely staged the whole thing.

molson

07-18-2007, 11:30 AM

Honolulu_Blue

07-18-2007, 11:34 AM

Someone on another thread suggested that whatever suspension he gets should be converted to dog years.

Heh. I like it.

stevew

07-18-2007, 11:35 AM

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 11:37 AM

OK, that video wasn't all that great, but the "underthrew him a bone" line is some serious lolz.

stevew

07-18-2007, 11:38 AM

OK, that video wasn't all that great, but the "underthrew him a bone" line is some serious lolz.

yeah, that was the best part.

BrianD

07-18-2007, 11:39 AM

OK, that video wasn't all that great, but the "underthrew him a bone" line is some serious lolz.

I figured I wouldn't get this comment out first. That line got quite a laugh from me. :D

Huckleberry

07-18-2007, 12:54 PM

So his initial court date was set for next Thursday. The same next Thursday that is the Falcons' first day of camp.

Bee

07-18-2007, 12:55 PM

So his initial court date was set for next Thursday. The same next Thursday that is the Falcons' first day of camp.

Which one to skip...decisions, decisions. :D

miami_fan

07-18-2007, 12:58 PM

I found this somewhat interesting

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

WHERE'S BODDIE?

Several readers and media types have raised with us a compelling question regarding the Mike Vick indictment.

Why wasn't Davon Boddie, Vick's cousin who lived on the property, named in the indictment?

Really, how could Boddie have been living at the property and not involved in the operation, especially since the house was built for the sole purpose of supporting the dog-fighting operation?

In June, Boddie told WAVY-TV that he had no knowledge of dog fighting on the property where he lived, and he suggested that the dogs removed from the land in April had been planted there by law enforcement officials.

The most obvious conclusion is that Boddie already has been flipped by prosecutors, and that Boddie is singing like a bird that wants a cracker (or whatever in the hell it is that birds eat).

Indeed, there are four "cooperating witnesses" who are named in the indictment, and who likely testified before the grand jury. They provided exhaustive details, like the names of the dogs and the specific purses for the fights.

Boddie could be one of them. If he is, we hope that he's in a safe house right now, far from the influence or reach of any of the four guys who were named in the indictment.

Another "cooperating witness" could be the woman whom Vick allegedly gave herpes in 2003. (We're kidding. We think.)

Kodos

07-18-2007, 01:07 PM

he suggested that the dogs removed from the land in April had been planted there by law enforcement officials

Good lord.

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 01:19 PM

I assumed one of the other guys named in the indictment was his cousin. Guess not.

Synovia

07-18-2007, 01:22 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick20070717-2.pdf The indictment, for anyone interested.

Honolulu_Blue

07-18-2007, 01:40 PM

After reading that indictment, I now see why so many people think this is going to be really bad for Vick.

Synovia

07-18-2007, 02:09 PM

After reading that indictment, I now see why so many people think this is going to be really bad for Vick.

Exactly, the indictment is WAY too specific. Its pretty clear that they have a assload of evidence here.

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 02:15 PM

path12

07-18-2007, 02:19 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick20070717-2.pdf The indictment, for anyone interested.

Wow.

BrianD

07-18-2007, 02:21 PM

he suggested that the dogs removed from the land in April had been planted there by law enforcement officialsGood lord.

I was thinking the same thing. I can understand cops planting a gun on a suspect, or maybe a couple of drops of blood in a car, but multiple dogs? How do you plant dogs with nobody noticing? Or is it just a criminal reflex to blame planted evidence?

Mr. Wednesday

07-18-2007, 02:25 PM

I found this somewhat interesting

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
I figured it went without saying that the feds had rolled or would try to roll Vick's alleged co-conspirators to build a case against the head man.

Synovia

07-18-2007, 02:28 PM

Peter King seems to think they will not suspend him unless/until he is convicted. Hard to believe the NFL is willing to endure 4-6 months of non-stop bad PR and constant reminders of this issue from PETA picketing, media coverage, and fan chants/boos.

