Does the Fine Fit the Crime?

I was reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback on EPSN and I'm baffled at the lack of overall quality in this article and will probably never read TMQ again. Besides the fact that the article was close to unreadable, I couldn't believe what Greg Easterbrook wrote about the whole Vick situation, comparing killing dogs to what happens in the food service industry. I won't quibble about methods of killing. Killing is not a good outcome and there is no "nice" way to do it. It comes down to WHY are you doing it. Vick killed the dogs because he wanted to. Because he could.

But I must address Easterbrook's STUPID positions on the extent of Vick's punishment. So Vick is a "first-time offender"? He's been doing this for years. At least 7 years and reports, even from his Dad, say it dates back to his early teenage years. This may be the first time he was caught, but not the first time he committed the offense.

Secondly, I am not crying for Vick's loss of $75M in salary, bonuses and endorsement income. He only lost so much because he was MAKING so much. The deal is, if you go to jail, you lose your income during that time. I'm quite sure that Arthur Blank, Nike or anyone else who gave Vick boatloads of money would have done so if they knew about these criminal and utterly reprehensible activities. The whole thing about the dollars involved is relative. If Vick was an "average joe" making $50K a year, he wouldn't have lost so much in raw dollars -- although it might have had a greater impact on his life. And there are other white-collar criminals who have "lost" much more than Vick in potential income because they made more. Thats' how it goes. That's why money isn't factored into sentencing.

Vick Pleads Out...Sort Of

Well why am I not surprised. Michael Vick's plea deal only admits to some of what he's been charged with. Yes, he admitted guilt around organizing and funding a dogfighting enterprise, Bad Newz Kennelz. But the big news is that he DID NOT admit to being involved in either killing the dogs or betting on them. According the the article in ESPN, he will admit to being present for killing the dogs, but not participating in the activities.

There is no doubt in my mind that Vick's plea was done, not to reflect the truth, but to preserve his ability to play in the NFL in the future. No NFL owner was going to want to make a dog-killer the face of their franchise and Vick knew that Roger Goodell would come down with an extensive suspension (whether it was concurrent or not is besides the point) for the gambling charges.

Now I don't believe that Goodell and the NFL will believe that Vick was not involved in the killing or gambling. At least not publicly. But the NFL is not going to just accept the "summary of facts" from the plea deal. I believe they will continue their own investigation and continue to look into these charges further. I believe that the NFL will take the plea agreements of the other 3 defendants, as well as other information resulting from the VA prosecutors investigation, into consideration in which Vick was implicated in both gambling and the torture and killing of the dogs. While the torture and killing of the dogs is utterly reprehensible, gambling is the third rail in the NFL.

The end result is that Goodell will come down with a hammer...one of those big ones used to ring the bell at carnivals. Not only will he come down because of the facts, but because Vick once again is not showing contrition about what he did and is purposefully going out of his way to evade responsibility for his actions. As Goodell has laid out with all of the other suspensions he's come down with in his short tenure, honesty and contrition are mandatory. If you pass on either, you're done. Vick passed on both counts. I believe this will be the only pass Vick completes for at least 3 years.

Vick just better hope that he can use his speed to stay out of the arms of much of the prison population. As a good looking guy and a dog-killer, he's going to pine for the days when he only had defensive ends and linebackers chasing him.

Marbury's Lucky Vick Doesn't Own the Knicks

Ah Stephon, once again you have graced us with your wisdom. In an article in Newsday yesterday it was reported that Marbury said in an interview aired by Capital 9 News in Albany. "From what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors and I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down ... I think he fell into a bad situation."

Truly amazing. I can imagine he's trying to defend Michael Vick's indefensible actions. Why, I can only speculate. Maybe they're friends, maybe he's just trying to show solidarity with another black athlete who came from humble beginnings. But it's one thing to ask as others have (including the head of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP) that IF Vick is contrite and IF he abides by the provisions of his plea deal that he be given another chance to play in the NFL.

But to say that dogfighting is a legitimate sport and to imply that Vick "fell" into this situation is completely absurd. First of all dogfighting is illegal. Pitting to animals, who have no ability to determine their own actions, against each other in a fight to the death is horrific, despicable, reprehensible and an affront to most people's sensibilities of right and wrong -- Black or White. And for all those that try to make the Vick case simply about race is similarly distasteful.

Secondly, Vick did not "fall into" dogfighting. He had been actively involved in it since at least 2001. His friends did not bring him into this unknowingly or unwillingly. Vick funded the entire endeavor. He paid for the dogs, paid for the kennels, the "training" pits. And he of course was directly involved in gambling on these illegal fights which is also illegal activity.

Lastly, Marbury also improperly compared dogfighting to hunting. I am not a hunter. I only kill bugs. But hunting is totally different. Yes the end result is the same -- the animal dies -- but the intention and method behind it is completely different. Hunting is done for sport, but in almost all cases, it's also tied to maintaining a proper balance of the animal population, the kill is quick and hunter's typically eat what they kill or sell it to someone who will (unless you're Dick Cheney). What Vick did -- hanging, drowning, electrifying dogs who lost a fight -- is TORTURE. There's no sport involved.

BTW, there was a great chat with Howard Bryant from ESPN that discussed a lot of these issues. Check it out. But let me wrap up.

Marbury should just be happy that Vick doesn't own the Knicks. Because based on Marbury's level of play and the awful record he has led them to (and just about every other team that he has played for), Vick would probably have electrocuted him too.