I beileve the lawyer at PFT puts today's apparently conflicting reports in perspective:
ESPN PLAYING BOTH SIDES OF VICK FENCE
In May, ESPN reported that Falcons quarterback Mike Vick is a heavyweight in the dog fighting world.
Now, on the same day that the federal agents returned to Vick's Surry County, Virginia property for the first time in more than four weeks to search for "more" animal remains, ESPN is reporting that Vick is unlikely to be indicted.
So, basically, the net result of ESPN's reporting is that Vick is a dog fighter, and that he will get away with his crimes.
Frankly, we don't buy it. We've inspected the documents obtained on Friday by the Associated Press, and they outline a dog-fighting operation so detailed and extensive that there's no way any reasonable person would believe that Vick was unaware of the venture, especially if those early reports from Virginia television stations regarding the frequency of his visits to the property are remotely accurate.
In support of its latest premise, ESPN's report seems to emphasize the notion that Vick isn't named in the federal complaint aimed at securing legal possession of the dogs that were seized from the property. But no one is named in the complaint. Thus, under the same reasoning, no one will be indicted.
Also, the presence of Len Pasquarelli's name in the report makes it automatically suspect, in our opinion. Pasquarelli has been the most ardent Vick apologist since news of the apparent dog-fighting operation first broke, due in large part (we believe) to Pasquarelli's friendship with Vick's agent, Joel Segal.
For the past two months, Pasquarelli has been urging folks not to jump to conclusions prematurely. So why should anyone conclude at this point that the guy who owned the property that hosted the dog fights won't be held legally responsible?
ESPN reports that at least three people are expected to be indicted. But that could merely be the first wave of the indictments. Doesn't anyone think that the folks who are charged will receive offers of leniency or immunity in exchange for giving up others who might have been involved?
And why would the feds tell the Falcons, the league, or anyone else that Vick likely won't be indicted? If that aspect of the report is true, maybe the feds are hoping that Vick will let his guard down a bit, perhaps by not focusing his efforts on ensuring that the guys who get indicted won't snitch.
The bottom line is that it's still far too early to conclude that Vick will be, or won't be, charged with a crime. And we still think that the feds got involved in this matter in order to send the strongest possible message to the rest of us regarding the connection between crime and the consequences thereof. The only way to do that is to fully and completely explore whether charges can be pursued against Vick. The only way to know that is to round up the suspects, put their nuts in a vise, and hope that someone will tell the truth about Vick's knowledge of (if any) and involvement in (if any) the dog-fighting operation that was housed on the property he owned.
But, hey, if Vick is never indicted, we will remind everyone that ESPN's report was spot on. The flip side of this coin, however, is that if/when Vick gets charged, we'll likely revisit the subject.
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