How often is Peter King right? 10% of the time? I think the falcons put him on "leave" for missing camp because of hearings, and he gets suspended as soon as the trial starts. Gets banned when he gets convicted (not that it matters, because hes going to spend a LOT of time in jail, with the RICO charges)

miami_fan

07-18-2007, 02:37 PM

Arles

07-18-2007, 04:02 PM

Peter King seems to think they will not suspend him unless/until he is convicted. Hard to believe the NFL is willing to endure 4-6 months of non-stop bad PR and constant reminders of this issue from PETA picketing, media coverage, and fan chants/boos.
Mortenson on ESPN said the same thing. I think these guys are all caught up in the "second offense" wording and are disregarding the new leeway the commish has (not to mention the gambling out).

I would be shocked if Vick isn't suspended for the season by the end of the month. Then, pending the results of the trial, they could levy and even heavier penalty if need be.

Arles

07-18-2007, 04:06 PM

I am thinking the NFL would want the Falcons to act in some fashion before they (the NFL) acts.
IMO, it's the opposite. The NFL has an easy out: "We are suspending Michael Vick for the season. After the trial is over, we will revisit our decision."

Clean, simple and even if Vick ends up innocent of all charges (about 5% likely), the public would still be behind this decision.

st.cronin

07-18-2007, 04:07 PM

My guess is the Falcons will try something like what the Dolphins did with Culpepper, keep cutting checks but tell Vick to stay home. Then, if he gets convicted, they release him at that point, and go get his signing bonus back.

MikeVic

07-18-2007, 04:14 PM

IMO, it's the opposite. The NFL has an easy out: "We are suspending Michael Vick for the season. After the trial is over, we will revisit our decision."

Clean, simple and even if Vick ends up innocent of all charges (about 5% likely), the public would still be behind this decision.

I think the problem is what if he's not found guilty? Then he was suspended for a season for nothing, and that's not fair either. Isn't the law "innocent until proven guilty?"

Synovia

07-18-2007, 04:15 PM

I think the problem is what if he's not found guilty? Then he was suspended for a season for nothing, and that's not fair either. Isn't the law "innocent until proven guilty?"

Employment has nothing to do with a court of law. Employing Michael Vick is directly hurting the NFL's earnings. They could fire him right now, and be legally justified. Keeping him employed is going to cost them millions in advertising revenue, etc.

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 04:18 PM

I think the problem is what if he's not found guilty? Then he was suspended for a season for nothing, and that's not fair either. Isn't the law "innocent until proven guilty?"

It has very little to do with how a private business is run. Arles pointed to a great example earlier - Don Imus. There, all you're talking about is a guy making, at absolute worst, a racist comment, and at best, an ill-conceived joke. Fired. What makes Vick's situation any different? The Falcons and the NFL potentially stand to lose sponsors and fans because one of their employees has been linked to and charged with felonies. The only thing keeping them from "firing" Vick is salary cap considerations.

Mr. Wednesday

07-18-2007, 04:31 PM

I think the problem is what if he's not found guilty? Then he was suspended for a season for nothing, and that's not fair either. Isn't the law "innocent until proven guilty?"
It's not a matter of what criminal law says (and outside of the courtroom, how many people actually live up to that anyway), it's a matter of what the contract and CBA allow the NFL to do.

("Fairness" I suppose would enter into it in the sense of, it would be unfair to suspend him without pay if the charges should prove to be groundless. I'm not sure there's any reasonable probability of that happening, however.)

Surtt

07-18-2007, 04:44 PM

I think the problem is what if he's not found guilty? Then he was suspended for a season for nothing, and that's not fair either. Isn't the law "innocent until proven guilty?"

He would be suspended for "conduct detrimental to the league" or some such thing.
Innocent or guilty, he has given the NFL a huge black eye and that is what he would be suspended for.

larrymcg421

07-18-2007, 05:00 PM

If the Falcons released Vick, would any team have the nerve to sign him?

Atocep

07-18-2007, 05:09 PM

The smartest move for Atlanta at this point would probably be to give him a leave of absence to focus on his indictment. They're still paying him, but they don't have to deal with the NFLPA and it keeps the door open for the NFL to suspend him.

Basically, suspending him with pay until the league steps in.

