Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

DGB,

Trust me on this, I know everything you've stated and more. As I said previously, I have been to the Moonlight Road property and know a lot of inside details about this matter.

I know what exactly Poindexter said, and you're characterization of what he said is a little off. What he in fact did/said was wonder aloud why the feds got involved when local authorities were already investigating. He also wondered aloud if the fame and/or race of the prime suspect was a factor in the fed's decision to jump into an investigation local authorities had already initiated. What he really did was raise the question of: why is there this sudden involvement on the part of the feds.

And to be clear, their investigation was hampered by the feds. That cannot be denied. Once the feds got involved, their authority and resources superceded that of local officials.

Now did the locals drag their feet? Perhaps. As I noted in my earlier post, that could be attributed to their previous lack of success in prosecuting that kind of case or it could be b/c they were trying to protect the local boy. That I don't know. But you should be careful about making claims, even in jest, about money changing hands for political favors. I doubt that happened, and if it did you can be sure it will be exposed. Even if they were dragging their feet, the local officials aren't dumb enough (I don't think) to take payoffs.

He also lied to Goodall's face about a month or ago when asked about the dog fighting. That could also give Goodall the ammo to suspend.

He also lied to Blank as well. Not to say that lying to Goddell isn't worse, but if Blank's as much a dog-lover as reported, how does this make him feel that he kept Vick (even if he was essentially untradeable)?

Shares of Home Depot down a dollar since news broke. Don't know how much of that relates to this mess, if at all.

Home Depot doesn't really own the team, do they? Isn't the franchise in Blank's name? Granted, he's the majority shareholder in Home Depot, so there could be public backlash, but it's not the same as people dumping Time Warner stock because they don't think the Braves will make the playoffs.

People like Marcus Vick b/c he makes Michael Vick look like Louis Farakan

What exactly does that mean? I mean, it could mean that Farakhan is worse than Marcus (true), and it could mean that Farakhan is a "choir boy" heavy on the sarcasm (also true).

To the point about how gruesome dog fights are, I can say (as someone who has seen undercover investigative video footage of this brutality) that the sight is horrible beyond belief.

Julamy - if I may ask, what exactly do you do?

I don't disagree with much of what you said. I am positive the locals were dragging their feet and it is likely they would never have gone forward without the Feds involvement.

Now he is saying they could still pursue Virginia charges, but he wouldn't call a special grand jury until LATE SEPTEMBER!

He also said he was shocked by the detail in the Feds affidavit and the quickness with which it was filed.

Yep, he was dragging his feet. Or just plain clueless. You pick.

SeeZakRun
RE: Vick Hilarity
7/19/2007 4:23 PM

Shares of Home Depot down a dollar since news broke. Don't know how much of that relates to this mess, if at all.


TheTalon
RE: Vick Hilarity
7/19/2007 6:43 PM

Home Depot doesn't really own the team, do they? Isn't the franchise in Blank's name? Granted, he's the majority shareholder in Home Depot, so there could be public backlash, but it's not the same as people dumping Time Warner stock because they don't think the Braves will make the playoffs.



with all the financial data available to investors these days, its amazing how gut feelings and impulses still drive the market as much as data does.

i dont know if the home depot shares are effected by this, but it wouldnt surprise me if they were.

DGB,

I'm going to sidestep your question, a la Ron Mexico, and move on to your statement about a grand jury.

Impaneling a grand jury is not a quick process. First jurors have to be summoned for duty, then a evidenciary hearing has to be scheduled and held (often grand jury testimony occurs over a series of hearings that may not be on consecutive days; and dockets are always jam packed). Then an indictment has to be handed down. So considering that it is late July now, the September timeframe does not seem unreasonable when you consider the time invovled in this process.

To be clear, I'm not defending the local county officials. I'm just sharing inside knowledge about the process and the system, and the realities of the situation -- all of which could have bearing on the evolution of this process.

What I've said all along is that any number of factors -- including a possible desire to protect a local boy -- may have been at play.

I've seen things like this play out in Philly where the DA won't charge someone that the state AG has no qualms about targeting. There's a political element to all of this (as I mentioned before both the prosecutor and the sheriff are seeking reelection this year).

So while it is easy to say that the feds were able to swoop in and indict quickly -- and that isn't untrue -- I think that is also a myopic view that doesn't take into account all of the factors at play.

one more quick point.

in many jurisdictions, impaneled grand juries meet periodically to consider indictments presented before them by prosecutors. this is a normal practice. typically the only time a "special" grand jury is impaneled is for a case that is pressing and is deemed one that needs a decision on an indictment before the next regularly scheduled grand jury hearing. i'm not sure of the use of the word "special" was yours or the prosecutors. if it was his, that suggests something about his posture on expediting the local case. if it was your word, then the point is moot.

