Michael Vick was a criminal. But his dogs were just dogs.
Today, many of them are living happy lives with new masters thanks to an awfully smart move by U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson.
Hudson ordered Vick to pony up about $1 million for his dogs’ care. And as a result, many have been retrained and are now living with experienced foster families around the country. A few are at a sanctuary in Utah. But only two have been euthanized.
The Washington Post has all the details. And if you’re a dog lover, it’s worth reading it all.
Two important caveats: First, this assumes that golfers walk — not ride in carts / buggies. So, a note to my American friends: get walking. (And, by the way, if you walk, you’ll actually finish your round faster than if you ride.)
Second, this does not take into account stress, heart attacks, stroke or other conditions brought on by missing four foot putts or shanking crucial approach shots into greenside lakes. After taking this into account, the researchers discovered that golf actually took twelve years off the average player’s lifespan.
Oh well.
The contrast was almost too much to take.
On Saturday, Big Brown won the Kentucky Derby in commanding fashion, defying mountains of history by winning from the twenty hole and overcoming a lack of experience that many commentators said was insurmountable. If it wasn’t for the tragedy that befell second place finisher Eight Belles in the moments after she crossed the finish line, America would be buzzing today about the possibility of the first Triple Crown winner since 1978.
But the images of Eight Belles after she suffered the fatal fractures of both front legs will be seared into American memories, just as the images of Barbaro breaking down at the Preakness have been.
Much has already been written about Eight Belles’ injury, some of it particularly outrageous. But it’s clear now more than 24 hours after the race that horse racing has a serious problem.
According to Washington Post columnist Andy Beyer, who has covered horse racing for decades, it’s common knowledge within racing circles that horses have become more and more fragile as breeders have chosen speed over soundness and stamina. Indeed, Beyer himself has written about it many times.
But after two tragedies in two years in the only races that most Americans watch, it’s now common knowledge in every household, and it will dominate the discussion over the coming weeks as Big Brown pursues the Triple Crown. Some will insist that synthetic track is the answer. Others will attack the sport as inhumane.
The reality is that very little can be done.
In the days after Barbaro’s injury, I wrote that, “Barbaro’s devastating injury prompts a question: with the risks so high for man and horse, why do it at all?
“But the answer is simple, and it’s a fundamental element of being for these fine horses. Thoroughbreds are born to run. If they weren’t racing each other around the track, they’d be racing each other around the pasture. Running is their nature, coded into every fiber of their being by their DNA.”
Nothing about thoroughbred DNA has changed in the last two years. Great horses are still born to run, just as Eight Belles was.
And if you don’t believe me, consider her performance in the Derby. In the parlance of handicappers, she was clearly second best, dusting the third place horse by nearly 3 lengths, and coming in behind only Big Brown. By doing so, Eight Belles belies any suggestion that she ought not to have been in the race at all. She dueled with the boys, and bested all save one.
So we are left, as ever, with a simple choice. Do we celebrate these animals and their special gifts? Or do we take extreme measures and return them to their pastures and stalls?
I don’t believe we can protect them from their own nature. Great horses will run. There is no sin in watching them do so.
But we can and should do everything in our power to make it as safe as possible. If synthetic surfaces reduce injuries, every track should follow Keeneland’s lead and install them. If there’s more than can be done, the industry should do it. Our pleasure shouldn’t come at these beautiful creatures’ expense.
Needless to say, there has been a tremendous amount of coverage on this. I submit a few must-read items for your consideration:
The indispensable Andy Beyer’s post-race column. Keep checking back on his index page here in the coming days. For my money, when it comes to horse racing, there’s no better or more insightful commentator.
The normally annoying Sally Jenkins wrote a good column that really makes my point better than I can.
Superb on-going coverage from the New York Times’ horse racing blog, The Rail.
Sadness and defensiveness from local Kentucky columnists.
I’ve now been in London just about a month, and during that time, I’ve been doing my best to learn about sports (or sport, as it’s called here) in my new homeland. In particular, I’ve been trying to figure out why people in the UK are mad about football. For the first few weeks, I didn’t get it at all.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, I sat in a pub (and later in my flat), and watched the most extraordinary day of English football that anyone here can remember in a long time. It was on that day that I fell in love with the FA Cup.
Before I explain what happened, let me give my American readers a little lesson in English football. Unlike our professional sports leagues, there are literally dozens of professional football clubs scattered around England and Wales. The best twenty play in the Premiership. These are the teams you’ve heard of: Chelsea, Arsenal, and Manchester United among others. The next best twenty-four play in the Championship League. And there are some awfully good clubs in that league, too. The next twenty four teams play in League One, the next twenty-four in League Two, and so on down to League Seven. At the end of the season, generally speaking, the best two or three teams from each league are promoted one level. The worst two or three are relegated down one level. (The relegation rules can be a little complex, so I’m oversimplifying here. If you want the details, try reading this.) So, through the season, each club plays within its league and attempts to win its championship. All in all, it’s pretty straightforward. And for me, with the exception of the rivalries among the big four, it’s not terribly interesting.