CraigSca

07-18-2007, 06:05 PM

They should trade him for Schaub :)

Richard Weed

07-18-2007, 06:20 PM

I wonder if this will affect his 99 speed in Madden. If so, then lock him up.

Ben E Lou

07-18-2007, 08:20 PM

Poll shows Georgians split on Vick

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/18/07

Georgians are torn about what the Atlanta Falcons should do about star quarterback Michael Vick after his indictment Tuesday on dog-fighting charges, according to a new poll.

Atlanta-based InsiderAdvantage polled 859 people by telephone overnight Tuesday and found that 45.9 percent think the Falcons should release Vick. Another 45.7 percent said the team should keep him until a verdict is rendered. And 8.4 percent had no opinion.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Whites were far more likely than blacks to think that Vick, who is African-American, should be dumped immediately. Among whites, 54.4 percent polled thought he should be released, 36.7 percent that he should stay until there was a verdict, and 8.9 percent had no opinion.

Among black respondents, only 26.6 percent thought he should be released, 65.6 percent said wait until the verdict, and 7.8 percent had no opinion.

About three-quarters of those polled listen to, watch or attend Falcons games, according to InsiderAdvantage, an Internet media and polling firm. However, there was little difference between the fans and non-fans polled about what the team should do. Among the fans, 46.8 percent thought he should be released. That result was 44.8 percent among non-fans.

larrymcg421

07-18-2007, 08:27 PM

I would like to see the fan/non-fan breakdown among race. For some reason, I suspect the non-fan breakdown will have a wider racial disparity.

Brillig

07-18-2007, 08:29 PM

Interesting that more fans want to boot his ass than non-fans. Although it's within the margin of error.

On the other hand... the fans have seen him play.

molson

07-18-2007, 08:34 PM

I was thinking the same thing. I can understand cops planting a gun on a suspect, or maybe a couple of drops of blood in a car, but multiple dogs? How do you plant dogs with nobody noticing? Or is it just a criminal reflex to blame planted evidence?

It's never too early to play the race card, when that's your only way out of something.

Ben E Lou

07-18-2007, 08:37 PM

I would like to see the fan/non-fan breakdown among race. For some reason, I suspect the non-fan breakdown will have a wider racial disparity.

I'm not so sure. I would assume that most of the black non-fans would be transplants and/or women. It could go either way. Keep in mind that both Vick and dogfighting are rather popular in the hood.

Richard Weed

07-18-2007, 08:40 PM

It's never too early to play the race card, when that's your only way out of something.
Maybe white dudes do it too, but they're targeting blacks? I dunno. I'm neither, so just a guess as to why people might play the race card.

Senator

07-18-2007, 08:40 PM

st.cronin

07-18-2007, 08:44 PM

A guy at work today told me this was a cultural thing that whites could never understand, and it would be split right down the racial lines. As open mind as I try to have, I even found this beyond my ability to comprehend. Cultural??

What they're saying is, white people can never understand savagery, lack of compassion, not having a soul, etc. So basically they're saying black people are evil. You should call them out for being racist.

Richard Weed

07-18-2007, 08:46 PM

A guy at work today told me this was a cultural thing that whites could never understand, and it would be split right down the racial lines. As open mind as I try to have, I even found this beyond my ability to comprehend. Cultural??
Could Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Easterners, etc. understand it? Could Beckham understand it????

Ben E Lou

07-18-2007, 08:47 PM

A guy at work today told me this was a cultural thing that whites could never understand, and it would be split right down the racial lines. As open mind as I try to have, I even found this beyond my ability to comprehend. Cultural??

Dog fighting does seem to be taking off in black inner city culture lately. I don't know how generally accepted it is, but I know that is becoming more and more common.

Senator

07-18-2007, 08:47 PM

What they're saying is, white people can never understand savagery, lack of compassion, not having a soul, etc. So basically they're saying black people are evil. You should call them out for being racist.

It was a very educated black guy.

I should add, he wasn't supporting it, but he seemed to have a clear understanding early on, that this was something that would divide people.

Senator

07-18-2007, 08:51 PM

Could Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Easterners, etc. understand it? Could Beckham understand it????

