Michael Vick's "Dog Fight" Investigation

[dh86 0]

Does ESPN even check their sources anymore? Until the plea agreement being filed, the box was: Mike Vick denies killing dogs, gambling. Christ, they claimed that an anonymous source told and anonymous ESPN reporter the information. What's even more funny, is that ESPN's head legal consultant, Roger Cossack questioned the credibility of the story. Sometimes, I think ESPN really makes some of this shit up, sometimes.

 

You do realize that the plea agreement still says he is denying gambling right? And I don't doubt that he was denying that he killed the dogs too, but probably did to get the plea to be accepted.

 

The reason I would think this is because the plea agreement doesn't say that he killed the dogs, only that the dogs died due to "the collective efforts" of all the defendants. If you look at the other guys statement of facts, they all say what exactly they did (Taylor for instance talks about shooting the dogs. The other two talk specifically about how they specifically killed the dogs). Vicks is rather ambigious and makes me believe that he saying he didn't kill the dogs.

 

And to be specific, their headline was "Vick will not admit to killing or gambling."

He still didn't. For him to have been gambling he would have had to collected on winnings. Basically, he is admitting to giving the others money.

 

Bolded for false statements.

Starting a gambling enterprise and funding betting is gambling and are actions violating his contract. I applaud your resiliency in sticking to such a hilariously wrong position for so long. The 6-8 dogs dying as a collaborative effort of the three is Vick helping to kill the dogs. The ESPN article you were cheerleading is completely false. Vick is going to miss 4-6 games alright...just multiply that by alot

[dh86 0]

Thanks for proving my point.

 

Are you honestly going to say that if, say Peyton Manning, had a picture taken with him OBVIOUSLY smoking a black and mild. NO MISTAKING that it was a black and mild. NO WAY to confuse it as ANYTHING other than a black and mild. If manning had a picture taken with him smoking one, would ANYONE have said "Peyton is smoking weed."

 

No they wouldn't have. That was simply a case of Michael Vick being a black guy with cornrows thus he MUST be smoking weed.

 

 

Now if you want to argue that it had been emptied and weed was put in the black and mild, okay, but they made the weed assumption COMPLETELY from this picture...of him holding a black and mild.

 

Flipping off fans? Are you serious?

 

Ron Mexico incident? You mean a civil case? Really.

 

Seriously, are you saying that if Peyton manning flipped off fans and had a picture of him smoking that it would be a logical belief if someone accused him of running a dog fighting opperation.

 

Comeon now.

 

 

At the same time, if this was David Garrad, I don't think it would have been that big of a deal. The fact of the matter is, he had a 130 million dollar contract, and was overhyped to hell and back by ESPN for about 3 years. On top of that he represented a hip-hop culture(lets not pretend people weren't calling him a "thug" before any of this occured. I can provide links if you need me to) to the media. THAT is why Vick was assumed guilty.

 

His checkered past of smoking a cigar and not throwing away water bottles had nothing to do with it.

 

Race baiting assholes like yourself with a steep inferiority complex makes the rest of us look bad. People like yourself are the reason so many of us are acting like black zombies, but thats for another thread. Michael Vick is a star player. Thats why the multiple felony charges are a big deal in the news. If this was Peyton Manning or Brett Favre it would be just as big of a deal. Like someone else said in the thread, all of his media hype led to the 130 million dollar contract, yeah the same media is bringing him down but Michael Vick screwed Michael Vick

[Ripper 0]

Thanks for proving my point.

 

Are you honestly going to say that if, say Peyton Manning, had a picture taken with him OBVIOUSLY smoking a black and mild. NO MISTAKING that it was a black and mild. NO WAY to confuse it as ANYTHING other than a black and mild. If manning had a picture taken with him smoking one, would ANYONE have said "Peyton is smoking weed."

 

No they wouldn't have. That was simply a case of Michael Vick being a black guy with cornrows thus he MUST be smoking weed.

 

 

Now if you want to argue that it had been emptied and weed was put in the black and mild, okay, but they made the weed assumption COMPLETELY from this picture...of him holding a black and mild.

 

Flipping off fans? Are you serious?

 

Ron Mexico incident? You mean a civil case? Really.

