Here's hoping he never touches a football again. The things those guys were doing to dogs makes we wanna wretch. Anyone sadistic enough to do things like that should be under constant surveillance when they're out of jail.

if he only lived in china he could have sold the dogs to a restaurant and no one would have cared.

He's one sick person, only jail time and some psychological treatment while there would be what's needed. People who do such sickening things may never be considered normal, he's finished at this point. Who would trust him in any capacity?

Bad as it is, that jury's nothing: wait till the PETA crowd get through with him.

Hey, shocking:

PETA and I agree on something. Think they'd like to celebrate our coming together over a nice steak?

I would take him on my team, once he gets out.
I hope he gets to touch a football again, he's a phenominal player.
I consider a lot of human pain and suffering crimes to be far worse than letting dogs that like to fight, fight.

Johnny Cochrane gets to touch law books again and he plead no contest to beating his wife.

Richfisher I disagree.

He's just another highly overpaid athlete with more money than brains.

Society has enough of them. I hope he has to work at McDonald's and earn his money like we all have to.

What really ticks me off is that when I go out and buy certain products I am in essence forced to contribute to these fellow's salaries, even though I don't watch football. It's like a tax.

The whole thing is absurd.

That's why I try to avoid products like Nike's whenever I can, although it's not always possible to know which companies contribute to the overblown salaries of these idiots unless you watch a lot of sports.

He should get booted off the team

While two wrongs don't make a right; if Ray (Obstruction Of Murder Justice) Lewis, can play, why not Mike?

"Lewis has a four-year, $26 million contract with the Ravens and is one of the NFL's best defensive players. The team said Monday he will be welcome to rejoin the club at a voluntary minicamp next week."

A bar fight, a substance abuse problem, all of that can be dealt with. But in the public's mind, dog fighting is somewhere between wife-beating and the ultimate sin, point-shaving." - Mark Kriegel, Foxsports.com

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/19/06/04/lewis_agreement/

Apparently there were members of the Atlanta Falcons who did feel that, although Vick shouldn't have been allowed to play, he never-the-less should have been allowed to practice at training camp. The two interviewees were linebackers . . . and avid pet owners.

"I consider a lot of human pain and suffering crimes to be far worse than letting dogs that like to fight, fight."

Richfisher, do you know anything about these types of dogs? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're ignorant on the topic not an dolt. If these dogs "loved" to fight then Vick wouldn't have had to execute any of them for not wanting to fight. These are proud and noble dogs, loyal to a fault and it's idiots like Vick and other thugs in the hip hop culture that prey upon this and force them to fight for some barbaric pleasure.

To clarify the difference between Ray Lewis and Mike Vick, Lewis pleaded to a misdemeanor due to lack of evidence to convict of murder; Vick pleading to felony charges concerning rackateering and dog fighting enterprise. As for Lewis not being banned, I believe he should have been, however the commish at the time didn't feel he could under these circumstances.

How humourous are Paul Tagliabue's words now when looking at the Vick case, in speaking on Ray Lewis he said;

"Today's developments will help put this tragic incident behind us. Ray Lewis has been entirely cleared of the charge that he was responsible
for the loss of life that occurred in Atlanta in late January.

"There are many lessons to be learned as we review this case. If anyone in the NFL needed a reminder that high-profile professional athletes need to be extraordinarily careful in their associations and activities, Ray Lewis' experience provides that reminder.

"We will continue to work as hard as we can to ensure that our players do not become involved in these types of situations."

If only Mike had listened.

Today he apologized to his family and everyone he has hurt.
Too bad he can't apologize to the dogs he hurt!

Today he apologized to his family and everyone he has hurt.
Too bad he can't apologize to the dogs he hurt!

On July 26th he was in court to plead innocent to the charges now he has realized he can not lie his way out he admits his guilt

Details of the Ray Lewis incident are inconclusive but the story is that Lewis and his entourage were attacked for their, er, jewelery, and acted in self defense.