He thought maybe Belgiums would understand.

st.cronin

07-18-2007, 08:53 PM

Dog fighting does seem to be taking off in black inner city culture lately. I don't know how generally accepted it is, but I know that is becoming more and more common.

Taking off, or being exposed by law enforcement? My guess is this was much more common in the past, but nobody really knew about it..

Ben E Lou

07-18-2007, 08:58 PM

Here's an article that talks a bit about it...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/431143,CST-CONT-dog17.article

The sick hipness of dog fighting
For too many top athletes and entertainers, this savage sport is outlaw cool

June 17, 2007

BY STEVE MALANGA
America has never had a discussion about the reprehensible blood sport of dog fighting quite like the one that's going on right now.

A dog-fighting operation may have been housed on a Virginia estate owned by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, according to recent reports, and that has sparked speculation on talk radio and in the sports pages about whether Vick had a role in organizing fights, and if so what that might do to his sports career.

Vick, of course, is innocent until proved guilty. But the attention his name has brought to this issue should spur a deeper conversation about the troubling growth of dog fighting in America. Although 48 states call it a felony, dog fighting is undergoing a resurgence, transformed from a once largely rural and illicit sport into a fashionable pastime with a certain outlaw cache in many urban neighborhoods.

All the vogue among athletes

For too many top athletes and entertainers, the savage sport of dog fighting is outlaw cool. Embraced by street gangs starting in the late 1980s, who were drawn to it for their own sport then discovered it could be a profitable enterprise, the new world of dog fighting ranges from highly organized, well-attended matches featuring tens of thousands of dollars in betting pools and prize money to impromptu bouts on street corners and in playgrounds. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that as many as 40,000 people participate in dog fighting either as spectators, organizers or breeders of dogs, and tens of thousands of dogs are bred for the ring.

Magazines and Internet sites openly sell training gear and display the "Cajun Rules," an intricate, 19-point system for adjudicating dog fights. Videos depicting dog fights are available for sale online, including recently at Amazon.com, according to a suit filed against the retailer by the Humane Society.

One reason for the growing popularity of dog fighting is that it seems to have come into vogue among professional athletes and entertainers, whose attentions have given the brutal pastime a certain street cred.

In 2005, National Basketball Association player Qyntel Woods pleaded guilty to animal abuse charges after abandoning a pit bull that had wounds consistent with dog fighting. That same year, former NFL running back LeShon Johnson pleaded guilty to possessing fight dogs and encouraging dogfights. And Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis, when asked about Vick, expressed an attitude that appears all too common among pro athletes: "It's his property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

Rap music also glorifies the blood sport. The rapper DMX, who appears with a snarling pit bull on the cover of his album "Year of the Dog Again," has sung: "Place your bets/You can imagine what the bloodline is like," and "All my pups is crazy, 'cause off the leash/They can eat, stand a match for three hours at least."

Madison Avenue has been quick to seize on such attitudes to instill a certain street cred in its own advertising. In 2003, the clothing company Nike, which has endorsement deals with numerous top athletes including Vick, released a gritty-looking TV ad dubbed "The Battle" which featured a brief glimpse of a growling pit bull and Rottweiler about to face off. A Nike representative denied that the ad encouraged dog fighting, but explained, "People have to understand the youth culture we cater to. Our market is the urban, edgy, hip-hop culture."

Creating bigger problems

That culture has reached down to schoolchildren, who increasingly seem to think that two dogs at each others' throats is cool. A survey of schoolchildren by the Anti-Cruelty Society of Chicago in 2001 found that 20 percent had witnessed a dogfight. Earlier this year, Los Angeles police arrested a 13-year-old boy who had organized a dog fight in an alley.

We ignore the surging popularity of dog fighting and its related activities, such as breeding dogs for aggressiveness, at our own risk. Profits from matches now fund other illicit gang operations, including drug buying. An analysis by the Animal Legal and Historical Center, a project of the Michigan State College of Law, of more than two dozen raids on dogfights found that in virtually every instance the police also seized illegal narcotics and weapons.

