2007-05-05 14:21:11 · 14 answers · asked by Gilp 2 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
heck yeah. that is worse than smoking pot and ricky williams was out for a year
2007-05-05 14:28:59 · answer #1 · answered by Steven C 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Only if it can be proved conclusively that he breeds dogs for fighting. No credible evidence has been released yet. The dog breeding sights that he has been linked to all have disclaimers saying that they do not breed dogs for fighting, or sale to people engaged in fighting. They also have warnings that dog fighting is illegal in Va. & Ga. and 46 other states. So for now we have to give him benefit of the doubt, as he says he never visits the house were this activety may have taken place. It could be a case that his cousins may have been doing something illict, but prosecutores (and or Peta) have decided to go after a bigger named target that may not be involved.
2007-05-05 14:37:51 · answer #2 · answered by MATT P 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they can show that he was directly involved, they should suspend him for at least as long as they suspended Pacman Jones (entire season).
The NFL suspends players for all sorts of different things that have nothing to do with football. I don't see how most people can be yelling that Chris Henry and Pacman should get suspended for doing things that have absolutely nothing to do with football, but people say "let the courts take care of it" when it comes to Vick. Makes absolutely no sense. I thought the suspensions for Pacman and Chris Henry were way too long, but if Pacman gets a year for being a thuggish moron, then Vick should get at least a year for being cruel and inhumane. But Vick should be suspended only if the NFL can prove that he was directly involved.
2007-05-05 15:18:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The NFL should stay out of it. Vick's guilt/innocence is for the courts to determine, not the NFL. And if Vick is found guilty, the courts will hand down a punishment, whether it be a fine or jailtime, so I see no need for the NFL to get involved.
2007-05-05 14:47:40 · answer #4 · answered by ClayMeow 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
(i'm answering this as a captivating Pitty sleeps at my ft) i don't think of this occasion has something to do with the race of the human beings in touch, it has lots to do with the race (breed) of the canines. this occasion is yet another occasion of human beings giving this breed a bad call. a million. No. there is sufficient information for my area, he isn't harmless. This became taking place, and has been shown to have happened, ON HIS components. 2. precisely why i don't ought to watch for the trial to style my opinion. 3. precisely. we ought to make our animal cruelty regulations harsher. there is not something worse than abusing something that is defensless against you.
2016-10-14 21:30:34 · answer #5 · answered by sedgwick 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but they should ban him for all the trouble he got into, not just the dog breeding issue.
2007-05-08 19:24:05 · answer #6 · answered by MBA1984MBA1984MBA 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no they shouldnt ban him from the nfl for breeding dogs to fight becuase it has nothing to do with the nfl. its a law matter so then it means the police decides not the nfl and it better go that way and if it doesnt the nfl is using their authority a little wrong
2007-05-05 15:04:11 · answer #7 · answered by lilman1135 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
yes besides the NFL won't lose much when they do the Falcons suck and so does Vick.
2007-05-05 14:30:02 · answer #8 · answered by sunsfan#13# 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mike Vick does not breed dogs for fighting! He owns a house that he rents to someone else and events took place there. He is not in anyway responsible. .............go 49ers. :)
2007-05-05 17:00:23 · answer #9 · answered by vacmag 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think they should ban him for being an as*hole in general.
2007-05-06 11:17:09 · answer #10 · answered by stan l 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes,dog fighting is illegal,if pacman jones had have done this they would be all on his ***!!!
2007-05-05 14:44:41 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