At least the age old question of "Who Let the Dogs out" has finally been answered. It was Michael Vick.
I thought the exact same thing when I saw that poll. I was like what the hell, torturing dogs isn't as bad compared to a ref fixing games?
But what if the dog fights were FIXED!?!?! That's taking it to the next level. I just blew your mind, didn't I?
I think it's the fact that many fans feel as though their sport is blemished with referee gambling while, AS SPORTS FANS, Michael Vick's involvement isn't as big of a deal. If it was worded: "What is more disturbing: Dog Killing or Gambling?"...you'd obviously get different results. But you have to look at the wording.
Not really a reasonable excuse for that. I'm a HUGE sports fan, but the honest to God truth is that a referee potentially fixing the point spread in an NBA game, as bad as it is, isn't all that shocking. It's more shocking he got caught. But, the way those dogs were killed and the brutal nature of that crime shocked the holy hell out of me.
Who f*cked these dogs up? Vick, Vick, Vick, Vick, Vick! I said whoooo f*cked these dogs up?! Vick, Vick, Vick, Vick, Vick!
but its shocking no matter who commits the deed of dog killing...its disturbing on all levels, no matter if is an athlete, movie star, or average citizen...
The question to me reads "which is worse for sports in general?". That would be the fixed games. That could destroy pro sports. One player killing dogs will not destroy a sport. It's how you interpret the question. Killing and abusing the dogs is worse though.
You know who's next after Vick? We're coming for you Brimley, Diabeetus included. He likes to fight cocks.
an athlete orchestrating dog fights isn't expected but it's hardly surprising. a ref fixing NBA games...now that is almost unimaginable in this day and age, albeit every fan thinks they league is out to get their team.
This is a stupid poll. Not only is the grammar wrong, but the wording is also bad. Is it in terms of sports? If so, dog killing has nothing to do with sports for the 99.9% of us who don't watch dog-fighting. So it's a moot point. You're talking about which is more disturbing in general, don't put "sports fan" in there. What kind of non-sports fan vote in an espn poll anyway?
I think hurting animals is symptomatic of sociopathic-psycho behavior. Morally -ethically wrong. Crimes against nature...
I've always wondered if killing a cow and eating it on a bun was a crime against nature. I guess killing and eating a cow isn't a crime against nature, but beating a cow up would be, huh?
It's not talking about the impact of dog fighting as a sport...it's talking about how much the sports fan might be disturbed that MICHAEL VICK was part of the dog fighting. Basically - the question is: What is more of a shock - Michael Vick being part of a disgusting act (dog-fighting) or NBA games being allegedly skewed. I'd vote the illegal gambling every day...to be honest, I was shocked to see Michael Vick ahead of the Gambling on the SI.com page's poll.