The presence in neighborhoods of so many dogs bred and trained to be aggressive is also a growing danger. Just a few months ago in England, which has witnessed a similar growth in urban-centered dog fighting, 5-year-old Ellie Lawrenson was mauled to death by a dog allegedly bred by her uncle for the ring.

Dog fighting has also become a nightmare for America's lawful pet owners. Although many fighting dogs are bred, gangs steal neighborhood dogs and cats to be used as 'bait' in training the fighters and developing a blood lust in them. Several years ago, investigators in Pima County, Ariz., began finding the remains of disfigured dead dogs dumped in the desert and determined that many were stolen pets.

Dogs bred to fight are victims, too, usually living short, cruel lives. Most are so aggressive that they must be chained or caged in isolation, apart from other animals and humans. And even if they are rescued by authorities and heal from sometimes terrible wounds, these dogs most often must be put to sleep because they cannot be adopted as family pets.

Prosecutors go easy

Despite such horrors, dog fighting thrives in part because prosecutions are infrequent and penalties can be light. Prosecutors often plead dog fighting cases down to misdemeanor charges of animal cruelty to dispose of them quickly. Instead of jail time, probation and small fines are the norm -- hardly deterrents to an activity that has become increasingly lucrative. In a 2004 raid in Covington, Ga., police seized $250,000 in cash.

Some cities have begun to recognize the seriousness of the problem. Seeing the connection between dog fighting and other gang crimes, Chicago has created a special police unit devoted to investigating cases of abuse. Two years ago, Los Angeles' police force formed an Animal Cruelty Task Force, which has led to several prosecutions of gang members for animal abuse.

But stepped-up police work and prosecutions are only part of the solution. We are in danger of raising a generation of kids who view animal abuse as a sport, and it is up to responsible adults to change that way of thinking.
Maybe we need to begin by pressuring our sports figures, entertainers and even our advertisers to reform their messages, too.

Rizon

07-18-2007, 09:01 PM

All Blacks need to watch "Bloodsport" and then need to STFU about this fighting thing.

Ben E Lou

07-18-2007, 09:02 PM

Taking off, or being exposed by law enforcement? My guess is this was much more common in the past, but nobody really knew about it..

Another article I just read said the following, actually...

"Traditionally a rural activity, the blood sport has caught on in the nation's urban centers. Authorities and animal-welfare groups say its growth is explosive there."

My personal experience would jibe with that. I never heard about it when I was growing up, and didn't hear about it in the late 80s when I was working with inner city kids in downtown Atlanta. I did start hearing about it when I worked with some kids from an urban environment in the mid-90s, and seem to hear about it more and more.

Karlifornia

07-18-2007, 09:03 PM

The real question in all of this is "Could Lassie take Rin Tin Tin?"

Rizon

07-18-2007, 09:05 PM

The real question in all of this is "Could Lassie take Rin Tin Tin?"

F both of those losers. Benji for Dog Fighting Champ 2007.

stevew

07-18-2007, 09:06 PM

Could Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Easterners, etc. understand it? Could Beckham understand it????

Hispanics much prefer to fight roosters.

larrymcg421

07-18-2007, 09:10 PM

F both of those losers. Benji for Dog Fighting Champ 2007.

Hooch would fuck them all up.

JeeberD

07-18-2007, 09:15 PM

It's all about Cujo, bitches...

miami_fan

07-18-2007, 09:19 PM

Another article I just read said the following, actually...

"Traditionally a rural activity, the blood sport has caught on in the nation's urban centers. Authorities and animal-welfare groups say its growth is explosive there."

My personal experience would jibe with that. I never heard about it when I was growing up, and didn't hear about it in the late 80s when I was working with inner city kids in downtown Atlanta. I did start hearing about it when I worked with some kids from an urban environment in the mid-90s, and seem to hear about it more and more.

Based on some of the conversations I have had with some of the natives in this area, it has not completely left the rural area as yet.

Clark

07-18-2007, 10:59 PM

larrymcg421

07-18-2007, 11:08 PM

The amount of outrage is crazy. These are dogs not humans. It pisses me off that women and children are being abused, raped and killed everyday and you will not hear this much outrage.
This is seriously one of the dumbest things I've ever read. You really think if Vick had abused, raped, or killed a woman there would not be this much outrage? Give me a fucking break.

