Just listening to Sirius and they are discussing Michael Vick and trying to defend him without knowing for sure if he was guilty and said they did not want to accuse the unaccused right now. What was interesting is that of all QBs in the NFL,the Sirius announcers were talking about what if it was Tom Brady instead of Michael Vick who was accuse of abusing dogs? -Would the fans believe it they asked, and then they said no way would anyone believe Tom would do it. Now I don't know how they meant what they said,Was it a racist issue that they are trying to refrain from or is it because Tom is the all american guy that no one would believe did it. They simply said that as soon as Vicks name was mentioned in this dog fighting issue most people probably said they knew he would do something like this all along but if it was Brady no one would believe it and everyone would never believe Tom would do it until definite proof and a conviction were shown,they think the fans have already disowned Vick no matter what final situation comes out of this investigation,His career is in trouble regardless if he is found to be Guilty or not. I think many sports media guys are refraining from accusing Vick more from a racial standpoint rather than because he was not accused yet and using Brady as an example was a way to get a bit away from the conversation at hand - I bet most of those media guys truly believe Vick is surely guilty but afraid to say so on air and are doing the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing just because they don't want to be scrutinized as an accuser which affects race of being. They went on to say Tom is being scrutinized himself by the baby/girlfriends issue but that no one outside of the Boston area really cares - I don't think thats the case,if you do a google search with 'Tom Brady Baby' you will get a million places to check out articles from all over the world.