How Many Games Should Vick Be Suspended?

"But not even Vick disputes that he owns the property where, the feds say, 54 dogs were found, where equipment for training dogs was seized, where bloody carpeting and buried carcasses paint a clear picture."

Bloomberg.com: Opinion (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_woolner&sid=ax1H7mQbjxyU)

Can one of the Vick apologists please explain why, if Vick is innocent, his property looks like a dog fighting business? What are the circumstances in which an innocent person would have such items?

Vick is guilty of at least harboring this kind of activity. It doesn't matter if he knew what was going on, or not -- he owns the property. I'm not saying he should go straight to sentencing, I respect due process. However, the NFL doesn't have to grant due process when deciding whether a player can participate in the league. It is clear that he is involved in some unethical, and possibly illegal, business. I don't think the NFL needs any more reason to take action.

I knew this was going to happen. Once one guy gets caught, the hammer has to come down on everybody.

Apparently this sort of thing is really popular up in New York. Sources say that they are hours away from indicting the Manning brothers.

Authorities Discover Illegal Frog-Jumping Ring In Eli Manning's Backyard | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/authorities_discover)

Vick needs to be suspended the whole season and not just for what he did, but because the trial, etc will cause too much distraction for the Falcons. Vick is a marked man, like Cain, plus with the distraction his gameplay will probably suffer to some degree. He isn't all that in my mind anyway!!!!!

"But not even Vick disputes that he owns the property where, the feds say, 54 dogs were found, where equipment for training dogs was seized, where bloody carpeting and buried carcasses paint a clear picture."

Bloomberg.com: Opinion (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_woolner&sid=ax1H7mQbjxyU)

Can one of the Vick apologists please explain why, if Vick is innocent, his property looks like a dog fighting business? What are the circumstances in which an innocent person would have such items?

Vick is guilty of at least harboring this kind of activity. It doesn't matter if he knew what was going on, or not -- he owns the property. I'm not saying he should go straight to sentencing, I respect due process. However, the NFL doesn't have to grant due process when deciding whether a player can participate in the league. It is clear that he is involved in some unethical, and possibly illegal, business. I don't think the NFL needs any more reason to take action.

Good post. You know, it's actually kind of interesting because I'm starting to see some similarities with Pacman. Pacman hasn't been convicted of anything yet, but the fact that his entourage kept getting into fights and gunplay was enough to get him suspended without a conviction. Now, I understand that the distinction is that Pacman had a much more "interesting" track record, but why isn't it enough to look at what AT THE VERY LEAST Vick's family and friends were involved in on Vick's own property to suspend him? Even if Vick isn't found guilty, he's already at least as culpable in the NFL's eyes for being associated with illegal activity, No? I mean, they are both trying the same defense: "it wasn't me, it was my friends and I can't control them......I didn't know what was going on". It didn't work for Pacman in Goodell's eyes.
You've won me over.

"But not even Vick disputes that he owns the property where, the feds say, 54 dogs were found, where equipment for training dogs was seized, where bloody carpeting and buried carcasses paint a clear picture."

Bloomberg.com: Opinion (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_woolner&sid=ax1H7mQbjxyU)

Can one of the Vick apologists please explain why, if Vick is innocent, his property looks like a dog fighting business? What are the circumstances in which an innocent person would have such items?

Vick is guilty of at least harboring this kind of activity. It doesn't matter if he knew what was going on, or not -- he owns the property. I'm not saying he should go straight to sentencing, I respect due process. However, the NFL doesn't have to grant due process when deciding whether a player can participate in the league. It is clear that he is involved in some unethical, and possibly illegal, business. I don't think the NFL needs any more reason to take action.
I'm not a Vick apologist, but I think that penalties levied by the team or the league need to be commensurate with the outcome of the charges. What if the league suspends him for a season or, as some have suggested, bans him for life and it turns out that the 'corrobrating witnesses' have fabricated or exaggerated their claims? Then what do you say, oops-sorry?

What if he truly owns the house but never visits and has no knowledge of what goes on there? Do I think that's the case? No, but I don't know for sure either way so I am not ready to exonerate or convict him until I hear the facts.

'Experts' have said that some of the items found on the property are items commonly owned by legitimate dog breeders. Without the bloody carpet, there probably would have been no reason to pursue the case, remember they went initially on a drug warrant and found no drugs but found the bloody carpet. Investigation of that led to the search that found the carcasses in the yard.