No one is saying he should get the chair, or even life in prison, but there's a big wide gap in between paying a fine and a life sentence.

Groundhog

07-18-2007, 11:14 PM

This is seriously one of the dumbest things I've ever read. You really think if Vick had abused, raped, or killed a woman there would not be this much outrage? Give me a fucking break.

No one is saying he should get the chair, or even life in prison, but there's a big wide gap in between paying a fine and a life sentence.

"

gkb

07-18-2007, 11:19 PM

Ksyrup

07-18-2007, 11:21 PM

I think dog fighting should be illegal and if you participate in it you should be held responsible. But lets keep it in perspective.

We are. The illegal activities he's alleged to have participated in would subject him to up to 6 years in jail. If he's convicted, he'll serve a fraction of that. Whether the NFL wants to have someone like him associated with its business is entirely up to the NFL. If not, he'll have to find something else to do. He'd probably be the QB everyone thought he was in the CFL, anyway.

Radii

07-18-2007, 11:22 PM

pays his fine? Whether you feel like this should be a big deal or not, the fact is that he's been indicted for multiple felonies. Just because someone thinks the law is stupid or the penalties are too harsh doesn't make it ok to break it.

Raising animals for food vs training them to kill for sport is another debate entirely. To me, comparing the two is insane.

I assure anyone who's reading this that if Michael Vick had abused, raped or killed a woman I would be as outraged.

Crapshoot

07-18-2007, 11:41 PM

A guy at work today told me this was a cultural thing that whites could never understand, and it would be split right down the racial lines. As open mind as I try to have, I even found this beyond my ability to comprehend. Cultural??

For what its worth, I recall reading somewhere (wikipedia in fact, I was reading up on the Oklahoma governor - Brad Henry) that cock-fighting is awfully popular there (and that he won the 2002 election, in part, by being neutral on the issue), especially in rural areas - could this be the white-cultural equivalent? I freely admit to not knowing much about the issue of cock-fighting, but that would be an interesting test of how racial one thing is vs. another.

mtolson

07-18-2007, 11:51 PM

Where do you draw the line ?

Some of the comments in this thread make me ask that question. Why is it acceptable in our society to kill an animal for recreation, sport or food ? This whole issue did get me thinking about how we allow humans and animals to be treated as a whole. Its perfectly legal for hunters kill animals for sport, etc.... so why not allow dogs to fight for sport ?

Before the flames start, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with killing or harming animals for fun at all, be it dog fighting or hunting. If Vick is guilty, he should be punished. I just put that out there because we seem to play both sides of the fence when it comes to crualty to animals. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why its acceptable to harm animals for one purpose but not another.

One thing for sure, this whole issue is making me think seriously about the food I eat.

st.cronin

07-18-2007, 11:57 PM

Where do you draw the line ?

Some of the comments in this thread make me ask that question. Why is it acceptable in our society to kill an animal for recreation, sport or food ? This whole issue did get me thinking about how we allow humans and animals to be treated as a whole. Its perfectly legal for hunters kill animals for sport, etc.... so why not allow dogs to fight for sport ?

Before the flames start, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with killing or harming animals for fun at all, be it dog fighting or hunting. If Vick is guilty, he should be punished. I just put that out there because we seem to play both sides of the fence when it comes to crualty to animals. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why its acceptable to harm animals for one person but not another.

One thing for sure, this whole issue is making me think seriously about the food I eat.

The food you eat, there are laws in place about how the animals get treated and killed. You could argue that there is no non-cruel way of eating an animal, but the state disagrees.