 

Seriously, are you saying that if Peyton manning flipped off fans and had a picture of him smoking that it would be a logical belief if someone accused him of running a dog fighting opperation.

 

Comeon now.

 

 

At the same time, if this was David Garrad, I don't think it would have been that big of a deal. The fact of the matter is, he had a 130 million dollar contract, and was overhyped to hell and back by ESPN for about 3 years. On top of that he represented a hip-hop culture(lets not pretend people weren't calling him a "thug" before any of this occured. I can provide links if you need me to) to the media. THAT is why Vick was assumed guilty.

 

His checkered past of smoking a cigar and not throwing away water bottles had nothing to do with it.

 

Race baiting assholes like yourself with a steep inferiority complex makes the rest of us look bad. People like yourself are the reason so many of us are acting like black zombies, but thats for another thread. Michael Vick is a star player. Thats why the multiple felony charges are a big deal in the news. If this was Peyton Manning or Brett Favre it would be just as big of a deal. Like someone else said in the thread, all of his media hype led to the 130 million dollar contract, yeah the same media is bringing him down but Michael Vick screwed Michael Vick

 

That post is about smoking a cigar you fucking illiterate bitch.

 

Not once in the history of forever have I said this wouldn't be big news if it was any other star player. Its a federal investigation. Of course it is going to be a big story. I CLEARLY was talking about the automatic assumption of guilt. Cheech brought up the weed situation and I used it to illustrate a point.

 

Don't bring me in this making Us look bad and so many of US are black zombies. I am not you or one of you, you stupid fuck. If you want to learn your life lessons from a fucking Nas quote, go right ahead, but if you aren't going to take the time to do some simple reading before trying to rail on me, the you can go and fuck right the hell off.

 

As for my BOLDED FALSE STATEMENTS.

 

VICK DID NOT GAMBLE BY PLACING SIDE BETS ON ANY OF THE FIGHTS. VICK DID NOT RECIEVE ANY OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE PURSES THAT WERE WON BY "BAD NEWZ KENNELS".

 

That is from the plea agreement.

 

Bolded for false statements.

Starting a gambling enterprise and funding betting is gambling and are actions violating his contract. I applaud your resiliency in sticking to such a hilariously wrong position for so long. The 6-8 dogs dying as a collaborative effort of the three is Vick helping to kill the dogs. The ESPN article you were cheerleading is completely false.

 

You stupid fuck, the article didn't say he did not gamble. Its says vick denied gambling. And there is the line from the statement of facts that said he is denying gambling. What part of that shit is difficult to understand?

 

 

Vick's legal team attempted to use language in the documents that might lessen the impact of his involvement in the killing or torture of the dogs. Page 5 of the summary of facts offers details of the summer of 2002, when "[Purnell] Peace, [Quanis] Phillips, [Tony] Taylor and Vick 'rolled' or 'tested' additional 'Bad Newz Kennels' dogs by putting the dogs through fighting sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road … Vick was aware that Phillips, Peace and Taylor killed a number of dogs that did not perform well in testing sessions around this same time period. Vick did not kill any dogs at this time."

 

And on Page 9, the summary reads, "Peace, Phillips and Vick agreed to the killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning. Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick."

 

Obviously I am not the only one that noticed the language of the plea. He obviously is/was still trying to deny killing the dogs and used that language to do so. Once again, its not that hard to understand.

 

Roger Goodell shot down his attempt to say he wasn't gambling(which once again says that Vick was still attempting to deny the gambling), but that doesn't change the fact that he claimed he didn't gamble. And again, not to difficult to understand.

 

I swear to GOD its like a bunch of fucking little girls around here sometimes. THere is no deeper meaning to anything I say. I say exactly what I mean in my post. THere is no digging and no looking for a deeper meaning. If I say "Vick is denying gambling" then I mean that he is denying gambling. Not that I think he didn't gamble, not that I think gambling is cool. What I said is what the fuck I meant.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I don't condone dog fighting but the way some people are reacting (not necessarily here), I get the feeling that before the dust settles, I'm going to be the owner of a "Free Vick" shirt.

[Ripper 0]

I don't agree with the people that are saying that he should get the entire 5 years. Thats a little extreme.

 

A good year in prison and another year (at least) from footbal sounds good to me. I personally wouldn't care if he got a lifetime ban, but I would like the precident.

