Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has been indicted on federal conspiracy charges related to a dogfighting ring in Virginia. Vick will also likely face state charges. Dogfighting is a heinously inhumane practice (Hipparchia, from whom I stole the picture at left, links to a video report). No person with an ounce of humanity could defend dogfighting with a straight face.So, the NFL has to disassociate themselves from Vick posthaste, right? Not so fast, according to ESPN columnist Mike Sando. Sando entreats us to let the legal wrangling run its course. The NFL, he says, has to "protect its long-term interests" by allowing Vick simply to sit out, just in case. According to Sando:
...a civil society can't let emotions interfere with due process. No matter how repulsive the charges, no matter how much we love our pets, no matter how bad the indictment makes Vick appear, it's unfair to judge without weighing the evidence.This is ESPN folks. They've excoriated Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire for alleged steroid use, even though neither of them has been indicted for any crime. Why, then, should Vick be accorded the full protection of "innocent until proven guilty?" The difference is the victim. In the case of Bonds and McGwire, the perceived victim is "the integrity of the sport." In the case of Vick, the victims are just a bunch of dogs. Not nearly as important as 2,474 yards of total offense, right?
