home

Michael Vick's Choice

Michael Vick is feeling the squeeze. He has no good options. Vick has used speed and agility to avoid sacks under those circumstances throughout his career, but this week he's facing a pass rush that he can't elude by scrambling. (Sorry. Sports metaphors end here.)

The Falcons quarterback has been indicted for conspiring to sponsor dog fights. Vick can accept the government's proposed plea agreement, knowing he'll probably serve a year or two in prison, or he can take his chances at trial. If he elects a trial, however, prosecutors have threatened to add more charges.

The evidence against Vick is (warning: disturbing photo) horrific. He would risk more convictions (and probably a longer sentence) by exposing such ugly facts to a jury. Reports that Vick's lawyers advised him to take the deal are therefore unsurprising.

Given the NFL's emphasis on players' off-field misconduct, Vick's playing career may be over even if he could beat the charges at trial. He lost his endorsement contract with Nike. He has no good choices. His deadline to decide is tomorrow.

< Defending Progressive Originalism | Thoughts on Jose Padilla Verdict >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    My only problem with this entire thing... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    ...is that so many of us consume meat produced by factory farms that treat animals scarecely better than these dogs.  The older I get, the more I think "If you can't kill it, don't eat it."  Alot of vegetables are out there right now fearing for their lives.

    You have got to be kidding. (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:15:06 PM EST
    The outcry over Vick is for being involved with fighting the dogs, often to their deaths, not that he didn't let the dogs sleep in his bed with him at night.

    Parent
    WTF are you talking about? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:28:23 PM EST
    Do you know the state of meat farming in this country?  Go see how chickens are raised with their beaks cut off in pens barely big enough to move around in.  

    I'm saying the industry that produces our meat is not exactly treating animals well while they are alive.  And we all live in pretty much complete denial about it.  We don't care how they're treated as long as they end up on the plate looking good and tasty.

    How the hell did you miss my point, Sarc?

    Parent

    I certainly didn't miss your point. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:47:09 PM EST
    I guess because I spent several summers actually working among, literally, hundreds of meat, dairy and produce farms in the San Joaquin Valley, Utah, and Idaho, and none of them trained their animals to fight to the death nor had their animals fight to the death.

    Oh yeah, none of them had chickens with beaks cut off in tiny pens barely big enough to move around in either, nor any of the other horrific things some people seem to want to believe is the state of our meat farming industry...

    Parent

    Here's some videos for you (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:15:19 PM EST
    Factory Farm footage.

    I'm sure you'll not trust the source or whatever, but that's fine.  I went to slaughterhouses near downtown LA when I was a job coach, scouting employment for my needy clients, and what I saw there was hardly encouraging or humane.

    You're stumping me here, Sarc. Dairy and produce farms are COMPLETELY a different story than meat farms.  You know that.  Milking a cow isn't cutting its throat.  Apples and oranges.  Did you actually work in a meat farm or not?  And how long ago?  In the last twenty+ years factory farming has taken over.  You didn't miss the tragedy of all those farmers acutioning their land and equipment, right?  If you are talking about when you were a teenager, I could see how things might have been different.  And of course, there are better places, smaller operations, that aren't terrible, but the factory has prevailed and reigns.

    Parent

    I worked in a sales job that had me (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    on hundreds of farms - meat cow, meat chicken, meat turkey, sable, etc. - over the course of several summers in the early '90's. I went back to the SJV about 5 years or so ago, and the same farms are still there. You can see the chicken and tukey pens from the road.

    A slaughterhouse? If you're trying to say that food animals are slaughtered in just as brutal manners as Vick & Co. were slaughtering their dogs, then that I can agree with.

    But to say the way he raised the dogs to kill and be killed by other dogs is somehow similar to the way meat farms "treat" their animals, you're dead wrong and I can't for the life of me understand why you would want to conflate the two.

    Parent

    I'll back of a little on this statement (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:48:30 PM EST
    But to say the way he raised the dogs to kill and be killed by other dogs is somehow similar to the way meat farms "treat" their animals, you're dead wrong
    because I don't know how every meat farm treats their animals, but I'll reiterate that such mistreatment, if it occurs, is not the "state of the industry" as some seem to want to believe...

