Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Beat a Woman? Play On! Beat a Dog? You're Gone

By Sandra Kobrin, Women's eNews. Posted August 23, 2007.


Football superstar Michael Vick is in big trouble for his role in a dog fighting ring. So where’s the outrage when guys beat their wives and girlfriends and stay in the game?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sandra Kobrin

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

National Football League superstar Michael Vick is in trouble, serious trouble. Federal prosecutors charged the Atlanta Falcons' quarterback with animal abuse for his role as the alleged leader of a dog-fighting ring and, after denying it for months, Vick pleaded guilty on Monday. He faces stiff sentencing.

He's in big trouble with the NFL too, which has said he might never play professionally again. According to Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL's Player Association, "the practice of dog-fighting is offensive and completely unacceptable."

I just wish the NFL had the same outrage toward spousal abuse and other forms of domestic violence. But they don't. Not by a long shot.

Scores of NFL players as well as players from the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball have been convicted of domestic abuse, yet they play on with no fear of losing their careers. Most pay small fines, if that, and are back on the field immediately.

The message is clear. Beat a woman? Play on. Beat a dog? You're gone.

What could possibly account for this bizarre situation?

Part of it is that it's the dog days of August -- the notoriously silly season for news -- so the Vick story has attracted tremendous press attention. But it's been all over TV as well during the past four months, since Vick's indictment in April.

Animal Lobby Attacks

The anti-animal abuse lobby, meanwhile, is going after Vick with all four paws.

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which received almost $30 million in contributions last year, according to its Web site, and other animal rights organizations are demanding a boycott of companies that continue to sponsor Vick and are bombarding the NFL with letters demanding a no-tolerance policy when it comes to cruelty to animals by football players.

On blogs, the outrage continues on sackvick.net and other sites, with comments like "lets give #7, 7 to life," or "lets make Michael Vick into dog food."

A cottage industry of anti-Vick merchandise is out there. You can buy a chew toy for your dog in with a likeness of Vick, a "hang Vick" hat or even an eye-for-eye justice T-shirt that says "Stick Vick in the Pit."

Vick has already lost most of his sponsorship deals worth millions of dollars and he deserves to lose a whole lot more.

But the disproportionate punishment of Vick -- while athletes who commit violence against women are let off the hook -- has to be wondered at.

Might it be that domestic violence and spousal abuse is so pervasive in sports that it's simply too costly for leagues to suspend so many men? What would happen after all if those poor dear teams couldn't fill their rosters?

Numbers Are Astounding

The number of athletes arrested for domestic violence or spousal abuse is astounding.

A three-year study published in 1995 by researchers at Northwestern University found that while male student-athletes are 3 percent of the population, they represent 19 percent of sexual assault perpetrators and 35 percent of domestic violence perpetrators.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: sports, dogfighting, domestic violence, spousal abuse, michael vick

Sandra Kobrin is a Los Angeles based writer and columnist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The women at least had a choice.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Aug 23, 2007 1:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If women are attracted to rich sadistic jerks, that's their choice.

The animals don't get to choose.

And NO, I'm not excusing the creeps, just stating a fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's about power Posted by: hagwind
» RE: It's about power: google this! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» So what's in a choice? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: It's about power Posted by: TassieDevil
» RE: It's about power Posted by: TassieDevil
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Athletes are well-paid thugs and riff-raff . . .
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Aug 23, 2007 3:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
much like losers who work for blackwater. if not in the game they'd be out in the streets. not a lot going on upstairs. lots of loose bulbs, son. boy doesn't seem to be listenin'. his ears are all rapped up, ya see. rap music. ears. boy, ya ain't fallerin' me.

don't have much respect for organized 'sports'. don't have any respect for ANYONE who would physically harm another, be it woman or animal. women need to be taught early on not to sell themselves too cheaply, and, especially, when and how to leave. humans are dangerous. humans are, afterall, animals. to forget that is to put yourself mentally and physically in situations you may regret. people are blind to that one thing by ego and society. never trust yourself to do the right thing all the time and never give up your trust TO anyone.

