I wonder if these are the same charges that they can charge you for internet gambling. what are the charges specifically. it does seem excessive for just gambling. are there specific laws for gambling on events you are involved in?
I understand your viewpoint but Donaghy affected the integrity of the NBA as a whole. The damage to the NBA's image to the public and further fraying the relationship between the players and referees could do incalculable damage. We will see. The livelihoods of thousands of people (in gaming and the NBA) could be affected. Still, because there is no savagery, blood, gore or death, it can seem like what Donaghy did wasn't so bad. But there are reasons why our laws subject him to a harsher penalty. What Vick did was cruel, sick and perverted. You could argue what he did was almost sub-human and is the worse crime because violence was involved. But the fact dogs were killed instead of humans mitigates the punishment. It doesn't matter whether people knew Donaghy beforehand or not. If he were black, the whole dynamic of public discussion about him would be much different. For many people, the same fip-flop would happen if Peyton Manning or Tom Brady did the dogfighting instead of Vick. If you don't believe that, you don't live on planet Earth.
I believe you're making an incredible leap of logic, i think more people who defend vick are bothered by statements like "subhuman"
Just to put it out there. We have no idea how many deadbeat gamblers got behind with their bookies because they bet on TEAM A but this Ref Fixed so Team B won Said Gambler could have easily ended up in the river/Beaten/or turning to crime themselves (beyond just gambling] and hurt folx themselves Hell some deadbeat might have hung himself or soemthing We simply don't know. . and will never know the extent he affected the illegal and legal gambling business how many $$ worth of damage he did Rocket River I think 'White' collar Criminals are every bit as depraved and maybe more HARMFUL TO SOCIETY than alot of common criminals
We have no idea how many deadbeat gamblers got behind with their bookies because they bet on DOG A but DOG B won. Some dog fighting gambler could have easily ended up in the river/Beaten/or turning to crime themselves (beyond just gambling] and hurt folx themselves Hell some deadbeat might have hung himself or soemthing. We simply don't know. . and will never know the extent he affected the illegal and legal gambling business. Rocketman95 I think "dog fighters" are every bit as depraved and maybe more HARMFUL TO SOCIETY than a lot of common criminals.
Whether you like it or not, some folks believe that dogfighting (and all that it entails) is subhuman and the people who enjoy it are perverted and depraved. If this bothers you, so be it. Different people have different values and folks who place a higher value on dog life than you and me are entitled to their feelings. I think animal-rights advocates are over the top but also believe the accusations against Vick are beyond disgusting.
Maybe the gamblers bet on Team B, and would have "ended up in the river" if Donaghy hadn't heroically fixed the game.
Anyone have a clue how much NBA refs make a year? Just curious. Sounds to me like it could be one of those situations where people make so much money, but don't have enough sense to keep it and be happy w/ what they have.
As a fan, the person that affected the game. As a human being, the one that involved dog fighting and animal torture. Which is "worse" has nothing to do wit sports. Don't think about it from the perspective of David Stern, Roger Goodell, or a "fan". Think about it from the perspective of a random person that has no relevant interest in the situation.
exactly, different people have different values, but when someone defends vick you say they're doing it because he's black.
That makes sense to me. It makes sense to me if somebody says "The crime Donaghy committed is worse for the NBA than the crime Vick committed was for the NFL." Because you're right, Donaghy did compromise the integrity of the NBA as a whole, whereas the NFL can distance itself from Vick. That makes sense, but that wasn't how what I was responding to was worded. Anyway, thanks for the insight. Now I understand the logic. I hate it when there is no logic to be found.
Not everybody, but SOME of the people who are defending Vick are doing it just because he is black. Most of these same people are hanging Donaghy upside down and nailing him to the wall. If the skin colors were reversed, their perspectives on these crimes would also change. This is unfortunate. I hate it when skin color is the predominant factor when someone forms an opinion about an issue. It doesn't matter what skin color is involved. Racism (or a race-centered perspective if you prefer to call it that) makes it harder to have realistic discussions and it divides people. I can truthfully say that if Vick and Donaghy switched skins colors, my opinion on what they did would not change at all. Question: Can you say the same thing? FWIW, I personally know WHITE people who think the outrage against Vick is misguided and they are definitely NOT defending him because he's black. And obviously not all blacks defending him are doing it because of race. jmwilliamson, logical discussion is always a good thing. Insight is gained and sometimes you can even reach a consensus with someone who is much different from you.
But his actions were subhuman. They are below the actions of a decent human being. If you think fixing a basketball game is worse than enjoying torturing and killing other living beings then you have huge problems.
woah, what does Mike Vick have to do with any of this? if you must compare, you must ask how men charged (or acquitted for that matter) for manslaughter or murder can get back on the field but someone who tortures animals is worse off than an alleged rapist or alleged murderer... on to Donaghy- so far he pled guilty to providing information to his associates, they haven't even touched on his own participation yet (ie, gambling on games he officiated or providing info on games he officiated)
I cannot being to imagine a 25 yr plea bargain I mean . .how many counts running back to back do you need His Crime. . Fixing a Game ... I say 5 yrs tops Killing a Dog or Dogs. . . 5 yrs tops There are people. . . in jail . . . KILL PEOPLE . .and don't have more than 10 yrs Rocket River
Putting creatures in deathmatches for gambling and entertainment does'nt disturb some people.Hell,they used to get people called Gladiators for that... Do you think people in China should be heavily punished for there Mantis cage fights, Or should someone be punished for burning ants with a magnifying glass. All I am saying is that some can easily think of dogs in this same manner, Does this vilify them? To Me,Yes/To most,Yes/To some,absolutely not What "Beings" are ok or not ok to kill and in what situation? When is hunting for sport Ok?
You have to understand the difference between when the Federal Government is after you versus when its the state. I am in federal law enforcement and everything they say about the conviction rate and the solid cases is true. Federal prosecutors will not file charges without the thought they will win the case in trial, unlike Nifong and the Duke case. The day Vick was included in the indictment, the Feds felt they had enough evidence to win a trial against him. Now their evidence is only three times stronger with the co-defendents taking deals. As for the 25 years, that is the maximum. Donaghy wouldnt take the plea and get the maximum on those two counts. Just like if Vick pleas he wont get the max six years on his charges either. If that was the case why not just take the risk of trial and end up with the max sentence anyway. It is possible Donaghy would take the two counts and 25 years in exchange for not being hit with more counts, but I doubt he would agree to that long of a sentence and still plea.
I agree that race is an issue when comparing the two. How many black journalist came out and said dont rush to judge with Vick cuz nothing was proven, yet the same journalist blasted Donaghy even though there were only allegations on him at the time. He admitted no guilt until today when he took his deal but no one was defending him about rush to judgments and innocent until proven guilty. Same with the Duke case. How many guys blasted those "rich white kids", but now defend Vick until he has his day in court. Now if Vick takes his deal and pleads guilty, are all the journalists who said to wait on passing judgment going to go out and condemn Vick. I doubt it. I think Vick's biggest mistake was not coming out and making a statement about how dog fighting was terrible and apologizing for it possibly taking place on his property, even if he didnt mean it. His "the fans still love me" attitude made things worse for him. That being said if he pleads guilty and serves whatever jail time he is supposed to serve, then he should get a chance to go back to the NFL. I hate dogfighting and think what he did was completely disguisting, but if he serves the punishment for his crime, he should get to try to make a living again, just like anyone else. I doubt any team would want him due to the baggage (protests and sponsors bailing out), and time away from the game, but if he can latch on so be it.