The FA Cup is an entirely different kind of animal. Instead of being a league competition, it’s a season-long tournament. And all 92 teams in the top four leagues, plus a whole bunch of others from the lesser ranks, are eligible to play. Best of all, there’s no seeding. Match-ups are generally drawn out of a bag at the start of each round. That means that on any given weekend, a top team like Chelsea might be playing a small-town team like Barnsley. And even better, that the smaller team might win.
Imagine if the NCAA Men’s Basketball tournament was open to every team, not just in Division I, but in the entire NCAA hierarchy. And that a Division II team like Florida A&T knocked off a powerhouse like North Carolina or Duke.
Granted upsets like that don’t happen that often. But for fans, there’s always hope. And it’s years like this one that feeds that hope.
Two weeks ago, Barnsley did, in fact, defeat Chelsea in the quarter finals of the FA Cup. That victory came just a couple of weeks after their improbable upset of Premiership powerhouse Liverpool. Hours later, teams from West Bromwich and Cardiff City also secured places in the FA Cup semi-finals to ensure that of the four teams in the semis, only one — Portsmouth — would represent the Premiership.
Today, Portsmouth knocked off West Brom to ensure that the Premiership will have an entry in the final. Tomorrow, Barnsley — which stands to be relegated to League One at the conclusion of Championship League play in a few weeks — will play Cardiff City to see if their Cinderella run can carry them all the way to the final.
In my pub this afternoon, I was joined by a few other FA Cup lovers, gathered around a television at one end of the room, while a larger, noisier contingent shouted on Arsenal and Liverpool in the Premiership match at the other. That match ended in a 1-1 draw, and the two rivals will play again next week. Other than turning around when a particularly overwhelming roar went up, I never cast much of a glance at the big boys slugging it out. There was something far more appealing to me about the match I was watching, and the tournament that pits David against Goliath and gives each an even chance.
So tomorrow at 4:00 p.m., Barnsley appear in an FA Cup semi-final for the first time since 1912 with a chance to get to the finals. Trying to think of a parallel in U.S. sports is almost impossible. Imagine the Cubs getting ready to play game seven of the National League Championship Series, only they were a AAA team.
If you’re in the U.S., find yourself a respectable pub like Ireland’s Four Courts in Arlington, VA and go and watch the game. It starts at 11:00 a.m. on the east coast. And what could be better than brunch, a little football, and an amazing Cinderella tale?
In the meantime, put me down as an FA Cup fan. As for the Premiership, too much hype and not enough enthusiasm. Call me when they’re playing for something that they think matters.
Cam: I’m beginning to think that my idea of taking the week before Christmas as vacation is the worst idea of 2007. I originally planned on going to Arkansas to help my mother move, but had to scuttle that idea hours before I was supposed to board a plane. Now I’ve been home all week, and I think it’s fair to say I’m going a little stir-crazy.
But surely there are worse ideas this year. Jamie-Lynn Spears thinking “Oh, he’ll pull out”, for instance. Hillary Clinton’s Christmas commercial. The mortgage bailout. Democrat leadership deciding to go after Rush Limbaugh for his “lack of support for the troops”. Alan Keyes getting an invite to the Iowa debate. The CNN debates in general. The Steinbrenners and their treatment of Joe Torre. Mike Gundy’s “I am a man! I’m 40!” comments. The list goes on and on.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, because it’s really hard to pick ONE bad idea. But how about Hollywood’s desire to make a successful anti-war film. We’ve seen the results. You could release a movie called “Bucky Takes a Dump” (featuring a talking cat and the wacky adventures with his litter box) and it would be more successful than Hollywood’s anti-war films have been this year. Yet we all know how well Hollywood listens to their audience, so I’m guessing 2008 will be filled with more of the same.
Jim: That’s an awesome nomination, Cam. Dang, it seems like there’s always more good nominees for the worst categories than the best categories. I think I’m going to go with the Earliest Primaries Ever and the Earliest-Starting Campaigns Ever. I’m with Karl Rove in his assessment.
Candidates start early because they think it will give them a leg up. I think we can now declare that the early bird does not always get the key worm endorsement. Ask Vilsack, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo… and Duncan Hunter, you’re overdue. Fred Thompson hasn’t run a fantastic campaign, but he’s more viable than quite a few other candidates who started a lot earlier. I salute his one-man struggle to return some semblence of order to this chaotic system.