As I said, I'm not a Vick apologist and if guilty or plea I expect him to get prison time but the rush to punish without letting things run their course seems drastic.

Why the rush to suspend or ban him immediately before he has even set foot in a courtroom?

Good post. You know, it's actually kind of interesting because I'm starting to see some similarities with Pacman. Pacman hasn't been convicted of anything yet, but the fact that his entourage kept getting into fights and gunplay was enough to get him suspended without a conviction. Now, I understand that the distinction is that Pacman had a much more "interesting" track record, but why isn't it enough to look at what AT THE VERY LEAST Vick's family and friends were involved in on Vick's own property to suspend him? Even if Vick isn't found guilty, he's already at least as culpable in the NFL's eyes for being associated with illegal activity, No? I mean, they are both trying the same defense: "it wasn't me, it was my friends and I can't control them......I didn't know what was going on". It didn't work for Pacman in Goodell's eyes.
You've won me over.
Pacman is a completely different situation. He had arrests in college and has been charged for assault & battery, weapons charges, traffic charges and obstruction of justice. Until now Vick has never been CHARGED with anything. So now people should be suspended because of what other people do? Is that where we are going societally?

Another question I have for those who want call Pacman's situation different from Vick's: In Pacman's case, he has gotten into trouble for multiple separate incidents over time. Right? Now, he still hasn't been convicted of any of them, but there are eye witnesses placing him at the various scenes and his repeated alleged offenses led to a suspension. So, what's the difference here? Vick isn't being accused of one isolated incident. Rather, he is being accused of breaking the law on multiple separate occasions. And there are eyewitnesses placing him at each of the various scenes where illegal activities were being conducted.

So, should the NFL somehow reward the person who gets charged all at once because the Feds do the responsible thing by building a case before charging him over the guy who is just unlucky enough to get caught each time he allegedly breaks the law by the local authorities? I mean, both men are being accused of repeated instances of illegal activity. It's not like Vick is being indicted for one instance of dog fighting. Why are are willing to go easier on the guy whose repeated behavior over the course of 6 six years just happens to get lumped into one indictment?

Pacman is a completely different situation. He had arrests in college and has been charged for assault & battery, weapons charges, traffic charges and obstruction of justice. Until now Vick has never been CHARGED with anything. So now people should be suspended because of what other people do? Is that where we are going societally?

See post 87. And isn't that what Pacman got suspended for? He hasn't been found guilty of his latest crimes yet.

With Goodell's track record there's no way he can ignore an indictment from a federal grand jury. Vick's past behavior obviously becomes a factor as well. The way this is snowballing, there seems to be no way that MV will be on the field for the Falcons in the near future.

I assume that there are some trilateral (Goddell-Blank-Vick's Agent) discussions going on right now that will create an acceptable (financially) path toward an indefinite leave of absence for Vick.

That gives this drama some time to play itself out in the courts. IMHO Vick is toast -- the Fed's tend to not lose these cases, and a conviction will result in ample reason for a long term suspension (which may be the least of MV's problems at that point)

Another question I have for those who want call Pacman's situation different from Vick's: In Pacman's case, he has gotten into trouble for multiple separate incidents over time. Right? Now, he still hasn't been convicted of any of them, but there are eye witnesses placing him at the various scenes and his repeated alleged offenses led to a suspension. So, what's the difference here? Vick isn't being accused of one isolated incident. Rather, he is being accused of breaking the law on multiple separate occasions. And there are eyewitnesses placing him at each of the various scenes where illegal activities were being conducted.

So, should the NFL somehow reward the person who gets charged all at once because the Feds do the responsible thing by building a case before charging him over the guy who is just unlucky enough to get caught each time he allegedly breaks the law by the local authorities? I mean, both men are being accused of repeated instances of illegal activity. It's not like Vick is being indicted for one instance of dog fighting. Why are are willing to go easier on the guy whose repeated behavior over the course of 6 six years just happens to get lumped into one indictment?

Diffenence is that pacman was given times not to be out yet he still was out. He got introuble and was told not to do things but still did them and got introuble doing them. I would be fine if vick wasn't allowed to do things. NO being out past midnight. No more getting arrested. No going to the pet shop, whatever.