That incident aside, in which there was no evidence whatsoever that he did the stabbing, Lewis has not only kept his nose clean but earned a great deal of respect. He has shown so much leadership and character that I have to object to him being lumped with Vick. Tank Johnson and Pac Man Jones are better examples I think.

I hope people in Ontario (my lovely province) realize that it's not the pitbull type dogs that need to be banned but these types of thug owners who need to be punished.
The parallels have been drawn many times on this website that whether it's dog, gun or high performance vehicle owners; that it's the responsible owners that lose out when governments enact broad bans and not the actual criminal element that suffer.

Pac-man Jones shows the NFL's new zero tolerance stance, and explains why Vick's punishment will be severe, as Jones was suspended for the year eventhough he hasn't been convicted of anything. Imagine what Vick will get and he's guilty.

"I hope people in Ontario (my lovely province) realize that it's not the pitbull type dogs that need to be banned but these types of thug owners who need to be punished."

Ban pit bulls and any other animal that can seriously harm an adult. Owning an attack dog is an act of war against your community.

Put the @sshole in a closed ring with a half dozen starved pitbulls for about half an hour. It's only fitting. That way, he may actually learn his lesson.

"Ban pit bulls and any other animal that can seriously harm an adult. Owning an attack dog is an act of war against your community."

Your statement is nonsense. I own a pet not an attack dog. Does he have the potential to bite someone? Yes, he has the same potential as my neighbours Golden Retriever or the Pommeranian down the block. Has he in the 14 years I've owned him attacked anything or anyone? No. Is he typical of the breed? Yes, but his tempermant is enhanced by me the owner and that is what you seem to be missing in your logic Andrew. The fact is a dog is as good as his/her owner and making blanket statements that all of one type of dog is inherently evil is dangerous as it diverts attention and responsibility from the actual source, human beings. Any dog which shows aggressive tendencies towards people should be put down. Any dog that has aggressive tendencies instilled by the owner, should require the owner to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The fact about this thug's case and PETA is that the PETA-rds took months to recognize that it had anything to do with abuse of animals!
Not until after Vick was indicted and front and center in the MSM on a daily basis.
Showing once again that the Petards have a consistent track record of being completely ignorant of what's going on in the world, totally self absorbed in their sanctimonious efforts to interfere with everyday citizens lives and completely useless in general.

I agree with you OMMAG; PETA is a hypocritical group that benefits only themselves. This is what PETA means to me:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159861,00.html
Do as we say, not as we do.

"The fact is a dog is as good as his/her owner and making blanket statements that all of one type of dog is inherently evil is dangerous"

"These are proud and noble dogs, loyal to a fault"

robot chicken

Noble pitbull "blanket statement" are cool though.

"Yes, he has the same potential as my neighbours Golden Retriever or the Pommeranian down the block."

Aw, c'mon. I don't give a damn if the retriever or the pomeranian comes after me, i'll kick it in the ass. Victims of pitbull attacks don't seem to have that kind of option. Further, owners like you always quickly switch the subject to talking about "biting" someone: we're talking about potentially fatal attacks, not bites.
As for your blanket statements about the breed, that's just plain dumb.
And i really don't care if it's the owner's fault - why would I care whose fault it is? I just dont want the stinking thing attacking me.

Michael Strahan, 300 lb wife beater and he's an NFL poster boy
Ray Lewis doesn't do it for ya, how about Kobe?

Maybe rape, and NBA MVP candidate can resonate.

It's an interesting thing. The dogs like to fight. The owner's like the fighting and those who gamble and spectate like the fighting. The only people that don't like it are those that have nothing to do with it.

I'm not advocating for the sport of dog fighting, just an intersting set of circumstances.

Pat

Where's Auggie Doggie and his doggie Daddy? Why didn't they get jury duty? Maybe Virk could be put in a dog fight as a fighter. Disgusting

Michael Strahan - isn't he the gay footballer .

"Michael Strahan, 300 lb wife beater and he's an NFL poster boy
Ray Lewis doesn't do it for ya, how about Kobe?