The states have moved up their primaries in a Sisyphian effort to become more relevant, and have, in all likelihood, reinforced how important Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are. Time to trash this system. Two options I prefer - start in the smallest states, and work your way up to the biggest - so that the race is interesting all the way until the end; or simply do what the PGA does and start in the good-weather states.
Marshall: Although the idea was born in 2006, it didn’t actually come to fruition until 2007, so I’m naming Senator George Mitchell’s investigation of steroid use in baseball.
Commission Bud Selig, who presided over the entirity of the steroid era, hatched this loser, and for that, he ought to lose his job.
The Mitchell report revealed next to nothing of any consequence about steroid use in baseball. The only real evidence it offered were from steroid dealers who had an incentive to exagerate. The players implicated were given no chance to respond. And the report and the information in it are an embarrassment to the game.
And what did the game get in return?
Nothing. No greater clarity on the steroid era. No closure. No concerns put to rest.
As one commentator said last week, it was like baseball had a big pile of manure in the living room, and decided to clean it up with a leaf blower. They got a little out the door, to be sure, but most of it ended up on the walls.
Michael Vick is a scoundrel. That much is abundantly clear following his sentencing on Monday for crimes related to organizing and running a dogfighting ring in southside Virginia. He deserves every minute of the sentence he’ll be serving in a federal correctional facility over the next two years.
And if stupidity were a crime, Vick would be going up the river for life.
After negotiating a plea bargain with federal prosecutors in the face of incriminating testimony from two of his co-conspirators, Vick only had to tell the truth, cooperate with the FBI and prosecutors, and stay out of trouble.
Instead, Vick got busted smoking dope and continued to lie to the authorities, even while hooked up to an FBI polygraph machine. Even worse, an FBI source told ESPN that Vick had actively mislead agents despite his agreement to help them break up other dogfighting rings.
But even as Vick was boarding the prison van to return to jail, his friends and Falcon teammates were starting to show their true colors with public expressions of support for the incarcerated quarterback.
Worse, by this morning, some in the media were wondering whether the sentence was too harsh or if Vick was being treated unfairly because of his celebrity. Some critics of the sentence were even pointing to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution calculation that Vick would incur financial losses totaling $142 million.
It’s as though in the intervening hours they had somehow forgotten Vick’s admission that he committed inhumane acts of cruelty and then spent months lying about it to the authorities, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Vick is a criminal, and he should be treated as such. Being a criminal doesn’t make him an especially marketable commodity any more, so as a result, he’s forfeiting his football and endorsement income.
The explanation is simple, and has nothing to do with Vick’s celebrity: Michael Vick broke the law. He behaved abominably. And he brought the consequences on himself.
Some additional reads:
- An impeccable column by ESPN legal expect Lester Munson.
- A column from Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon, titled appropriately, “The Sentence Reflects the Lies.”
- My own previous thoughts on Michael Vick here.
I read this morning that the Baseball Hall of Fame’s Veterans Committee had elected a slate of new members to the Hall, including former commissioner Bowie Kuhn. The news prompted me to think again about Barry Bonds and realize that I haven’t posted anything substantive here about him since he was indicted.
I don’t think my view on this will surprise anyone who read this post, but just in case ….
I hope Barry Bonds is found guilty and goes to jail.
Now, let me be clear: I don’t really have any good sense of the evidence against Bonds. I’m assuming, for the sake of discussion, that he’s guilty and will be convicted. That’s not a certainty, especially given that his trial will conducted in San Francisco, where a jury not of his peers but of his fans will pass judgement on him.
As I’ve said before, I view Bonds as a cheat who has taken much from baseball and given essentially nothing in return. Even worse, as a son of the game and the godson of Willie Mays, Bonds ought to know better.
That’s not to say baseball shouldn’t carry some of the blame for Bonds’ transgressions. Which is why there’s something vaguely gratifying about the idea that the sport’s most notable record could be held by a notorious cheat and convicted felon.
Still, assuming he is found guilty, Bonds’ dishonesty will be confirmed for the world, and the fact that he would try to cheat the federal justice system after cheating baseball for so long will come as a surprise, I suspect, to no one.
In the days following Bonds’ indictment, I heard someone say that convicting Bonds of perjury was reminiscent of getting Al Capone for tax evasion. It didn’t matter that the charge sounded inadequate. It only mattered that the criminal was being punished. That sounds right to me.
One final thought: In a few years, Bonds’ name will appear for the first time on a Hall of Fame ballot. It is my fervent hope that the writers who cast those ballots will reward Bonds’ behavior by refusing to enshrine him with the game’s greats. Just as Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose — baseball’s other cheaters — have been excluded, Bonds simply isn’t worthy to be in their presence.
