NFL musings...

by Kirkendall on Jul 18, 2007 11:41 AM EDT in Around the SB Nation Comment 5 comments

About five minutes from my place, the ladies of the WTA are playing their first tournament since Wimbledon. Unfortunately, the brackets this week noticeably misses the more popular players in the sport. The good news is that we're the proud location of having only the second player "defaulted" in its 34-year tour history. My only question is, how do you equate ejection/disqualification with "defaulted"? If you're "defaulted", does that mean you return to pre-tournament status -- i.e., not playing? When experts of tennis speak, I'm like a first-year Spanish student begging the teacher to slow down.

THINK VICK IS IN TROUBLE?
Never been a fan of Vick's play on the field. He's a running back that has a rocket, yet suspect accurate, arm. Personally, I think he's over-hyped. But in his defense, that's just my opinion because I enjoy the more traditional models of football. I like a powerful running game that depends less on passing. I know, it's not the same pipe-dream era, so move on.

From what we're reading, Vick isn't just associated with the act of dog fighting, but he's one of the main culprits. The indictment says that Vick and another man "decided to start a venture aimed at sponsoring American Pit Bull Terriers in dog fighting competitions".

It continues:

On or about June 29, 2001, VICK paid approximately $34,000 for the purchase of property located at 1915 Moonlight Road, Smithfield, Virginia . From this point forward, the defendants, aided and assisted by others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, used this property as the main staging area for housing and training the pit bulls involved in the dog fighting venture and hosting dog fights.

There's more, very descriptive dates and events that have Vick in serious trouble.

I would also advise caution when ripping on the guy. We've seen from fabricated Odell Thurman accusations, over-zealous prosecutors with Chris Henry and the Duke Lacrosse scandal, that sometimes over-reacting is the worst reaction. However, this seems to carry much more weight with the grounds of the grand jury. It'll be interesting to see what the Falcons and the NFL does.

Vick Indicted
Vick To Face Suspension Soon?

SAD FALL OF CULPEPPER
Dante Culpepper's fall has everything to do with injury and one fun boat day after firing like an eight cylinder engine during his rookie season. Now he's a man without a team and will likely provide a role at backup for a player that can't come close to Culpepper's best season in 2004 -- 39 TDs, 11 INTs and 4,717 yards passing.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Apples to Oranges

Presuming innocence is always a good thing, but I'd be cautious about conflating the Federal Government with overzealous DAs. I'm not sure Odell Thurman was ever formally accused of anything by a DA, rather by a few guys who later dismissed the case. Was Thurman arrested? Charged? Did a District Attorney ever issue a statement that he had done anything wrong? Two guys alleging in court that you committed a crime is a world of difference from an indictment, for reasons you stated above.

Which over-zealous attorney or behavior are you referencing as regards Chris Henry?

Re: Duke Lacrosse scandal, that's an overzealous attorney who lost his job. Not a Federal case, though.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 18, 2007 1:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Only point is that we should always observe caution before hanging him using old lynch mob tactics. And no, there's no correlation between federal, state and local enforcement. I never made that connection -- just examples of over-reaction.

by Kirkendall on Jul 18, 2007 3:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough.

And I agree and morally support due process. The facts will be available in due time regardless of my hysterical reaction to the news of indictment.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 18, 2007 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Suspend him

I think the commissioner should indefinitely suspend Vick until the trial is over. Feds convict on 95% of their indictments for a reason, they only indict when they have a strong case. If he is found innocent reinstate him, if not then ban him for life. Actually I think the falcons should make the first move by removing him from the active roster until this is all sorted out. Vick's current situation and the NFL's handling of it will reflect much more on the NFL's image than any other suspension under the new conduct policy. If Goodell wants to make a statement then this is his chance.

by bluewolf021 on Jul 18, 2007 5:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

More than Dogfighting

The first charge in Vick's indictment is a RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) violation. Last month, Jim Pinkerton wrote about Vick's possible legal troubles and spelled out the RICO claims:

The federal RICO act punishes the use of an enterprise to engage in certain types of criminal activity, such as the operation of an illegal gambling business under 18 U.S.C. §1029 or illegal transmission of gambling information under 18 U.S.C. §1084. And whereas the law makes antique references to "wires," all forms of electronic information-sending are covered by RICO -- e-mail, text messages, chat rooms, blog postings, etc.
The RICO statute, a favorite among federal prosecutors, was designed to cripple and eradicate organized crime enterprises. If Vick has in fact engaged in any activity that could subject him to criminal prosecution under RICO, he could potentially be in serious legal jeopardy. The punishments for violating the criminal provisions of RICO are exceptionally harsh. For example, a person criminally charged with violating the federal RICO act faces up to twenty years in prison for each RICO violation.

Also, the Feds are claiming a RICO conspiracy. That would make Vick criminally liable for all the (alleged) criminal violations of the corrupt group, not just his (alleged) individual criminal acts.

I agree with you about not assuming guilt, that he's entitled to the presumption of innocence, that it's only an indictment, not a conviction. That said, the indictment disclosed the feds have four cooperating witnesses, people who were engaged in the dog fighting business and who are now cooperating with the prosecutors (probably to lessen their own criminal exposure). If the jury believes these witnesses, Vick would be in a lot of trouble. Vick's attorneys will do their best to keep that from happening.

One last point. Note the date Vick bought the property and allegedly entered the criminal conspiracy. It was less than a month after he was drafted No. 1. What a way to celebrate success.

by etabby on Jul 18, 2007 10:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs