Goodell taking hard stance on Vick plea

Filed in archive on August 16, 2007

Michael Vick and his attorneys are discussing various plea options with prosecutors, as Vick hopes to spend less than a year in prison for his part in a dogfighting ring.

Vick is not eager to cop a plea, until he knows how the plea will affect the decision of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

Goodell, who has ruled the NFL with an iron fist, in his first year as the league's leader, refuses to divulge what kind of penalty he's going to levy against Vick. Goodell wants to wait for the final plea agreement, before making a decision.

This can't be good for the embattled Vick.

If the Atlanta quarterback spends a year in prison, he'll obviously miss that entire season. Goodell could then suspend Vick up to another full year, leaving him out of NFL play for two-plus seasons.

This could, in effect, lead to the end of Michael Vick's NFL career.

Related Entries:

« Three things I love about... | Main | In your fantasy football ... »

Permalink: Goodell taking hard stance on Vick plea

Tags: Michael Vick dogfighting NFL commissioner Roger Goodell football vick+plea

Vote for Goodell taking hard stance on Vick plea:

Currently 7.67/10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Rating: 7.67 out of 6 vote(s) cast.

Response from: rena (08/24/07 1:59pm)

I applaud Roger Goodell for taking such a harsh stance and he should not back down from it. Michael Vick is not a human being, after showing that he truly has no regard for life (it is only a matter of time before he upgrades to harming humans) he should not be allowed to profit from the same occpation that paid him to finance this heinous act. There is a place in hell for him.

Response from: Nikki (08/25/07 11:32am)

Believe me that I in now way support Michael Vick's dogfighting venture, but I am disturbed by some responses I have seen and heard from other animal lovers. You call what he did animal cruelty and it was, but you have all these individuals who just for "the fun of it" or for "sport" kill Deer and Ducks and what ever else they can, and you want to end the life and career of a man who is doing the same things with Dogs. That baffles me. Shooting deer who are out there just minding their business is not considered animal cruelty? Setting traps for this animals so that you can get a good shot is not cruel? My theory, the Goverment makes money of of these individuals because they have to pay to get licenses and so forth so they benefit from this so called sport, but Dog Fighting does not benefit them, so they go after these individuals for killing these dogs. Talk about double standards.

Response from: End Zone Buzz (08/25/07 4:49pm)

Nikki, I think hunting deer and ducks, although I don't approve of it, is certainly something different. The key in the Vick scenario is that he was involved in training dogs to fight, and he was brutalizing the ones that didn't win. Not only is this very different, it's a felony in most states.