    Parent
    Oh yeah, pig farms too... (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:24:32 PM EST
    Once again (none / 0) (#1)
    by Patrick on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:35:45 PM EST
    The evidence against Vick is (warning: disturbing photo) horrific

    The evidence may in fact be horrific, but I doubt T-chris has seen it to know.   The pictures listed in his link aren't even from the Vick case. More hype than good reporting, but I could waste pages pointing that out with this blogger.  

    Vick shouldn't have good options (Cue the innocent until proven guilty crowd) he's guilty and caught.  In fact, he shouldn't even get the deal he's getting, but crowding in the courts forces prosecutors into giving sweetheart deals like this one all over the country.  When are we going to start taking justice seriously.  I mean, either it's a crime or it isn't.  we can argue all day long over what should or shouldn't be a crime, but nowadays there's no deterrence from comitting a crime.  Just lawyers using smoke and mirrors to obfuscate.  I would like to see a truth seeking system replace this adversarial one.  Too bad the truth seems too hard to find.  

    Take 100 people (none / 0) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:28:59 AM EST
     and you might get 100 different opinions as to the appropriate punishment given any particular set of facts, but how on Earth do you use THIS case to any there is no deterrence. Surviving in prison instead of living in luxury should be enough to deter all but the "undeterrable."

      You say either it's a crime or it's not. OK. Does it follow from that profundity that all crimes should result in the same sanctions? (Hanging at dawn-- whether you shoplift a pack of smokes or kill 20 people?)

      This case seems also a particularly poor example for the claim that the justice system does not find the truth. If everyone charged pleads guilty (as appears to the the likely outcome here) and then is required to cooperate in the investigation of others wrongdoing, that would seem to be getting a lot of truth out of the matter.

      The case would also seem to be one of the worst examples one could use for "sweetheart deal." Incredibly wealthy defendant who also had many other people desirious of exploiting his talent and a huge interest in his not getting in trouble isn't allowed to evade prosecution. Then, despite being able to afford the best defense money could buy, he  feels compelled BY THE EVIDENCE to  agree voluntarily to accept a felony conviction,  likely prison sentence and a irrevocably damaged if not ruined career. That's your idea of a "sweetheart deal?"

      Ranting without a clue is obviously not a rarity here, but you might want to ask for help in choosing to place your rants in places where they are not so totally out of place.  

    Parent

    RE: (none / 0) (#5)
    by mack on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    In one sentence you state:
    The evidence may in fact be horrific, but I doubt T-chris has seen it to know.   The pictures listed in his link aren't even from the Vick case. More hype than good reporting

    In another sentence you state:

    Vick shouldn't have good options (Cue the innocent until proven guilty crowd) he's guilty and caught.  In fact, he shouldn't even get the deal he's getting, but crowding in the courts forces prosecutors into giving sweetheart deals like this one all over the country.

    Perhaps you can explain how your are not contradicting yourself.

    Just lawyers using smoke and mirrors to obfuscate.  I would like to see a truth seeking system replace this adversarial one.

    Better watch out for those evil lawyers hell bent on obfuscating facts; a law enforcement officer, expert witness, appellate court panel, etc.. would never do such a thing.

    Your blame for the "obfuscation" of facts in a criminal trial is at best misleading but mostly just disingenuous.


    Parent

    Great Post TChris (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:39:44 AM EST
    but I must say if he can still run a 4.3 40 yard dash in 2 years when his prison term and inevitable suspension has beens served you will see him in an NFL uniform again.

    Now will he be the face of a franchise the face of an entire city like he was, get big endoresement contracts and be on the cover of Madden?   NO.

    Those days are long gone.  He will be a social parasite in terms of those things but rapists, drug dealers, spouse abusers and even murderers have all played in the NFL after their time had been served.

    Maybe not.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    I heard somewhere that Vick is waiting on word from the NFL that if he pleads guilty, will he be allowed to return to the NFL after his sentence?  If he can return, he'll plead.  If not, he might fight the charges.

    Parent
    He'll return (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:51:56 PM EST
    if he can still play.  If he can't he won't.

    Speculation is he'll be suspended for 1 or 2 years by the NFL and the determining factor will be if they allow the suspension to run congruent with his actual jail time.