get out of bad relationships. that is all.





pfft! i need to get out more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let us not talk falsely now.
Posted by: ssegallmd on Aug 23, 2007 3:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a horrible argument for more attention to the issue of wife beating, an issue about which I am sympathetic

Notwithstanding two to five millennia of Judeo-Christo-Muslim teaching to the contrary, for me, a dog is the moral equivalent of a human being in the sense that it is no more of a sin to inflict any given amount of suffering on a human being than on a dog, say one’s wife and one’s faithful companion. I am outraged by wife beaters, but even more so by someone like Vick who would subject his animals to the equivalent (or worse) of a beating several times before their warring competitions, which, of course, are more heinous yet.

So, it is a false argument to imply a fortiori that we should be as angry and as vindictive about wife beaters and wife beating as we are about Vick and horrible things that he did that were a magnitude more egregious.

This is the same specious argument as “Save a whale, be a hero. Save a baby, go to jail” used by abortion prohibitionists to bemoan their arrests on the premises of abortion clinics, to point out that whales get more attention from liberals than humans. In that case, we are comparing the value of the whole whale family (or several species) to the value of individual fetuses. The rules for all of whaledom are different than for individual humans. And the rules for unconscious or inchoately conscious beings are different than for those capable not merely of feeling pain, but also terror, such as an adult human or whale might experience, that transcend the fetal bad dream (or less) experience.

So, yes, trying to save an adult is different than trying to save a fetus. And trying to save an entire race of adults (and their children and fetuses, too) is different than trying to save a percent of individuals.

There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The hour is getting late. Posted by: ssegallmd
Chew toy
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 23, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments:

1. The chew toy is funny. Every dog should have one.

2. I guess you would have to compare it with a regular workplace. If someone were guilty of spousal abuse, and they worked at an office job, what would happen to them? I'm not sure I like the idea that the sports leagues have to babysit. They should go by the same rules as any other workplace, and take on neither more nor less of the responsibility for their employees' behavior.

3. If the allegations are true, he didn't just slap a few dogs or give them a black eye. The story involves lots of dead dogs--many of whom died horrible deaths--along with his complicity in all the gruesome, systemic, fatal abuse that occurs in the dogfighting business. So I'm not sure the comparison is accurate or helpful. I think you're better off making a case that the same standards should be applied to spousal abuse regardless of your batting average, and leave the dogs out of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chew toy Posted by: vildechaye
Are we missing something here?
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 23, 2007 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apart from the equation of sponsoring dog-fighting with beating a dog,* which as I understand it seriously trivializes the former, this article has a big hole in it. Nowhere does it even mention that Michael Vick is black or speculate that this might, just might, have something to do with the depth of the outrage at this particular case. How black, brown, or anything but white is PETA anyway? Is it possible, just possible, that some people (many but not all of them white) out there see woman abuse as part of the black male character but animal abuse as a violation of the color line? IOW, dogs are under the protection of white people, so Michael Vick was not only cruel to animals, he also usurped a white prerogative. Earl Ofari Hutchinson's column posted a day or so ago fills in some of the gaps. I recommend it.

*Beating a dog is bad, and a pattern of dog-beating is worse than an isolated incident, but dog-fighting is worse: it's systematic cruelty perpetrated for the pleasure and profit of those who should know better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» i see what you are missing Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: i see what you are missing Posted by: sterlingdave54
» RE: Are we missing something here? Posted by: goeswithness
» Bit over the top and racist Posted by: Phenix
False Dichotomy
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Aug 23, 2007 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course it is outrageous that those who perpetrate domestic violence are often penalized minimally if at all. However, articles like this that imply that outrage over animal cruelty is misplaced create a false dichotomy. The truth is that we don't have to choose between between angry about the torture of animals and the mistreatment of women: we can and should feel anger over the abuse of any living creature. We should be outrage when any living being is made to feel unnecessary pain. This is especially true given how often cruelty to animals serves as a prelude to cruelty to humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» the cruelty connection Posted by: JJinIthaca
Stupid arguments
Posted by: SekhmetsatRa on Aug 23, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both domestic violence and animal abuse are bad. there is nothing "racist" about his punishment. there is no defense for either. NONE. and i HATE peta. but anyone who would treat dogs like that, does not belong in society, white or black or green purple or orange.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why we hate Vick's Actions.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Aug 23, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dogs love us unconditionally. Women have a selfish agenda originating in the genes. This is the difference.

