Quote:
Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars
"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
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.