    Look, Jamal Lewis delt drugs.  Playing.  Leanord Little killed a women while Drunk Driving.  Playing.

    The list goes on.  The NFL is getting tougher but at some point talent still trumps morality.

    If he can still play physically at the start of the 2009 season he will make an NFL roster.

    Parent

    You're probably right.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    and if the league decides to get nuts and do a longer suspension...there is always the CFL.

    As an aside...I'm not looking to watch an all-morality team, I wanna watch football teams.  And Vick is fun to watch.  I hope he plays again.  The league better be careful with their new emphasis on morality...they might moralize all the best talent off the field.

    Parent

    Fact Check (none / 0) (#36)
    by SWERN on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 04:08:36 PM EST
    For the record, Jamal Lewis did not deal drugs, he made the call to connect a dealer to a distributor.  He made no money and tested negative.

    If he had actually dealt drugs he would not have returned because he would still be in prison.

    Parent

    What if (none / 0) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:06:11 PM EST
      the NFL simply says we're not rushing a decision on that and make no commitment to anything at this time.

       Vick has  no leverage with the government or the NFL at this time. If the government says today is the drop-dead date and the NFL says we're waiting until post-sentencing and our own review, there isn't much Vick can do about it.

    Parent

    My favorite football writer.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:52:12 AM EST
    Gregg Easterbrook has written a very interesting piece on the Vick case...Sympathy for Vick

    Terrible article (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    ...didnt' say no?

    His parents could have said no and he could have said no.    

    He is guilty of illegal dog fighting and gambling.  

    What can't be forgotten is that the thing the NFL is most concerned about is the gambling.   Look at the scandal the NFL is going through right now.  According to the charges Vick was heavily involved in the entire dog fighting culture.   What if he got upside down with the wrong group of fella's.  What if he threw games because of his losses in dog fighting?   Frankly that concerns the NFL more then dog cruelty.

    Also the bit about racial discrimination is so out of left feild it's laughable.  Vick was adored by the NFL, ESPN etc...   This is not a black or white issue.   This is a cultural issue of people (white and black) engaging in an activity that most of society can't stand.  

    This sub culture is criminal.   He was heavily involved for whatever reason.  It's only a shame becasue someone with so many god given talents and abilities threw their career away to engage in what was known by them to be an illegal activity.

     

    Parent

    NBA (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    not NFL

    Parent
    Really?.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:04:20 PM EST
    I thought Easterbrook made some good points, and he did say Vick is ultimately responsible for his actions.

    If I was surrounded by yes-men, pleasers, and fixers since I was 16 I'm sure I'd have less character than I feel I do now.

    Parent

    Context (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:31:18 PM EST
    Point taken.  Your right and the phenomenon of yes men is more the rule then the exception in big time sports.  

    However as stated once you reach the top the smart ones learn to loose the people that can only bring them down.

    Mr. Vick didn't do that and will pay a high price.

    Parent

    the indictment (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    ...  was clearly crafted to do maximum damage to Vick. The most horrific allegations (pertaining the methods of killing unwanted dogs do not actually suggest he had knowledge of the methods employed. let alone that he aided, encouraged, assisted, etc, the use of those particular methods. It is possible that while he knew that or even directed that "weak" dogs would be killed that he desired humane execution and that the electrocution, slamming, etc. was done without his knowledge or consent.

      In fact, "barbarous" killing or even killing was not an element of any offense charged  and the government would not be required to offer proof of it to gain a conviction of any of the defendants let alone Vick.   That the indictment was artfully crafted to engender maximum shock and outrage seems apparent to me.

      Clearly many people would be outraged merely by fighting dogs and that is a crime without any of the extreme brutality set forth. But,  would Vick be facing this level of approbation if the indictment had been a more typical boiler-plate allegation of conspiracy to travel in interstate comerce to engage in illegal dogfighting and gambling?


    Yes, he would from me, (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    But,  would Vick be facing this level of approbation if the indictment had been a more typical boiler-plate allegation of conspiracy to travel in interstate comerce to engage in illegal dogfighting and gambling?
    and I think many, perhaps most, others...assuming they, like me, have not had any interest in reading the actual charges and are merely responding the the concept of being involved in fighting dogs.

    My WAG is that I've just described most of America.