 

Either way, he ain't playing for the Falcons ever again. Welcome back blackouts. Yay.

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

I don't want him to get AIDS and die or whatever some of the overreactors are saying. I just don't want him to hurry back to pro football. Let's see some non-felons get some shots.

 

I hope Arthur Blank learned a lesson in all of this. Be aloof. Your football players are not your friends. Stay in the owner's box.

[Ripper 0]

Oh comeon. You can't blame Arthur on this. There was no way of knowing that the guy was THAT much of a fucking moron.

 

Unless you mean he was coming out the booth and hitting Vick in the head with a pipe every game and caused the stupidity, you can't really blame him. Well...maybe for firing Dan Reeves...

[dh86 0]

Thanks for proving my point.

 

Are you honestly going to say that if, say Peyton Manning, had a picture taken with him OBVIOUSLY smoking a black and mild. NO MISTAKING that it was a black and mild. NO WAY to confuse it as ANYTHING other than a black and mild. If manning had a picture taken with him smoking one, would ANYONE have said "Peyton is smoking weed."

 

No they wouldn't have. That was simply a case of Michael Vick being a black guy with cornrows thus he MUST be smoking weed.

 

 

Now if you want to argue that it had been emptied and weed was put in the black and mild, okay, but they made the weed assumption COMPLETELY from this picture...of him holding a black and mild.

 

Flipping off fans? Are you serious?

 

Ron Mexico incident? You mean a civil case? Really.

 

Seriously, are you saying that if Peyton manning flipped off fans and had a picture of him smoking that it would be a logical belief if someone accused him of running a dog fighting opperation.

 

Comeon now.

 

 

At the same time, if this was David Garrad, I don't think it would have been that big of a deal. The fact of the matter is, he had a 130 million dollar contract, and was overhyped to hell and back by ESPN for about 3 years. On top of that he represented a hip-hop culture(lets not pretend people weren't calling him a "thug" before any of this occured. I can provide links if you need me to) to the media. THAT is why Vick was assumed guilty.

 

His checkered past of smoking a cigar and not throwing away water bottles had nothing to do with it.

 

Race baiting assholes like yourself with a steep inferiority complex makes the rest of us look bad. People like yourself are the reason so many of us are acting like black zombies, but thats for another thread. Michael Vick is a star player. Thats why the multiple felony charges are a big deal in the news. If this was Peyton Manning or Brett Favre it would be just as big of a deal. Like someone else said in the thread, all of his media hype led to the 130 million dollar contract, yeah the same media is bringing him down but Michael Vick screwed Michael Vick

 

That post is about smoking a cigar you fucking illiterate bitch.

 

Not once in the history of forever have I said this wouldn't be big news if it was any other star player. Its a federal investigation. Of course it is going to be a big story. I CLEARLY was talking about the automatic assumption of guilt. Cheech brought up the weed situation and I used it to illustrate a point.

 

Don't bring me in this making Us look bad and so many of US are black zombies. I am not you or one of you, you stupid fuck. If you want to learn your life lessons from a fucking Nas quote, go right ahead, but if you aren't going to take the time to do some simple reading before trying to rail on me, the you can go and fuck right the hell off.

 

As for my BOLDED FALSE STATEMENTS.

 

VICK DID NOT GAMBLE BY PLACING SIDE BETS ON ANY OF THE FIGHTS. VICK DID NOT RECIEVE ANY OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE PURSES THAT WERE WON BY "BAD NEWZ KENNELS".

 

That is from the plea agreement.

 

Bolded for false statements.

Starting a gambling enterprise and funding betting is gambling and are actions violating his contract. I applaud your resiliency in sticking to such a hilariously wrong position for so long. The 6-8 dogs dying as a collaborative effort of the three is Vick helping to kill the dogs. The ESPN article you were cheerleading is completely false.

 

You stupid fuck, the article didn't say he did not gamble. Its says vick denied gambling. And there is the line from the statement of facts that said he is denying gambling. What part of that shit is difficult to understand?