Maybe rape, and NBA MVP candidate can resonate."

Richfisher, I'm not sure what your point is, if you're trying to prove the hypocrisy in the Vick case that crimes against people are treated less than crimes against dogs then you shouldn't give examples of athletes who are proven innocent or have the charges thrown out of court. Vick plead guilty to a felony and is being treated like anyone else, get over it. A family court judge dismissed the charges against Strahan and the rape charges were dropped by the prosecution; what could the NBA/NFL do suspend someone who's proven innocent? Patrick Roy was cleared in a domestic abuse case should he had been allowed to play?
If you want a good illustration of the point you're trying to make, use Dany Heatley, he was charged with vehicular homicide in 2003, sentenced to 3 years probation yet scored 50 goals last year. Why is he treated differently, he killed a guy!!!!

I don't like Strahan, but read the following:

The Strahans appeared in Essex County Family Court in Newark, N.J., Thursday on a charge that Michael harassed Jean last week at their 18,000-square-foot, turn-of-the-century Montclair, N.J., mansion. (Related story: Happier days for Strahans, May 6, 2003)

The domestic violence complaint was dismissed. Judge Thomas Zampino ruled the argument did not involve physical violence, but not before Jean Strahan testified about other fights.

In often tearful testimony, she described past instances in which she claimed the defensive end physically abused her, including several times when he choked or punched her.

"In early 2007, Strahan's ex-wife received $15 million in a divorce settlement,[1] which was more than half his assets"

**********************

Kobe I can't stand, but his accuser conveniently withdrew the charge before criminal trial, and took it to a civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is lower:

"DENVER — Basketball star Kobe Bryant and the Colorado woman who accused him of rape 20 months ago have settled her civil lawsuit against him, their lawyers announced Wednesday.
...
Denver trial lawyer Larry Pozner said the case was too complex to estimate a settlement amount. "In Kobe Bryant terms, the check will be small," he said. "In her terms, the check will be gigantic. Kobe just bought her a home."

three quick points:

1. Vick's career is likely over. No owner (ok, MAYBE Al Davis) is going to take the PR disaster that signing Vick would bring; not for the sake of a guy with a career 75.7 passer rating (and a known "coach killer").

2. True, atheletes have gotten off lightly in the past (though they usually were not convicted). There is nothing wrong with getting it right, starting now, as long as the league treats subsequent cases the same way.

3. Dean Spencer: it is true that some breeds have greater potential to harm people than others (see: Mastiffs v. Yorkies). That does not, however, change the fact that the responsibility for the dog lies with the owner. Banning pit bulls won't help the next person to be mauled by, say, a German Shepard. On the other hand, punishing bad owners might send a message.

My original post was to long but to richfisher and dean spencer - fox:

Here is exerts from Dr. Zaharchuk, president of the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association, during the committee hearings on Bill 132.....

"Veterinarians are trained to take a science-based approach to any issue, including aggressive behaviour by dogs toward humans or other animals. As such, OVMA has conducted a thorough review of the available research on dog bites and the use of breed-based bans to curb dog attacks. Based on that review, we are here today with three simple messages.

First, breed-based dog bans are not an effective way to reduce the frequency of dog attacks.

Why are breed-based bans ineffective? It is because they are based on two simple but incorrect assumptions: (1) that only certain breeds of dogs are dangerous, and (2) that all dogs that belong to those breeds are dangerous. Available data do not support either of these two assumptions.

A 1996 study by James Bandow, general manager of the animal control services for the city of Toronto at the time, found that dog bites in the city were reported for more than 20 breeds and crossbreeds. Pit bull terriers accounted for only 4% of reported bites and ranked ninth on the list of identified breeds in terms of bites.

At the time that Kitchener banned pit-bull-type dogs in 1997, they ranked eighth in terms of the breeds for which dog attacks had been reported for the preceding year. In Essex county, where Windsor recently banned pit-bull-type dogs, statistics indicate that the five worst offenders in terms of dog bites were German shepherds, Labrador retrievers, huskies, cocker spaniels and Jack Russell terriers.