    Parent

    First, (none / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    what is "WAG?" I never saw that acronym before.

      I have no doubt that many people would be extremely outraged merely by dogfighting, but do you really not  think that many are more outraged because of the description of the killing methods and that some who might have accepted the "cultural thing" excuse for fighting dogs reject it with regard to killing dogs that way?

    Parent

    Wild A$$ Guess (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    As for the rest, probably so, but now we're getting into WAG's of what degrees of outrage are based on what, and that can be argued until the cows come home.

    He was involved in dog fighting. Dog fighting. Whether or not one is familiar with the specific outrageous acts that can be involved in it, I think the majority of Americans find the mere concept of it outrageous.

    Parent

    Well, it gets worse.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:12:11 PM EST

    From an AP story releases since i wrote the part about vick's not necessarily kwing about the methods:

    *

    A statement signed by Phillips as part of his plea agreement said Vick participated in the execution of about eight dogs, some by drowning and hanging.

    "Phillips agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips and Vick," the statement said.


    *
    **

    Parent
    HBO (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:33:32 PM EST
    Did a great piece on this last night.  Real Sports with Bryant Gumble.  It's replayed often.

    Apparently when a dog gives up without dying it is common practice for the dog to be killed.   Some owners choose to do it as "humanely" as possible and some use it as an excuse to torture.

    Parent

    Would the outrage be the same (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    if it was Brett Farve or Peyton Manning?

    I'm just asking.

    If you're asking me, yes, unquestionably. (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    Probably more (none / 0) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:13:07 PM EST
      a lot more illusions would be shattered if they were involved than with Vick (a/k/a Ron Mexico) who wasn't a stranger to trouble prior to this.

    Parent
    All right, then (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:23:13 PM EST
    would an indictment have been crafted to do the maximum amount of damage and create the maximum amount of public outcry if it were Favre or Manning?

    Again, I'm just asking.

    but, like most people's outrage over Bonds achievements vs. Lance Armstrong's, I have suspicain that race plays a part in Vick's case.

    Parent

    Peaches (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:38:19 PM EST
    You're not "just asking" you are telling. You think this is because of race. Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure Pete Rose, Denny McLain, and Mark McGwire would think not. Maybe even Art Schicter (sp?) the ex-OSU QB.

    As for Bonds the bigger issue isn't the steroids. It's his attitude and the fact people don't like him as a person. That's not about race anymore than Ted Williams wasn't well like either and it cost him awards over time.

    As for Lance Armstrong - It's cycling for G-ds sake, not a popular sport. But the biggest thing that had him going was coming back from near death from cancer. That was truly inspirational even if aided by steroids (which have never been proven). A more apt comparison then would be Floyd Landis...

    You keep looking for an excuse and I'll keep judging people on their behavior.

    Parent

    Headscratcher, SOU, and Decon (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    I'm as outraged as anyone over dogfighting. I don't get it. It is about as despicable an act, next to child molestation, one can be charged with. However, I do believe (and no Headscratcher I am not excusing nor telling you what to believe) that we hold different standards for different people in our culture depending on race. How much that plays in Vick's case is a question I naturally ask, but I am  not going to make any excuses. There is nothing wrong with asking, in my small world.

    I think we have a strong inclination in our culutre to consider and treat male black athletes as thugs from the hood, and Vick fits that caricature - Manning, Favre, Tiger Woods, etc. do not. Thus, I have an inclination, a small inclination that I am asking if others share (obviously not - I'll take that into account), that this magnifies our outrage.  

    Parent

    Ok so your point is not racial, per se, (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    it's that people who act like thugs are treated like thugs?

    Parent
    I read somewhere (none / 0) (#30)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    that a former NFL athlete said that he knew a large number of players involved in dogfighting.

    We only know about Vick (or only Vick has been charged). Perhaps, the criminal justice system makes a greater effort to charge perceived thugs than those who are perceived a lily white.

    Parent

    Maybe so, Peaches, maybe so. (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:04:11 PM EST
    "Thug" or "lilly white?" I seem to remember you making some pretty convincing arguments with other TL posters that presenting such dichotomies is antithetical to honest discourse with your interlocutor.

