Fair game? -

Fair game? -

There are 34 comments on the Baltimore Sun story from Jul 19, 2007, titled Fair game? -. In it, Baltimore Sun reports that:

Superstar NFL quarterback Michael Vick has been indicted on a number of federal counts relating to his alleged involvement in the grotesque "sport" of dogfighting, the details of which are so sickening that ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Baltimore Sun.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
The NFL Knuckleheads QB

Washington, DC

#21 Jul 19, 2007
You've gotta feel a little bit sorry for Roger Goodell. In his efforts to implement a get-tough policy for disciplining misbehaving NFL players, he may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If he sets standards too high, there may not be enough quality players left to play. Most of these players come from colleges that don't keep a close eye on their star players' moral development, let alone their academic achievement.
It seems like every day there's a new story about a player's less-than-savory off-field antics. "Uh, Mr. Goodell, don't blame the messenger, but you need to see today's headline in the Sports Section in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution...", etc.
James

Atlanta, GA

#22 Jul 19, 2007
Does anybody else see that racial pixie from the chappelle show on his shoulder yet?
Bugs in Baltimore

Alexandria, VA

#23 Jul 19, 2007
I don't understand why so many people are saying, before we judge Vick, remeber how we judged the Duke kids too early. With the Duke kids, there was no evidence from the beginning. The person who pressed charges was a stripper with a terrible track record of crimes and lying. Yet for some reason most of the media believed everything she had to say. I don't think most of the public believed the Duke kids were guilty from the beginning. I know I didn't. This,however, is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. When the federal government indicts someone they have something like a 95% coviction rate (I heard that on the radio yesterday... don't ask me to cite it). This means they don't indict someone unless they are nearly positive they are guilty. The federal government also doesn't have a past history of lying to police and related crimes (all politician jokes aside). So to say that we can't throw Vick under the bus because it may be like when we threw the Duke kids under the bus really makes no sense to me.

Bacon - race has nothing to with this. It has to do with credibility and a tangent track record. Also, look at the percentages, like TMO said.

Vick sucks - The federal government historically has not had a problem locking up athletes for this kind of crime. If I had to bet, I would say this is nothing like the paris hilton incident. Breaking probation for a DUI, while it is very dangerous - to herself AND OTHERS - I do not feel is near as gruesome as this.
MEA - MD

United States

#24 Jul 19, 2007
it has to do with what a monster vick and people like him are. pitting defenseless animals who have no choise against each other for (and I cringe) the supposedly "enjoyment" of sickos is beyond comprehension. You have to be brain dead not to mention soul less to even try to attend these barbaric events.
Concerned Pet Owner

Hanover, MD

#25 Jul 19, 2007
I agree with your sentiments 100%. Vick should not be allowed to play while charges such as these are still pending.

The sad thing is that Goodell probably won't do the right thing because of Vick's status in the NFL. He will wait it out.

At least Nike is getting ready to bail on Vick...
raven1950

Wichita Falls, TX

#26 Jul 19, 2007
crimenal thugs like vick-jones-andthe others would not be tolerated on a dungy or gruden team n.f.l. commissiomer or not!!! by the way they both have superbowl rings-not thugs
Aaron

Grand Rapids, MN

#27 Jul 19, 2007
Let the legal process run its course. If he's guilty, he'll get punished.
Jerry Brotman

Arlington, VA

#28 Jul 19, 2007
Whatever happened to the "presumption of innocence" afforded by the Constitution? Didn't the Duke "rape case" teach you anything? And, by the way, I'm no Michael Vick fan and, if found guilty, he deserves to have the "book" thrown at him!
James

United States

#29 Jul 19, 2007
I agree with everybody screaming innocent until proven guilty. BUT, The big difference is there is a big heaping pile of evidence here to the tune of a whole mess of pit bulls. He didn't know there was 60 DOGS in house (that's his defense? Really?... Really?) This reminds of those best of cops episodes where some guy gets pulled over in his grandmothers car and he says it's not his crackpipe but his grandmas. My favorite was the quote clinton portis said "it hiz house, hiz dogs, hiz bizness" Wow not sure buit I'm guessing he came from a florida college.
Bugs in Baltimore