 

 

Vick's legal team attempted to use language in the documents that might lessen the impact of his involvement in the killing or torture of the dogs. Page 5 of the summary of facts offers details of the summer of 2002, when "[Purnell] Peace, [Quanis] Phillips, [Tony] Taylor and Vick 'rolled' or 'tested' additional 'Bad Newz Kennels' dogs by putting the dogs through fighting sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road … Vick was aware that Phillips, Peace and Taylor killed a number of dogs that did not perform well in testing sessions around this same time period. Vick did not kill any dogs at this time."

 

And on Page 9, the summary reads, "Peace, Phillips and Vick agreed to the killing of approximately 6-8 dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions at 1915 Moonlight Road and all of those dogs were killed by various methods, including hanging and drowning. Vick agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick."

 

Obviously I am not the only one that noticed the language of the plea. He obviously is/was still trying to deny killing the dogs and used that language to do so. Once again, its not that hard to understand.

 

Roger Goodell shot down his attempt to say he wasn't gambling(which once again says that Vick was still attempting to deny the gambling), but that doesn't change the fact that he claimed he didn't gamble. And again, not to difficult to understand.

 

I swear to GOD its like a bunch of fucking little girls around here sometimes. THere is no deeper meaning to anything I say. I say exactly what I mean in my post. THere is no digging and no looking for a deeper meaning. If I say "Vick is denying gambling" then I mean that he is denying gambling. Not that I think he didn't gamble, not that I think gambling is cool. What I said is what the fuck I meant.

 

Here we have is a champion of skimming through posts without ever actually reading them. The black and mild post was all about you claiming racial judgment in a situation where race is a minor factor if at all. You damn right you are none of me nor do you represent me, I have what you call common sense. Also, I have the brain to discern from what I want to see as a football fan to acknowledge the social ramifications. We all know you are a Falcons fan. You want to see Michael Vick on the field and play. You are letting those emotions attach you to such a losing argument. Michael Vick in the statement of facts admitted to gambling. Period. Whether he partaked in side bets or not, he started and kept afloat a gambling enterprise for 6 years. Michael Vick admitted to that. Michael Vick also helped kill the 6-8 dogs. Michael Vick admitted to that as well. There is no gray area, no room for interpretation.

[Ripper 0]

Dear god, are you retarded?

 

I am not saying that Vick did not gamble. I am not saying that he did not kill the goddamn dogs. I am saying that Vick has denied gambling (the words VICK DID NOT GAMBLE appear in the fucking plea bargin. He said he did not recieve any proceeds from winnings, therefore he is DENYING THE HE GAMBLED).

 

The words VICK DID NOT KILL ANY DOGS appear in the plea bargin. The language of the second part is to try and make it seem as though he didn't kill the dogs. He has DENIED killing the fucking dogs.

 

You are right. There is not a grey area. The fucking guy denied that he gambled and killed the fucking dogs. There are roughly 20 articles out there pointing out the language of the plea and pointing out that he is trying to deny gambling and killing the fucking dogs. What you believe to be true or what is true doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is the guy is trying to say he didn't do it.

 

And to say that the reaction to that picture had little to no racial implication...well thats just plain stupid.

 

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Article

But no one has been suspended in the NFL for spouse abuse or domestic violence, even though they've been arrested and convicted.

 

The NFL Players Association's Upshaw said in a statement: "We believe the criminal conduct to which Mr. Vick has pled guilty today cannot be condoned under any circumstances."

 

I say the NFL's indifference to the acts of domestic violence by other players cannot be condoned under any circumstances.

 

Major League Baseball, meanwhile, isn't any better in punishing spousal abusers.

 

Last summer Philadelphia Phillies' pitcher Brett Myers assaulted his wife on a public Boston street and was charged with assault and battery. Major League Baseball did not penalize him, shrugging it off as an off-field incident. Are they saying a player needs to abuse his spouse during a game to get sanctioned? If so, just how does that work?

 

Don't expect anything better from the National Basketball Association.

 

Jason Kidd of the NBA's New Jersey Nets pleaded guilty to spousal abuse in 2001.

 

Was he punished by the NBA? No.

 

The Sacramento Kings' Ron Artest was suspended last season for 72 games for fighting in the stands. In March he was arrested for domestic violence. For that he got what amounted to a hand slap; an immediate two-game suspension and a $600 fine for a player who makes several million a year.

 

Artest pled no contest to the domestic violence charge and was sentenced 100 hours of community service, a 10-day work project and mandated extensive counseling. The NBA did nothing here too. Maybe if he had committed the transgression on national TV -- as with the fan brawl -- more would have happened.