    Or something like that. ;-)

    Parent

    I'm just asking a serious (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:04:28 PM EST
    question, while playing the devils advocate. I try to engage in honest discourse and I don't think I have strayed too far from that in this case. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, but I suspect you are taking a well-deserved poke at me for some contradictory statements I have made in the past.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#32)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:11:04 PM EST
      obviously dog-fighting (or cock-fighting or countless other crimes) is not given the same priority by law enforcement as, oh, say, drug crimes. I'm sure that if likelihood of getting caught and punished is a primary factor in choosing a crime to commit that animal fighting has been a good one to choose.

       That, far more than race, might help explain what is happening here. Animal lovers now have a cause celebre to raise the priority to where they think it should be. That wouldn't happen if it was Bubba Nobody doing the same thing (regardless of whether it's a black or white Bubba).

      Vick's fame not his race is the better explanation of why this case is engendering so much hostility. It simply would not be possible to get so many people to pay so much attention if it was Bubba. But, once you get people paying attention almost all of them are going villianize the culprit regardless of who he is.  

    Parent

    I'm convinced (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:34:30 PM EST
     race plays a part in the different attitudes toward Bonds and Armstrong but i think other factors play a bigger part. Lance is both a world class bike racer and a world class suck up. bonds is a guyy who makes it clear he doesn't give a damn what you think. Also, the fact Armstrong cheated to beat obnoxious Europeans in a sport about which most people otherwise could care less plays a big part. (Another reason perhaps why  Lance gets a pass-- it seems every top level bike racer for a generation has cheated so is the "advantage" real., let alone unfair  or was he just leveling the field?)

      But, the Vick case isn't about cheating to gain an unfair advantage  -- Vick is accused of inflicting pain and death on dogs for kicks. Mother Teresa would have PR problems with that one.

      Peyton Manning might be the whitest of the white but I  don't think he'd fare any better than Vick is in this instance.  Hitting his wife or smoking pot or driving drunk, probably-- but puppy killers are going down no matter what color.

    Parent

    Probably more outcry. (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    would an indictment have been crafted to do the maximum amount of damage and create the maximum amount of public outcry if it were Favre or Manning?
    Especially on Favre's part, he's been around forever.

    Why limit it to Brett Farvre and Peyton Manning? What if it was Walter Peyton, George Foreman or Tiger Woods? There'd probably be more outrage than that over Vick. Why do you suppose that is?

    Does racism exist? Of course. Zzzzzz. I wouldn't hold this case up as a shining example of it if I were you...

    Parent

    Wrong bike racer? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Joe Bob on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:20:24 PM EST
    To the best of my knowledge, Lance Armstrong has never faced a credible allegation of illegal drug use. I know he has never failed a drug test.

    Why tarnish the man's reputation because of some BS Bode Miller spouted in an interview? [That's where the allegation seems to have come from most recently.]

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    My outrage would be the same.  Dogfighting cannot be tolerated, period.  What is wrong with people that they derive entertainment from such things anyway?  

    My thoughts on Vick, and race more generally:

    Vick has been my favorite football player since he first took my breath away at VA Tech.  His performances fire my imagination and I don't even like football very much!

    Where the race factor comes in for me really has nothing to do with Vick per se.  Yon these past few months I've been slightly heartbroken and frustrated about this, because it encourages those racists who all along have been invoking the Rush Limbaugh argument that Vick's hype emanated not from performance but from the media's hunger for black quarterbacks.  Which is just as absurd now as it was when Rush said it.   But now, Vick has gone and done this despicable thing and the racists feel vindicated in a stereotype.

    Maybe it does have to do with Vick, now that I think about it.  Like it or nor, Barkley was right to insist on the primacy of the parental role, but ultimately dead wrong when he said he wasn't a role model. Vick through his actions has perpetuated a negative racial stereotype. But none of this is why he should go to jail.  He should go to jail for dogfighting.

    Parent

    A Clarification (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    I realize that Rush's particular comments were about McNabb, but I have heard a lot of people make the same argument about Vick for a long time.  They say, he runs too much, he's not a good passer.

    My comeback was always this:  If your offensive line was as inept as Vick's has been ever since donning an Atlanta uniform.  If every snap was a freakin; jailbreak and every time you turned around some linebacker was bearing down on you.  Then you'd run too.