I had to put my dog down two months ago. She was my companion since she was a pot bellied pup.

People think of me as a hard, stoic man, but I cried like a baby over her loss. I will never forget my dog.

Vick will never know the love between humankind and dogs. He is missing the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why we hate Vick's Actions. Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: Why we hate Vick's Actions. Posted by: goeswithness
» Yes and no Posted by: kepstein7777
Vivien
Posted by: viviensandt on Aug 23, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can Sandra Kobrin possibly think that she can promote one cause (ie protecting women) by putting down and trivialising another very important cause? Sandra, you have just put me off YOUR cause, as it makes me think you and your ilk really know nothing about working towards a kinder, safer society!
If you're so outraged and jealous about the methods and gains of the animal rights movement, why not copy some of their methods, not to mention their dedication, for your cause? Perhaps THAT would achieve something!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vivien Posted by: sss4r
So what she's saying...
Posted by: H_H on Aug 23, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is that the NFL doesn't particularly care about the well-being of humans. Interesting.

I'm sure PETA will come-in for the same kind of criticism in the near future, yes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So what she's saying... Posted by: MartianBachelor
The author's ignorance of federal and state laws prohibiting the acts of...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 23, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and providing punishment for violence is astounding.

If she has specific information regarding a victim of violence, as her title implies, I encourage her to file a police report with the authorities, rather than filing an essay full of nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Violence is WRONG!
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 23, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Violence in any form is anathema and its rendering is an admission of inferior intellectual development. Whether the victim is a woman or animal is irrelevant.....it is WRONG! It isn't a political notion, it is a natural law proscription that binds everyone and it certainly does not require the ramblings about one form of violence being better or worse than another. This article misses the point entirely and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to render one egregious act superior to another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Susan D.
Posted by: shd1230 on Aug 23, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WOMEN AT LEAST HAVE OPTIONS, CAN GET HELP, CAN CALL THE POLICE, CAN FILE CHARGES, CAN FIGHT BACK, CAN DIVORCE. DOGS ARE HELPLESS VICTIMS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Susan D. Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Susan D. Posted by: skybluesky
SUSAN D
Posted by: shd1230 on Aug 23, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY IS IT THAT ANYTHING INVOLVING AFRICAN AMERICANS IS AUTOMATICALLY CONSTRUED AS RACIST. I BELIEVE THAT THE WHITEST PERSON IN THE COUNTRY WOULD BE OSTRACIZED FOR THE BEHAVIOR THAT VICK AND HIS ASSOCIATES ENGAGED IN. THERE ARE A LOT OF WHITE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN DOG-FIGHTING AND THEY ARE JUST AS REPREHENSIBLE AS VICK AND HIS FRIENDS. BECAUSE VICK IS A BLACK ATHLETE, HE SHOULD BE EXCUSED, THE WAY O.J. SIMPSON WAS EXCUSED FOR MURDERING HIS (WHITE) WIFE??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» QUIT YELLING AT ME Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Hey alternet...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Aug 23, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Way to repost this article without any of the comments made on it earlier! Especially the critical ones that point out that these dogs were not just beaten but were raised to fight each other, kept in cages, tortured, and eventually killed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey alternet... Posted by: sss4r
» Hey Joshua . . . Posted by: hagwind
the article is speciesist
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 23, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The lives of humans and animals should be regarded with equal worth. Athletes who abuse their wives or girlfriends are just as sadistic as those athletes who abuse animals.