 

Maybe if he'd hurt a dog he would have been benched for the season.

 

 

doesn't make sense to me that we put a dog's life higher than an actual human being...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dh86 0]

Article

But no one has been suspended in the NFL for spouse abuse or domestic violence, even though they've been arrested and convicted.

 

The NFL Players Association's Upshaw said in a statement: "We believe the criminal conduct to which Mr. Vick has pled guilty today cannot be condoned under any circumstances."

 

I say the NFL's indifference to the acts of domestic violence by other players cannot be condoned under any circumstances.

 

Major League Baseball, meanwhile, isn't any better in punishing spousal abusers.

 

Last summer Philadelphia Phillies' pitcher Brett Myers assaulted his wife on a public Boston street and was charged with assault and battery. Major League Baseball did not penalize him, shrugging it off as an off-field incident. Are they saying a player needs to abuse his spouse during a game to get sanctioned? If so, just how does that work?

 

Don't expect anything better from the National Basketball Association.

 

Jason Kidd of the NBA's New Jersey Nets pleaded guilty to spousal abuse in 2001.

 

Was he punished by the NBA? No.

 

The Sacramento Kings' Ron Artest was suspended last season for 72 games for fighting in the stands. In March he was arrested for domestic violence. For that he got what amounted to a hand slap; an immediate two-game suspension and a $600 fine for a player who makes several million a year.

 

Artest pled no contest to the domestic violence charge and was sentenced 100 hours of community service, a 10-day work project and mandated extensive counseling. The NBA did nothing here too. Maybe if he had committed the transgression on national TV -- as with the fan brawl -- more would have happened.

 

Maybe if he'd hurt a dog he would have been benched for the season.

 

 

doesn't make sense to me that we put a dog's life higher than an actual human being...

 

Maybe it wouldnt. Too bad that thought does not apply to the Michael Vick case. What happened in the NFL during the previous commisioner,NBA,MLB does not have an ounce of relevancy to this case.

[dh86 0]

Dear god, are you retarded?

 

I am not saying that Vick did not gamble. I am not saying that he did not kill the goddamn dogs. I am saying that Vick has denied gambling (the words VICK DID NOT GAMBLE appear in the fucking plea bargin. He said he did not recieve any proceeds from winnings, therefore he is DENYING THE HE GAMBLED).

The words VICK DID NOT KILL ANY DOGS appear in the plea bargin. The language of the second part is to try and make it seem as though he didn't kill the dogs. He has DENIED killing the fucking dogs.

 

You are right. There is not a grey area. The fucking guy denied that he gambled and killed the fucking dogs. There are roughly 20 articles out there pointing out the language of the plea and pointing out that he is trying to deny gambling and killing the fucking dogs. What you believe to be true or what is true doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is the guy is trying to say he didn't do it.

 

And to say that the reaction to that picture had little to no racial implication...well thats just plain stupid.

 

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...24071vick1.html

 

Read the entire document, and point out the parts where the bolded is stated. Also be aware that Statement 12 and Statement 32 and two different instances...you may not understand that either. Also understand that side bets are what spectators do during the fight. Bets between kennels are different bets. Im sure you knew that though. Providing the capital for such is gambling. But before responding with more jibberish, read the document.

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

doesn't make sense to me that we put a dog's life higher than an actual human being...

Well, that's mostly because you're not very intelligent. Anybody who tries to bring up what other people did in the past, under different commissioners, in different sports, is an idiot. How many times does it have to be reiterated that we're in a new era of player conduct, where there is little to no tolerance for running afoul of the law? Goodell is obviously very hung up on this issue, as he should be, and when federal prosecutors are after one of your league's top stars, it stands to reason that the "top star" designation is not long for this world.

 

For everybody who goes "what about Leonard Little?", it should be obvious that if that happened under Goodell, he'd have punched his ticket out of football in a heartbeat. Should be obvious, but it's not. As for Brett Myers and Ron Artest, maybe the other leagues should go harder on domestic abuse, but until then, invoking Messrs. Stern and Selig in a football matter (without even citing NFL players once: "but the NFL doesn't punish wife-beaters! for example, look at Brett Myers and Ron Artest!") is blatant misdirection that only fools the dumbest of the dumb. It's not even about "putting a dog's life above a human's life," as you put it. It's about being involved in organized crime: the feds were about to go after him with the RICO act, which is pretty much why Team Vick gave up the ghost so soon. The details about electrocuting and drowning pitbulls that failed to kill other pitbulls were just what upset the general public. An indefinite suspension for bankrolling illegal interstate commerce is quite fine for now.