    Parent

    Geez, (none / 0) (#37)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 04:38:08 PM EST
    These animals, the indictment claims, were killed "by various methods, including hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground

    Who the hell hangs a dog?

    this is a little objectionable too (none / 0) (#39)
    by Joe Bob on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:23:40 PM EST
    The Falcons quarterback has been indicted for conspiring to sponsor dog fights. Vick can accept the government's proposed plea agreement, knowing he'll probably serve a year or two in prison, or he can take his chances at trial. If he elects a trial, however, prosecutors have threatened to add more charges.

    I know this is a common practice, but if he has committed an indictable offense go ahead and indict him. Does one really have the right to a free and fair trial if one faces enhanced charges for exercising that right?

    ESPN (none / 0) (#48)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:38:52 PM EST
    Good article on the latest.

    A different perspective to the Vick matter (none / 0) (#49)
    by ctrenta on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    I HIGHLY suggest folks read David Zirin's Who let the dogs out on Michael Vick? He covers sports from a left persepective (a rarity in professional sports) and has some astute observation most in the mainstream sports media neglect to look at.

    Who Let the Dogs Out on Michael Vick?
    By Dave Zirin

    In our sweaty, panting, twenty-four-hour media culture, "presumption of innocence" seems almost quaint, the legal equivalent of a potbellied stove.

    This is certainly the feel of things in the curious case of the People vs. Michael Vick. The Atlanta Falcons quarterback was indicted Tuesday on federal charges of conspiracy for alleged involvement in a dogfighting operation in Virginia. The media have released the hounds.

    In what can charitably be called a sprint to judgment, MSNBC's Michael Ventre opines that Vick should be "suspended for life" from the NFL: As if he has a desk inside the federal prosecutor's office, Ventre writes, "When the general public starts to hear gory tidbits about the savagery that was allegedly condoned by the Falcons' quarterback, he will be persona non grata in society, let alone the NFL."

    Ventre's not the only one in attack mode. Greg Couch of the Chicago Sun-Times has a piece called "Put the Bite on Vick Now." Mark Starr of Newsweek wants him benched immediately. And sports radio has been atwitter with coverage that can charitably be called repugnant. America Online's highly trafficked Fanhouse discussion board turned ugly. The offending posts have now been scrubbed from the board, but when I checked earlier this week, there were calls to "hang him from a tree" as well as a liberal use of the N-word. (Please tell the NAACP that it's not just rappers who say that.)

    The case is no longer just about what Vick did or did not do on the property he owned in Virginia that housed an alleged dogfighting operation. It's about celebrity, racism, the South and the precarious position of the African-American athlete. As someone in the Atlanta sports-radio universe described the local populace, "Half hate him. Half don't. Why? He's a black quarterback who represents hip-hop culture."

    Michael Vick is in a world of trouble. If convicted, the career of an NFL marquee player--the only quarterback ever to rush for more than 1,000 yards in a season--now stands in serious jeopardy.

    As sports legal expert Lester Munson explained on ESPN.com, "The government's case includes evidence that Vick and his cohorts 'tested' pit bulls for ferocity. If the dogs failed the test, the indictment charges, they were executed by hanging or drowning. In one case, with Vick present, the document says a dog was slammed to the ground until it was dead. In another incident, a dog was soaked with a hose and then electrocuted. Those aren't the sort of transgressions that lead to probation and community service. It's the kind of behavior that results in punishment, and the punishment will be jail time."

    Fighting dogs is an ugly, brutal business, and none of this is to excuse anything that may or may not have happened. But whether Vick is found guilty or not, the self-righteousness of the media and the many Vick-bashers is staggering.

    To read more click here. Love to hear what sports enthusiasts (and left-leaning bloggers) have to say.

    Peace.

    How Michael got himself into this (none / 0) (#50)
    by Aaron on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    I've been a fan of Michael Vick since his Virginia Tech days, when he came close to single-handedly defeating Florida State in the Nokia sugar bowl.  I'd say he's one of the top 10 most gifted overall athletes in the NFL, and one of the most gifted athletes of his generation, who certainly would have had many great years ahead of him if not for this horrific and I think telling incident.

