Ya think?. :furious: Maybe the NFL needs to revise their "code of conduct".
Ya think?. :furious: Maybe the NFL needs to revise their "code of conduct".
I don't know about the NFL rules on the other charges; I do know that gambling is reason for banning.Thanks for all the updates Buzz! It's pretty sad though that he can admit to causing the death of 8 dogs, but the ban from the NFL would be for gambling. :furious: Maybe the NFL needs to revise their "code of conduct".
He's lying, but maybe his co-conspirators are going along with it.Help me understand this. Michael Vick pleaded guilty to fighting and killing dogs, and bankrolling the operation. However, he states he never bet and he never shared
in the winnings. He just simply wanted to keep putting his money into it and never wanted any of it back? It's not like he could use it as a tax write-off. Yeah, right.
Of course he is lying, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Seems to me there would be a somewhat easy way to prove that. It just infuriates me people can lie and get by with it. :furious:He's lying, but maybe his co-conspirators are going along with it.
Of course he is lying, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Seems to me there would be a somewhat easy way to prove that. It just infuriates me people can lie and get by with it. :furious:
He admits he bankrolled it, so wouldn't delivering the money fall into that category rather than serving as proof that he was gambling? I think Michale Vick should be held to the same standards as he did his dogs. Vick is a good ball player, but not the best. Often, he didn't perform as well as he could. Hmmmm.Well they claim that he delivered the prize money personally, so I think they could prove he gambled.
He is considered a tough, but fair judge. Even 3 years is not enough!12 to 18 months is pathetic. So is the "not admitting to killing dogs and gambling"
Hopefully the judge will just look at all three of those idiots and sentence them all to the maximum allowed. Doubt it.
Help me understand this. Michael Vick pleaded guilty to fighting and killing dogs, and bankrolling the operation. However, he states he never bet and he never shared
in the winnings. He just simply wanted to keep putting his money into it and never wanted any of it back? It's not like he could use it as a tax write-off. Yeah, right.
He is considered a tough, but fair judge. Even 3 years is not enough!
He admits he bankrolled it, so wouldn't delivering the money fall into that category rather than serving as proof that he was gambling? I think Michale Vick should be held to the same standards as he did his dogs. Vick is a good ball player, but not the best. Often, he didn't perform as well as he could. Hmmmm.
I just can't get over how ANYONE can torture an animal, train animals to injure and kill other animals and ENJOY WATCHING IT! Vick is an evil, disgusting and sick individual.
No, I don't think so. Delivering the winning prize money after a dog fight is gambling.
Isn't providing "purse fees" also suggestive of gambling?
Good. I'm glad to hear that! So, he lied under oath - that ought to be good for something, I hope.No, I don't think so. Delivering the winning prize money after a dog fight is gambling.
Great news.
It IS good news, Buzz - it's a start. Next, I hope he is banned. No more NFL for Mikey would be great.Great news.