In Winnipeg, there have been bites by 87 identified breeds and 94 crossbreeds since 1989. Since pit bulls were banned in 1990, there have been over 3,000 dog bites in that city. Clearly, banning pit bulls would not prevent the vast majority of dog attacks.

An argument is sometimes made that, while all dogs bite, only a few breeds cause serious injury when they attack. Again, this hypothesis does not withstand scrutiny. A study by the Canadian hospitals injury reporting and prevention program examined the dog breeds involved in attacks that were serious enough that the victim sought medical attention at one of eight reporting hospitals. The study revealed that 50 different types of purebreds and 33 types of crossbreeds had been involved in the attacks, the most common breeds being German shepherds, cocker spaniels, Rottweilers and golden retrievers.

What about the most serious of attacks, those resulting in the death of a person attacked? Since 1983, there have been 23 reported human fatalities in Canada due to dog attacks. A total of 55 dogs were involved in these attacks, and only one of these dogs, an American Staffordshire terrier, would be banned under the proposed legislation.

What about the second assumption, that all pit bulls are dangerous? Trying to determine what percentage of pit bulls are involved in attacks is difficult, if not impossible. As it is generally acknowledged that a large percentage of dogs are never licensed, it is impossible to know how many dogs there are of each breed in a municipality.

However, in the city of Toronto study referred to earlier, the pit bulls involved in biting incidents accounted for only 1% of the pit bulls licensed in the city at the time. For comparison purposes, 5% of Labs and 6% of German shepherds licensed within the city had been involved in biting incidents over the same period. Even if we assume that every pit bull in Toronto was licensed at the time, 99% of Toronto's pit bulls did not harm anyone. Clearly, the assumption that all pit bulls are dangerous is not based in fact.

To summarize, there is no scientific data on which to base the conclusion that a breed-based ban is the answer to dealing effectively with the dangerous dog issue. Although such bans might comfort individuals who have had unpleasant experiences with particular breeds or who have heard of attacks by specific dog breeds in the media, the bans do not act to effectively regulate the behaviour of any breed or of dogs and their owners collectively."

You can read the rest of the testimony that McGuinty and Bryant ignored yourself here: http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/2005-01-24_M009.htm

This is a easy part for him, of course: the day he walks out of Club Feb, it'll most likely and hopefully be into the waiting clutches of the Commonwealth of Virginia, a state not exactly known for being soft on criminals.

It is possible for a dog to go bad independent of its human. That is rare, usually it is the human's fault. Of course, if we were all packin' heat, viscious attack dogs wouldn't be a problem.

Meanwhile, the real reason I want to comment is to note that whoever drew that cartoon (unfortunately I can't get the name from the available links) deserves kudos. It wouldn't have worked if real dogs were drawn, but the drawn cartoon dogs actually represent human characters in the guise of dogs.

And that's what it's all about -- people in the guise of dogs.

I've been trying to post text from the committee hearing on Bill 132 (Ontario), banning pitbull type dogs; unsuccessfully due hopefully, to size and not content. In any case I've provided the link below to the hearing and please pay special attention to Dr. Tim Zaharchuk, of the Ontario Veterinarian Medical Association who speaks out against Breed Specific Legislation. He also speaks out against some of the logic and reasoning given why pitbull type dogs should be banned, much of which has been shared in this blog. It's worth a read as it also speaks to the character of Dalton McGuinty who, in light of reason and fact provided to him by subject matter experts, still forced this bill through. http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/2005-01-24_M009.htm

Vitruvius - great post, interesting perspective on the cartoon.

His career isn't over yet. A couple of years in the slammer then...
The CFL baby! Yes sir, this has the TO Argo's written all over it.

PETA has killed more dogs then he has

Gotta keep spooks in their place?
A LOT of press for the low priority story this was.
Sure he's a creep, but the coverage and hate generated is out of proportion I think.