Noble_Platypus

07-19-2007, 12:33 AM

I dont give a fuck what color you are, animal cruelty is animal cruelty. Also, anyone who equates a hunter shooting an animal dead and a dog being starved and fed gunpowder to make it mean and hungry so it will fight harder, then electrocuted, drowned, or slammed to the ground to finish it off should be brought up on charges of stupidity.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-19-2007, 12:55 AM

For what its worth, I recall reading somewhere (wikipedia in fact, I was reading up on the Oklahoma governor - Brad Henry) that cock-fighting is awfully popular there (and that he won the 2002 election, in part, by being neutral on the issue), especially in rural areas - could this be the white-cultural equivalent? I freely admit to not knowing much about the issue of cock-fighting, but that would be an interesting test of how racial one thing is vs. another.

This is an interesting topic. I do know that cock fighting is actually legal in Puerto Rico (a U.S. territory) and they have small little stadiums where you go watch. I drove by one when I was there on vacation and thinking WTF? It's also still legal in Louisiana (although it will be illegal next year).

I'm actually scratching my head trying to figure out the difference between that and dog fighting. Other than the cute and cuddly dog factor, I can't come up with anything.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-19-2007, 12:56 AM

Don't forget to get your Nike Zoom Vick V sneaks, scheduled to be released in stores on Aug. 23 for a suggested retail price of $100.

I am positive these will be big sellers now.

Vinatieri for Prez

07-19-2007, 01:03 AM

I think the NFL and the Falcons are in a tough spot here. If they suspend him right away, they probably have every Sharpton, Jackson, etc out there on their case saying it was racist to suspend him.

Actually, you have to give those types a little more credit than that (not much but a little bit more). First, no one is going to step in and support the guy based on the current allegations and level of investigation. Second, today, Nike, Goodell and Blank received a joint letter from hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, civil rights leader Reverend Al Sharpton and PETA president Ingrid Newkirk, condemning Vick's alleged involvement in the dogfighting ring and asking all parties involved to distance themselves from Vick.

Groundhog

07-19-2007, 01:03 AM

This is an interesting topic. I do know that cock fighting is actually legal in Puerto Rico (a U.S. territory) and they have small little stadiums where you go watch. I drove by one when I was there on vacation and thinking WTF? It's also still legal in Louisiana (although it will be illegal next year).

I'm actually scratching my head trying to figure out the difference between that and dog fighting. Other than the cute and cuddly dog factor, I can't come up with anything.

The only difference is that few people keep cocks as pets, so most folks don't have the same kind of sympathy for them.

I've unfortunately witnessed a cockfight a few years ago. The cocks had spurs taped on to their feet, and it was an absolute bloody mess. The people I was with saw no problem with it, but I couldn't watch, and walked straight out when I saw what it involved. Before I saw that, I had no idea they actually taped weapons on to the birds and had them fight to the death.

Senator

07-19-2007, 03:18 AM

I might be painted a mangina here, but I have never understood the thrill of cockfighting, and even bullfighting. I have never seen it as noble.

Thomkal

07-19-2007, 06:23 AM

Actually, you have to give those types a little more credit than that (not much but a little bit more). First, no one is going to step in and support the guy based on the current allegations and level of investigation. Second, today, Nike, Goodell and Blank received a joint letter from hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, civil rights leader Reverend Al Sharpton and PETA president Ingrid Newkirk, condemning Vick's alleged involvement in the dogfighting ring and asking all parties involved to distance themselves from Vick.

Well color me surprised then. I never thought Sharpton would condemn any african american. At worse I thought he wouldn't comment on the whole thing.

Ben E Lou

07-19-2007, 07:12 AM

Well color me surprised then. I never thought Sharpton would condemn any african american. At worse I thought he wouldn't comment on the whole thing.

I don't think Sharpton's too keen on the thug life. Isn't he a big part of the recent campaign to clean up hip-hop lyrics? (Yeah, that'll work...)

stevew

07-19-2007, 07:49 AM

what better, Big Boy or Tiny?

Ben E Lou

07-19-2007, 07:53 AM

Couple of interesting links...