To argue otherwise, that only humans matter, or humans come first, is kind of like someone during the Apartheid era in South Africa saying, "First let's take care of the infant mortality rate among whites, and *then* we'll get to the blacks." No.

Equal consideration for humans and animal alike.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: and the point is Posted by: chaoslegs
» RE: and the point is Posted by: cinattra
Child labor laws based on Anti-cruelty to animals laws
Posted by: BetteM on Aug 23, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first case brought against child labor abuses and exploitation in the late 1800's based their case on laws ALL READY established for anti-cruelty to animals. Here is one
link

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nfl doesn't really care at all
Posted by: somegirl on Aug 23, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
about the dogs, and were more concerned about the gambling.
so i heard on the daily show. jon did a great bit on this on tuesday night i think.

i keep seeing stories popping up on the 'net comparing violence against women to various other violent acts. i don't find it serves any of the arguments. heinous acts are heinous acts, they don't need to be like something else to matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Somehow I think if an NFL player was staging Girl Fights
Posted by: BenCaxton12 on Aug 23, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
on the same terms as dog fights, they'd care every bit as much.

But: good headlines are hard to come by. Whatever gets the old journalistic juices flowing, I always say.

(It's not like we're paying for this stuff)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course it all matters but.....
Posted by: denwa on Aug 23, 2007 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To suggest that we should save our outrage exclusively for crimes against humans is only a weak attempt to minimize the horror of Vick's activities. Of course we should also be outraged by other crimes. But the outrage people feel on behalf of innocent animals is also true and deep and morally justified. What kind of evil lurks inside a so-called human being who delights in holding a dog’s head under water in a five-gallon bucket while it kicks, struggles to survive and drowns? Multiply this by three and you have Mike Vick. What kind of person hangs eight dogs in his backyard then steps back to watch them writhe, gasp for a breath and die? Slow torture.....just for fun...that's our man Vick. Who would ever think to hose a dog down to get it wet so you can electocute it? That's the Vickster. Let's stand together against this monster. Lifetime ban from the NFL. Let your voice be heard. Email NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell at goodellr@nfl.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both are crimes
Posted by: escr1t0ra on Aug 23, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think it serves anyone's agenda to argue which is the bigger crime: abusing people or abusing animals. Both are horrible acts that deserve severe punishment and a much greater response from professional sports leagues. If it were up to me, these super rich, super sadistic athletes would get treated the same as any other felon. Until then everyone needs to stand up and give these issues a voice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Both are crimes Posted by: hagwind
Where?
Posted by: frederick on Aug 23, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"where’s the outrage when guys beat their wives and girlfriends [or sexually harass their subordinates] and stay in the game?"

I dunno, ask Bill Clinton!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where? Posted by: AlterGWBego
this is truly pathetic
Posted by: Kaykay on Aug 23, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the difference between prolifers and you dog lovers?? Damn the fetus after its a live person and damn a person over a dog? What were you people doing about dog fights before Mike Vick? Why weren't you people jailing all the rednecks that started this crap?

You people founded this country on VIOLENCE but violence is only wrong to you people when its against a white woman, a fetus or a damn dog. Get a grip!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TORTURING AND KILLING INNOCENT BEINGS IS INARGUABLY HEINOUS
Posted by: annestivacti on Aug 23, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time the subject of animal abuse is raised, people storm forward to cite worse atrocities. Do people honestly think that spousal abuse doesn't have a precursor that likely includes abuse of non-humans? Don't abused women have the option of leaving an abusive relationship? Does anyone think that innocent animals are able to escape abuse at the hands of sadistic humans? There is something terribly wrong with Kobrin's line of thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't ask why there's not more outrage--do something!
Posted by: kevred on Aug 23, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Animal advocates have leapt to very public and very loud condemnation of Vick's sick crimes. Organized groups have taken organized action and made their protests known to the league and the media. That is good, right, and suitable--what Vick has done is vile and represents a subculture that needs to be utterly wiped from the face of the earth.