    Unfortunately given his style of play, it seems unlikely that Vick would have ever won or even made it to a Super Bowl, a style which goes against the current orthodoxy in the NFL which currently worships the West Coast offense approach to the game. No professional program including Atlanta has ever geared its offense around a running quarterback, the very idea is simply seeing as too risky and too far out of step with how the professional game is currently played.  So Vick was forced to conform to the current excepted NFL model, which he had a great deal of difficulty doing.  For an athlete of his caliber I think this is an important consideration in understanding why Vick threw away a 100 million-dollar career for the sake of running an underground dogfighting operation on his property.

    It's hard to believe that he would do such a thing until you consider the mindset which is so common among top athletes in our society. I believe that what has happened to him is a direct result of a American athletic culture that says to top athletes, you must win, and win it all.  This mindset in which an individual's self-worth is entirely predicated upon their next conquest on the field, and the ability to keep upping their game.  Athletes who find themselves unable reach the pinnacle of their sport, often turn to other avenues in order to affirm their value as human beings in our society.  Pro athletics is replete with examples of this, athletes turning to gambling and various other forms of vice in the hopes of re-creating that high of winning which often eludes them in their chosen competitive field.

    It's important to remember that athletes in leagues like the NFL often come from backgrounds where they were the star for as far back as they can remember, and perhaps never knew a time when they were not successful.

    In our society athletes are comodified to such an extent they are viewed in much the same way thoroughbred horses, or for the sake of this discussion thoroughbred fighting dogs.  These young men have been highly valued, cared for and protected by everyone around them throughout their athletic lives, specifically as a result of their ability to perform.

    The moment they are unable to demonstrate the ability to overcome every obstacle in their professional career, or the moment their performance is seen to have peaked, is the same moment that their value begins to diminish, not only in the eyes of those around them, but in their own eyes as well.  Of course this doesn't happen to every athlete, it's largely dependent on upbringing, and how well grounded their early athletic experiences are, but in the modern fast-moving world of collegiate, and even high school football these days, by the time a young person has reached that level and has shown exemplary ability, they've usually been exposed to years of conditioning along these lines, beginning as early as ages six and seven.  

    Presently even peewee football leagues get national television coverage on cable, with their finals played in major stadiums across America, stadiums like the Orange bowl in South Florida.  These days it's pretty hard for a kid who is a superstar from an early age to not get sucked in to the belief that he is no mere mortal.  I don't know enough about Vick's background to say whether this happened to him, or when exactly he got involved in dogfighting, but given his seemingly unparalleled ability, it's quite likely that this phenomenon played a part in his downfall.

    I imagine Michael will take a plea at the urging of his lawyers, and this is probably the right move giving the overwhelming evidence the prosecution supposedly has.  Sad, but nothing that I mentioned can excuse the slaughter of innocent animals, or their torture in modern-day gladiatorial games.  I doubt very seriously whether Michael will ever play in the NFL again, and perhaps that's not be such a bad thing for him.  Perhaps now he'll find something in life which will allow him to grow beyond the trap that professional sports often becomes for athletes.  I hope so.

    He's agreed to plead guilty according to: (none / 0) (#51)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:23:25 PM EST
    I can't get the link to work (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:38:14 PM EST
    Try this one (none / 0) (#53)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    If it is a one year sentance, I hope he's back playing ball next fall.

    Parent
    If he pleads a week from today (none / 0) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:00:58 PM EST
     he could forego any effort to argue for bond pending sentencing and be committed immediately. 12 months (assuming that it's not clear at this time0 means just slightly more than 10 months with good time. He'd be out in June 08. Plenty of time to be ready for opening game -- but will Goodell allow it and will any team want him?

      My thought is he's history in Atlanta which will swallow a cap loss and cut him and since he'll be a "bargain" someone will sign him to a vet minimum contract and give him a shot, whether it's next year or down the road.

    Parent

    by his side (after he donates a ton of dough to them) and enough time, there'd be enough softening of public sentiment such that he could get back in the game.

    Maybe admit an alc/drug problem and a quick trip to rehab? Works for the H-wood entertainers, why not NFL entertainers?

    If he got away from the Falcons, he might even have a better career.

    That said, if he can't make it happen, I imagine he has enough assets to live the rest of his life very comfortably...

    Parent