1. Outline of what appears to be some kid's college paper. It's entitled "The new craze with hip hop stars and pro athletes? Pit bulls." Dated a little over a year ago. No mention of Vick, of course, but many more references that I would have realized. http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:dUYrE84u5J0J:www.personal.psu.edu/lfm126/Pit%2520Bull%2520Pitch.doc+hip-hop+dogfighting&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

2. Human society article, probably from 3-4 years ago, about hip hop artists and dogfighting.

http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/animal_fighting_the_final_round/jayz_and_other_artists_need_to_step_up_against_dogfighting.html

stevew

07-19-2007, 08:05 AM

My sister-in-law(I barely claim her), was once dating this piece of shit who was into the cockfighting thing. I only found out cause one time I was visiting my wife's parents, and her and piece-o-shit were staying there(kicked out of their apartment) and they brought some roosters with them. Stupid chickens aren't even edible, with all the drugs they inject into them. It was very surreal.

Bee

07-19-2007, 08:39 AM

[Jeff Foxworthy]
If your sister-in-law's boyfriend brings chickens with him when they come to stay with you ....
[/Jeff Foxworthy]

Richard Weed

07-19-2007, 08:47 AM

New Mexico's cockfighter guys are bringing a lawsuit against New Mexico for outlawing cockfighting.

ISiddiqui

07-19-2007, 09:54 AM

I don't think Sharpton's too keen on the thug life. Isn't he a big part of the recent campaign to clean up hip-hop lyrics? (Yeah, that'll work...)

Yeah, Sharpton is very much against the "ghetto culture". He wants to distance himself from that life and rather focus on getting blacks more and more into professional America (so to speak).

KWhit

07-19-2007, 11:43 AM

KWhit

07-19-2007, 11:51 AM

I hope Vick pays his fine and goes back to playing football.

The amount of outrage is crazy. These are dogs not humans. It pisses me off that women and children are being abused, raped and killed everyday and you will not hear this much outrage.

I bet that chicken you ate today was electrocuted. I bet the cow that you got the steak from was shot in the head.

I think dog fighting should be illegal and if you participate in it you should be held responsible. But lets keep it in perspective.

I'll just chime in and agree with the other posters who have pointed out the stupidity of this post. Dogfighting is a horrible, violent felony. The level of outrage here is appropriate.

If this were murder of a human being that he was accused of, the outrage would be 100x as bad.

Noble_Platypus

07-19-2007, 12:13 PM

I'll just chime in and agree with the other posters who have pointed out the stupidity of this post. Dogfighting is a horrible, violent felony. The level of outrage here is appropriate.

If this were murder of a human being that he was accused of, the outrage would be 100x as bad.

agreed. Just beacuse there are other horrible crimes being committed doesnt lessen the severity of this one. Besides, dont you think by busting people who are depraved enough to get into dogfighting you are at the same time busting people who would rape or beat a woman, or sell drugs, or shoot someone. Lets get real, people who are involved in such a horrible activity are most likely committing other illegal acts.

Klinglerware

07-19-2007, 12:22 PM

So, if the Abu Ghraib dog handler guy got off with just 90 days of hard labor and a reduction of rank, would "backup quarterback for the Georgia Force" be the equivalent punishment for Vick? :D

miked

07-19-2007, 12:40 PM

So, if the Abu Ghraib dog handler guy got off with just 90 days of hard labor and a reduction of rank, would "backup quarterback for the Georgia Force" be the equivalent punishment for Vick? :D

The field is too small and the action too quick for Mr. Vick. I went to a playoff game (hey, it's $10) and was surprised about how quick things move. I guess that's why the scores are in the 70s.

/threadjack

Pumpy Tudors

07-19-2007, 12:42 PM

So, if the Abu Ghraib dog handler guy got off with just 90 days of hard labor and a reduction of rank, would "backup quarterback for the Georgia Force" be the equivalent punishment for Vick? :D
Michael Vick would not be too hot with the Georgia Force, as Georgia likes to use Chris Greisen's arm to move the ball downfield. They played the same way back when Matt Nagy was at quarterback for them. Michael Vick might make a pretty good defensive back, but if he bulked up a bit, he could be a very good jack linebacker. Georgia's weakness is defense, and they could really use more speed on that side of the ball in the always-tough Southern Division. As a passer, though, I don't think Vick would be capable of more than 80 touchdown passes in a season, and he'd probably have trouble cracking the 60% completion mark. He might hit 62% or so, but --

Oh, wait, you weren't serious.