 

Good to see Marvin is keeping abreast, as it were, of relevant feminist issues over at "women's eNews," though. Looks like there's room for you on the bus with iggymcfly, though, so hop on.

[Ripper 0]

Its not like he is getting suspended for cruelty to animals so the "placing a dog above a human" thing is plain stupid.

 

He ran illegal activities in 4 different states.

 

The punishment john babienux(sp) will get is what killing a dog will get you. He probably will get no jail time and a 2-3 games suspension.

 

This isn't just about hurting dogs.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

doesn't make sense to me that we put a dog's life higher than an actual human being...

 

If Vick had done to human beings what he supposedly did to these dogs, I guarantee there wouldn't be any discussion about his future career plans.

[iggymcfly 0]

doesn't make sense to me that we put a dog's life higher than an actual human being...

 

If Vick had done to human beings what he supposedly did to these dogs, I guarantee there wouldn't be any discussion about his future career plans.

 

The point wasn't that we're putting a dog's life higher than a human being's life, just that we're putting it higher than a human's well-being (such as the well-being of Jason Kidd's wife) which is still silly and out of perspective. Also, it's not really the commissioner that people like me and Marvin are upset with. It's the public/media outcry that basically forced the commissioner into this just because they didn't have anything to think about during the summer and this was something new to get outraged about.

[dh86 0]

doesn't make sense to me that we put a dog's life higher than an actual human being...

 

If Vick had done to human beings what he supposedly did to these dogs, I guarantee there wouldn't be any discussion about his future career plans.

 

The point wasn't that we're putting a dog's life higher than a human being's life, just that we're putting it higher than a human's well-being (such as the well-being of Jason Kidd's wife) which is still silly and out of perspective. Also, it's not really the commissioner that people like me and Marvin are upset with. It's the public/media outcry that basically forced the commissioner into this just because they didn't have anything to think about during the summer and this was something new to get outraged about.

 

Michael Vick was one of the most popular stars in the most popular American sport. Of course him getting felony charges and his career possibly ending is a big deal. This society is so that a large fall from grace like this will always be a big deal (OJ Simpson,Whitney Houston,Britney Spears). That has nothing to do with a dog (or 12) life being important than the health of Joumanna Kidd. Would it have been more suitable to you if the story had the same press coverage as Joe Cullen driving naked? The NFL is a billion dollar business. Roger Goodell is doing everything possible to prevent the drop in popularity the other three major team sports have suffered in recent times. This story has been treated with the magnitude and importance it deserves given the ramifications of a league's major star being gone for 3 years plus.

[Guest]

It's the public/media outcry that basically forced the commissioner into this just because they didn't have anything to think about during the summer and this was something new to get outraged about.

I think Michael Vick's obsession with dogfighting forced the commissioner into this, amirite?

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

the public/media outcry that basically forced the commissioner into this just because they didn't have anything to think about during the summer and this was something new to get outraged about.

If you think "the public" forced the NFL to do this, you're an idiot. I think "the federal government prosecuting Vick for illegal interstate commerce" had more to do with Goodell's decision. He doesn't indefinitely suspend star players because August is a slow news month.

 

As for "media outcry," I haven't heard very much outcry from the four-letter network asking "how good of a person will he be after this is all over?" or "we all hope he can make it back as a kick returner."

[Ripper 0]

If Vick slapped a dog and they suspended him for life, the Kidd comparison would make sense. You can only compare when they are the same thing.

 

I don't think there would be many suspensions for slapping a dog. If Jason Kidd hung his ex wife and electrocuted her to death, I am going to think he would get worse treatment in the media and by the league.

 

 

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

iggymcfly = Shaun King?

 

"He made a bad choice, but he's brought so much excitement and joy to millions of people around the country."

 

No, that's Santa Claus.

 

"Michael Vick doesn't owe anybody an apology, as long as the good Lord forgives him."