The Vick Experience

Ok, so I browse the internet too much, apparently. I don’t know when the habit started, maybe when I first found my way onto the internet about ten years ago. Nevertheless, I frivolously fret away countless precious hours reading about the most trivial things, simply because the information is at my fingertips. One of the most inconsequential subjects I devote my precious time to is professional football. The irony of the notion is a bit unbearable.

After all, I believe that professional entertainment receives too much attention in American society. People who cannot properly use exponents or recognize Iraq on a map can often easily quote streams of baseball statistics or tell me exactly where Paris Hilton shops. They know the true meaning of OPS and quarterback ratings. They know how likely it is for Tampa Bay to win a game when the kickoff temperature is below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and they can easily point out when the coach or manager calls the wrong play.

These same people often wonder aloud why the United States’ perch atop international relations appears more and more temporary. When I mention that the Nobel Prize Winner in physics may just be far more important to all of us than the football coach of the college they never went to yet incessantly root for, temper tantrums habitually ensue. These people often fail to realize that by valuing entertainment over scientific and social progress, we endanger the very freedoms that we cherish.

That is the irony. While I completely understand the uselessness (and inherent dangers) of professional entertainment to our society, I still enjoy watching and reading about football. I call it my one true vice (although I personally feel that sex and alcohol are good things to be celebrated, not vices). Maybe that’s what vices really are -- something that a man enjoys when he knows that it serves as a detriment to himself and to others.

Nevertheless, my internet sojourns continue, relatively unabated. Therefore, I recently discovered the uproar against one Michael Dwayne Vick. After all, why wouldn’t the same people who show such a keen interest in actors and athletes at the expense of insignificant subjects like geography be interested in criminal activities pursued by a sports icon? Especially one with a pseudonym like ‘Ron Mexico’? Sportswriter Peter King from Sports Illustrated comments in his “Monday Morning Quarterback” article,

“I find it incredibly hard to believe anyone can go to a place and cheer for one dog to rip the neck of another dog open so that the dog will bleed to death. Please. I need to know this: What kind of person does that? And why are these people allowed to walk free and breathe the same air that normal human beings breathe?”

With all due respect to one of the more literate sportswriters in sports journalism (also known as the art of putting biased, unsubstantiated opinions on paper for people to read without anything resembling investigation and in order to call oneself a journalist), I’m going to take a wild gander and suggest that you’ve never been out of the country for very long, Pete. Oh, and that trip to Paris with the wife and kids doesn’t count. I don’t mean to pick on Peter King. Not at all, especially when so many journalists, sports and real news alike, echo his sentiments so casually. Throughout dozens of articles, people callously reference the barbarism and heinousness of Vick’s alleged crimes. Of course, animal rights societies throughout the country have taken to arms in an effort to burn good, old Ron in effigy.

In America, where poverty is the exception rather than the norm, people have the luxury of questioning the humanity of a man who needlessly slaughtered animals. In other places, people remain a little bit more worried about whether or not the local warlord is going to steal their medicine. Or whether or not enough crops will grow in order to satisfy the revolutionaries’ stomachs as well as those of their children. There are few places in this world where people have rights, let alone places where animals have them. No, in most countries, dogfighting, or even dog electrocution, for that matter, would hardly make a blip on the radar. In fact, in some places, you’d be hard pressed to find dogfights, simply because the dogs are a bit more valuable as food.

So what does this mean for the Michael Vick Experience? Certainly, I’ll be the last to defend animal brutality. It’s a waste of time and energy. However, I suggest that those preoccupied with the evils of Vick concern themselves more with their children’s school. Otherwise, in the long run, we may not have a chance to worry about what some football player does in his off time with his dogs. We’ll be more worried about whether or not the neighborhood tribe leader plans on taking one of ours.

hopefully, our society can try to work on more than one problem at a time. and fixing society's ills is not usually a quick fix type of thing.

in the case of Vick, it is. chop off his balls, and the balls of all his co-conspirators, for all the world to see, and you do it swiftly and without remorse. and thats how you make immediate progress in the battle against dog fighting.

Not at all, especially when so many journalists, sports and real news alike, echo his sentiments so casually. Throughout dozens of articles, people callously reference the barbarism and heinousness of Vick’s alleged crimes.

However, I suggest that those preoccupied with the evils of Vick concern themselves more with their children’s school.

Those preoccupied enough to read "dozens" of articles, written by "so many" journalists, like, say...you?

What do you have to say to someone like me who has read only a few articles and just thinks it's sick? Is it OK for me to think that AND worry about where the country is heading as long as I only spend a little bit of time reading/thinking about dog fighting?

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, AZIF. Columnists are lazy, P. King is a xenophobe, folks who read the sports page instead of scientific journals are bringing about the decline of Western Civilization.

Why can't I be active in my community AND disgusted by dog fighting? Are moral responisbilty and moral outrage mutually exxclusive?