Alexandria, VA

#30 Jul 20, 2007
Jerry Brotman wrote:
Whatever happened to the "presumption of innocence" afforded by the Constitution? Didn't the Duke "rape case" teach you anything? And, by the way, I'm no Michael Vick fan and, if found guilty, he deserves to have the "book" thrown at him!
You honestly can't see the difference between the two cases? I posted earlier why I think they're different. I'd also like to add that when the Duke players case went public there was nothing but accusations. NOTHING HAD BEEN SEARCHED. When investigation was done, NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND. There was no DNA evidence whatsoever. I don't understand why the Duke kids got such a bad rap for so long. With the Vick case, the searching HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE! Read the indictment. I think the evidence is there. It seems to be more than the "he said she said" that started the Duke case. Also, at the beginning of this case, it could have been said that if the kids were found innocent, they were still guilty of "bad judgement" for having a party with a stripper and underage drinking (welcome to college). At the beginning of this case, it can be said that, if Vick is found innocent, he's still guilty of owning the house, and letting a relative stay there, where 60 dogs were found along with many of the other dog fighting findings (rape stand, chains, etc.). I guess that could be written off as bad judgement too, but somehow it seems worse than some college guys having a party with a stripper. But thats just me.
Where is the Consistency

East New Market, MD

#31 Jul 20, 2007
How can Roger Goodell not suspend Vick now? As the writer stated, Goodell already set the precedent with the Henry and Jones suspensions that the league holds players to an even higher standard than the law does.
What would be his rationale for not suspending Vick now? Can you imagine 70,000 fans at each Falcons away game waving "bloody" stuffed dogs at the network cameras. That's a public relations nightmare that Goodell cannot risk.
J Turner

Frederick, MD

#32 Jul 21, 2007
I'd like to turn my dog loose on a falcon. That bird wouldn't stand a chance !
Kirsten

Bel Air, MD

#33 Jul 22, 2007
OK, thanks for highlighting the link between Falcons owner Arthur Blank and Hone Depot. I just bought a bunch of merchandise from Home Depot, and I'm going to return it all, get a refund, and take my business elsewhere. Then I'm going to xerox the return slip and fax it to the Falcons.
Susan Stroh

Los Angeles, CA

#34 Jul 24, 2007
Indeed, to say that the evidence they found in VIck's property is incriminating is a gross understatement. It would have been easier for the public to look the other way if he had killed a man by gun shoot professed it was self defense than it ever will be for him to defend the vile, grotesque and inhuman injustices he and his goons extracted upon these inocent and loyal pit bulls. Nothing could eradicate from my mind the visual from the evidence and the poor animals kept in cages as living evidence if Vick's evil ways. Jail would be too good for him. A very PUBLIC and S-L-O-W vindication in kind, to be seen by all those who aspire to be him, or support the sick grotesque sport of dog fighting, might be a good start.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tank Johnson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Five Worst Uniforms In NFL History (Jun '07) Apr '11 LOL 7
News Cowboys take on Cowboys North Sunday in Hall of... (Aug '10) Aug '10 Jojo 3
News Cowboys to take on Cowboys North - the Bengals (Aug '10) Aug '10 Dr Phil 5
News Cowboys to take on Cowboys North - the Bengals (Aug '10) Aug '10 proFootballTickets 1
News Six Cowboys Exes Take Asylum In Cincy (Aug '10) Aug '10 Lynn B 1
News Why Your Team Won't Win The Super Bowl: Cincinn... (Jun '10) Jun '10 hatchet 3
News Should Roger Goodell Suspend Ben Roethlisberger? (Apr '10) Apr '10 Bella Toni 14
More from around the web