 

"People in low-income families don't understand being sensitive to animals because they're not in their homes."

 

ESPN is really burying Michael Vick and his hip-hop lifestyle. And I'm sick of them asking "how much scrutiny will the sports media put him under?" Well, you are the sports media, for all general intents and purposes. Don't ask yourselves. Just tell us.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I'm starting to feel like the overreaction to dogfighting is getting a bit much. I'm not talking about the Vick suspension and plea deal, he's getting what he has coming to him for financing an illegal interstate business. But I've been hearing shit like "Goodell needs to suspend Clinton Portis, the NFL can't allow players to make statements that appear to support dogfighting". And unrelated to football, but a recent news story appeared about how a bunch of pit bulls were removed from one of DMX's residences (where apparently he doesn't live) for malnutrition and neglect (apparently he had paid someone to take care of them and they obviously didn't do the job). So what's all over the internet? "DMX Busted for Dogfighting" and so on, despite the fact that the actual news stories specifically state there was no evidence of dogfighting. Now I'm not going to suggest that DMX isn't a dogfighting fan (his videos and last album cover make it pretty clear where he stands), but he's getting borderline libelled right now, all because dogfighting is getting its 15 minutes with the public, until the next cause of outrage appears and relegates it back to dirt roads in the south.

[bob_barron 0]

The point wasn't that we're putting a dog's life higher than a human being's life, just that we're putting it higher than a human's well-being (such as the well-being of Jason Kidd's wife) which is still silly and out of perspective.

 

You're a moron. Michael Vick killed, tortured and forced the dogs to fight. Jason Kidd hit his wife. Neither thing is okay.

 

Jason Kidd, while not being suspended by the NBA, was villified by the public and the media as well. Plus, the NBA and NFL are run by two different people. And you're a moron.

 

that basically forced the commissioner into this just because they didn't have anything to think about during the summer and this was something new to get outraged about.

 

Czech covered it. Goodell promised to crack down on behaviour, Vick gets indicted by the federal government and then pled guilty to something that's quite reprehensible. How are you this dense?

[Ripper 0]

You know. Vick is now this generations Len Bias.

 

When I was growing up it was "Don't fuck up your life like Len Bias. He could have had it all but let the temptation of drugs destroy it". Now we have "Don't keep hanging around with those dumbass friends of your or they could Vick up your whole future."

 

From Superstar QB to cautionary tale in one offseason.

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

I love "Vick" as a verb. Solid.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Because Vick isn't to be sentenced until December 10, it doesn't look like he will play in the NFL for at least THREE seasons (including this season).

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

That's my birthday!

 

Anyway, I heard his apology, and it seemed sincere enough. I hope he avoids getting shanked and raped in prison, because nobody deserves that, but I'm not in any hurry to see him play in the NFL again if there are better quarterbacks who don't run dogfighting rings, which I'm assuming there are. He'll stay in shape, but his football acumen will be gone, so the book is closed on him. It's a shame what happens when you don't let your old friends go. You'd think we as a society would have learned this lesson after Elvis Presley's hangers-on sucked him dry, but if we didn't figure it out then, we never will.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

It's a shame what happens when you don't let your old friends go.

There's a parallel to the current Presidential administration in there somewhere.

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

Spaceman Spiff just blew my fucking mind.

[iggymcfly 0]

I like how Marvin makes a point, everybody misinterprets it with a bad analogy, then I explain what Marvin was saying, and 10 people have to give the same bad analogy again. I don't know if it's that you can't read all of a 3 sentence post or that you're deliberately trying to misinterpret the point.

 

Anyway, let me say this again, slowly:

I know that what Michael Vick did to the dogs isn't the same as what Jason Kidd to his wife. The point is that beating your wife is a lot worse than anything you can do to a dog even if that involves fighting it to the death before killing it.

 

Besides, killing isn't even the issue here. What's the ideal outcome here according to PETA/the government et al? It's that all the dogs get cleaned up and petted by a Humane Society worker and then get killed anyway. What does that accomplish? If I was a dog, I'd rather have a chance to fight for my life and maybe survive to be put out to stud and live a full life, then to get "rescued" and then injected with lethal toxins. All Vick's really being punished for here is giving the dogs discomfort for an hour or two.