Vick Sentenced to 23 Months For Dog Fighting

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

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?

Reading the indictment is important.

"Ookie" was the nickname Vick used at the dogfights. Vick was routinely present, active, and involved in the fights as well as the postfight executions.

Allegedly.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

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]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

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]

Originally Posted by path12

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]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

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?

My impression has been that his involvement goes deeper than simply letting these guys use his property.

[JPhillips]

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

Um, I think that cat's out of the bag.

[JPhillips]

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.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

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]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bsak16

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?

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

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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.

Hey jerk, how about a spoiler tag?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by stevew

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]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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]

Originally Posted by Synovia

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]

Originally Posted by Synovia

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 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]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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]

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

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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]

Originally Posted by Synovia

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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.

Awesome.

[RedKingGold]

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]

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

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/...t%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]

Originally Posted by Bee

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

http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/...t%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.

Ah, the wonderful NFLPA must have never updated their conduct policy from the Tags era. This makes a lot more sense.

[Ksyrup]

"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]

Originally Posted by Bee

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]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"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]

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]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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

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]

Originally Posted by vtbub

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.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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]

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

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]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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.

You can look at this like the Imus situation. Imus didn't get convicted of anything, but he was quickly tossed because of PR/advertising concerns. There are enough people out there who are repulsed by this (not just PETA zealots) to where you could see significant pressure on the NFL from certain advertising partners. And, as much as major corps love the high ratings of the NFL, they are also notoriously weak-kneed when it comes to pressure from outside groups.

I could easily see the NFL coming out with a "wait and see" policy in the next few weeks, then suspending Vick before the season begins because of ad pressure.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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]

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]

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