I didn't write it, dog. Just posted it. Thought it was an interesting take, but chock full of contradictions.

So who worte it?

wrote, d'uh

Per my earlier post responding to DGB, from an ESPN article about the league telling Vick to stay away from traning camp:

"Meanwhile, the prosecutor in Surry County, Virginia, says Vick will not be indicted when a grand jury meets tomorrow -- largely because a local dogfighting investigation has taken a back seat to the federal probe.

Surry County Commonwealth's Attorney Gerald Poindexter said today that his investigation has been on hiatus since the feds conducted their first search of a house owned by Vick where evidence of dogfighting was found."

The above passage echoes what I've been saying all along. That the local investigation was stalled by the federal probe. I'm not making a value judgement as to why it was slowed, just saying that it was and giving you my perspective as someone who is familiar with these processes. Also, it is worth nothing -- as I told you -- that it doesn't appear to be a special grand jury in September as you asserted, but rather the regular, periodic grand jury that will consider local charges.

Goddell has told Vick not to show up for training camp, and has also told Blank not to make any move until his office has completed their investigation. Seems like Blank was going to cut Vick, or at the very least, not pay him while he was "out".

Either way, looks like Joey Harrington will get yet another opportunity.

Friend of mine found it on another message board. The target audience, if you can believe it, was a bunch of animal rights folks. Personally, I have to agree with much of it. However, I'm just not into bashing other people's pastimes quite so profoundly.

I heard something on NFL network this morning that confused me a little. Apparently Blank wanted to suspend Vick for 4 games, the most a team is permitted to, BUT Goodall stepped in and made the statement that HE "the league" was taking action (and that has been stated in previous posts) BUT the thing that confused me was the way it was reported. IF Blank had suspended Vick then it would be a 4 game UNPAID suspension... BUT the way Goodall took action Vick isn't allowed to show up at Falcons camp or facilities BUT he was still going to get paid... Now I'm not sure if that is true or not BUT it certainly seemed that was the jist of what Goodall did... IF true then the only reason I can see for doing this would be that the league has already decided Vick will never play again, at least in Atl and this way Blank has to pay him which will also count against the cap... and if memory serves correctly after two years there is almost no cap hit IF they cut Vick... Then after conviction or whatever happens the Falcons can cut him and only have the cap hit for 08 season, then they might be able to sue to regain some lost money...

Has anyone heard if that is true, the part about Vick being told to stay away but still getting paid?!?

Link'd

While it doesn't say anything about him not being paid, I need a little bit of clearing up - do guys actually get paid during mini-camp? Thought their payments were during the season.

Vick being told to stay away from camp is the best thing to do - the Falcons were going to suspend him anyway, and there's the possibility that the league would suspend him as well. Not to mention upcoming (possible) jail time.

Having him at camp only creates an even bigger media circus. It serves no purpose for anyone involved until things are sorted out.

Bass:

Players do get paid during training camp. I think it is about $1,000/week. Not much.

I didn't write it, dog. Just posted it. Thought it was an interesting take, but chock full of contradictions.

Before you start in with "dog", there cuz, if you had given proper credit to the source of the article, nobody would have thought that you wrote it in the first place.

Personally, I have to agree with much of it.

So, first you post it in a way that implies it is your original thoughts, then a couple of us offer critiques, so you say you were just posting it because it's interesting, and now you say that you agree with most of it?

This makes it pretty tough to have a meaningful dialog/debate on the article you posted, which I also find intersting but mostly disagree with.

Goddamn, you would have thought I electrocuted a dog or something. No reason to get all uppity.
I do agree with some of the sentiments expressed within the article (written by someone I don't know on a message board I haven't read, making it hard to properly footnote) and I am more than willing to broach the subject. However, I let it be known that I didn't write it immediately after someone attributed it to me, because

a) I forgot to write a disclaimer.
b) Taking credit for someone else's thoughts is simply wrong.
c) I disagree with what the author's tone implies.
Specifically, while I agree that our society may be way too preoccupied with entertainment, I would never judge other people for their pastimes or their beliefs (unless they believed that killing babies is cool or that Rich Kotite is a god in human form). In addition, I could even agree with the author’s sentiments on dogfighting. With everything else that goes on in this world, I really could care less about a few pooches getting zapped, nor do I care if Vick zaps them. Their demise doesn’t change the fact that Vick is a shitty quarterback.

I believe that should clarify my take and should provide you with plenty to chew on and spit back out, should you desire. I’m always down with learning new things and expanding my horizons.
As for your confusion with my posts, it’s totally understandable. See (a) above. As for your PMS? That I don’t get, but I’m sure it somehow stems from (a). My apologies.

AZ - that was a hell of a good post. Except for the PMS crack, but nobody's perfect.

1 2 3 4 5  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14