So why aren't we seeing the same level of reaction from prominent women and women's groups about male athletes' treatment of women? It's all well and good to sit idly by and whine about how nobody's sticking up for the poor women, as this column does, but why haven't those concerned about the issue done more about it?

If you want outrage, use your own. Getting upset over other people being passionate about other causes is stupid and unhelpful. Animal advocates aren't sitting around, waiting for someone else to be outraged on their behalf--they're doing it themselves. So, if you're concerned about how mistreatment of women has become an accepted and covered-up part of pro sports--

--get up off your butt and do something about it! Contact leagues or teams directly. Contact women's advocacy groups and challenge them to do more. Contact your local congressmembers and challenge them to investigate. Convince your spouses, partners, and friends to stop giving money to teams who've given their athletes a free pass on abuse, get as many people as possible to do that, and then let the team know you're doing it.

Groups like PETA get ridiculed all the time for their tactics, but they know the reality is that going at it with all they've got is the only possible way to make these insulated behemoths listen and change their ways.

That animals, who cannot advocate for themselves, are being better represented than others who can articulate for themselves, is an indictment of only one group--those who would defend women, but aren't doing enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great point Posted by: cheressemm
Beat this? Beat that? Beats me....
Posted by: doodahman on Aug 23, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I'm not one to defend beating on ladies, but if you want to compare them with dogs, here's what I observe:
No dog ever left a person cold and penniless
No dog ever kept a person's child away from him
No dog ever lied
No dog ever talked constant shit
No dog every spent all your money on crap

Women are awesome, but dogs are perfect. We all get the point that assaulting any human being is, in most cases, a bad thing. Duh. Why this is a reason to abhor Vick less, is rather unclear as, is why Vick is a reason to abhor women beaters more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Over in the UK
Posted by: Cruella on Aug 23, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have this problem on a massive scale. George Best, a known wife-beater and football player, who died recently has had an airport named after him and bank notes issued with his face on. Yuck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Over in the UK Posted by: skybluesky
» RE: Over in the UK Posted by: sakul72
» RE: Over in the UK Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Over in the UK Posted by: skybluesky
gonzomax
Posted by: gonzomax on Aug 23, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is half an argument . It ignores the fact that Vick financed an interstate gambling enterprise. There were thousands bet ,involving many unsavory characters. In the viewpoint of sports ,that is a greater transgression to a sport that is pretending not to be involved in gambling. This is the mortal sin.
Organized animal abuse is horrible and says a lot about the participants. They are disgusting.No possible excuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Sports double standard
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 23, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has been going on since I was a kid. Back then the 'headslap' was still a play. Sports figures have always enjoyed special treatment. They got passed ahead when they had the grade level of a third grader. Given cushy lives in famous schools,allowed to be tremendous primadonnas,demanding everything,even sex, be rendered on command. These folks are used to this kind of special treatment.
The dog thing,chances are there's someone somewhere that's owed big money,or lost big and is laughing about getting even with the guy that screwed him.
People with large incomes have large perversions. They all know how to do things on the down-low. Vick got busted because he pissed someone off.
What this really speaks to isn't just animal cruelty,it's the willingness of the rich and wealthy to flaunt laws,as well as decency and reason to pursue twisted endeavours. Dog fighting is just the tip of the iceberg.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Sports double standard Posted by: Blue Heron
One Can Lead to the Other
Posted by: Bab5nutz on Aug 23, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's probably well-known now, but I will repeat it here anyway.
People who display sadism and cruelty towards other people, usually start out by being cruel to animals. Google 'cruelty connection'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's George's Fault
Posted by: Axiom69 on Aug 23, 2007 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comments here are all over the board so obviously this is an emotional issue. The only way I can leave a comment without getting a bunch of negative feed back is to somehow blame this dog fighting stuff on George W. As soon as I figure out how this is his fault I'll add to this post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "As soon as I figure out how..." Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: It's George's Fault Posted by: AlterGWBego
» RE: It's George's Fault Posted by: goeswithness