Jim: I had been urging Marshall to return to blogging, just so I could hear his take on Bonds. I’m hoping the reaction of some sports writers is right - that the day Bonds was indicted wasn’t a dark day for baseball; it was a day that we finally saw a light at the end of the tunnel. Law and order is being restored to the game; the cheaters and the ‘roiders are being caught and exposed. The return of consequence and justice to the game are long, long overdue.
Well, another exciting humdrum World Series comes to a close, with the mighty Boston Red Sox sweeping it again. Gosh, one of these years it’d be nice to see another team win a couple of games so the boys can bring it all home in Fenway.
I noticed someone was a bit snarky about the Sox win.
The Yankee fan in me wonders if the entire season — including the Red Sox championship — has an asterisk because of Barry Bonds. But the raw baseball fan in me is forced to salute another fantastic postseason performance, first a great comeback, then sweeping what had been the team with the hottest of hot streaks. Enjoy it, Red Sox nation. Just know you’re forced to share your victory with Rudy Giuliani.
To answer your question… no, there’s no asterisk, unless you want to put one down to note that the Yankees lost in the first round of the playoffs.
As for the Rockies, I have a soft spot for them. Back in my days of doing a sports talk show, we had OSU baseball coach Tom Holliday on quite a bit, and this was about the time his son was trying to decide between going to college as a quarterback or playing professional baseball. I’d say Matt made the right decision, though he needs to watch those long leads at first.
So Jim… whatcha think of A-Rod leaving the Yankees?
Jim: I’m in an odd, conflicted state towards the Yankees right now. Torre was treated badly by management, no two ways about it. When a guy wins year in, year out, collects a slew of rings, etc., the way he has, he manages until he doesn’t want to anymore. (In football, I’d offer that setup for Belichek, Dungy, Shanahan and Billick.) Perhaps he was getting tired of it all, but it ought to have been his choice - not turning down a smaller one-year contract. And then, if he turns down the offer, you give him a send-off with all the bells and whistles, saluting him as one of the all-time great leaders in Yankee history.
Having said that, Girardi seems like a nice choice.
Rodriguez put up monster numbers, but let’s face it, his tenure with the Yankees was always surrounded by drama and controversy. After a couple of years being stuck in only moderate excellence (making the postseason, getting bounced early) I can’t help but wonder if the organization would be wise to stop trying to assemble the All-Star team every year and just put together a good group of hardworking guys who put the team first. Oh yeah, and get all the pitching you can.
In the world of sports, I’m more irked that it took the Jets a 1-7 record before they made a change I recommended at 1-3. The decision-making of Jets coach Eric Mangini has been maddening this year.
After declaring Belicheck’s taping “disappointing” and “stupid,” Dean Barnett finally gets angry… at New York Jets’ coach Eric Mangini:
“If Belichick has been doing this for several years, Eric Mangini knew about it for several years. Obviously his conscience didn’t overwhelm him while he was collecting Super Bowl rings at Belichick’s side. Nor did his commitment to truth, justice and the American way manifest itself immediately when he donned the cleansing green and white of the New York Jets. Strangely, Mangini only entered high dudgeon mode when the chance to do real damage to the Patriots presented itself after the commissioner had promised strong penalties if teams brought video cameras to the sidelines.”
That “if” in the first sentence assumes facts not in evidence. As it is, we know of two instances where somebody complained about the Patriots’ taping: the Green Bay game last year and the Jets game this year. (And as somebody else noted, if there’s no in-game advantage, why did the Patriots record the Packers, a team they won’t play again for another four years? The only reason you would do that is to use what you learned from recording the signals during that game.) So let’s drop the argument that recording the signals doesn’t have any effect on the game during which it occurs.
As for why Mangini would report Belichick as a rival but not as an employee, I can’t believe Barnett is asking the question. He’d lose his job. And as for why Belichick didn’t complain during last year’s games, well, we don’t know for certain that the Patriots did it in last year’s games, or that the Jets noticed it. Or perhaps the Jets decided it was unwise to complain to the Commish until they had hard evidence, the confiscated videotape.
One last point: Mangini was a defensive coach under Belichick; the Patriots were recording the Jets’ defensive signals, information that would only be of use to the Patriots’ offensive unit. It is not a given that Mangini would know the offensive unit’s secret recording efforts.
By the way, if Brian Billick’s complaint is accurate– that Jets defensive players were barking out signals to simulate snap counts and draw the offense offsides in Sunday’s game in Baltimore – I’m disappointed in my team, and Commissioner Goodell ought to punish the Jets organization however he sees fit. This whole how-can-we-work-around-the-rules mentality grates at fans’ hearts; whatever happened to just going out and beating somebody? What, trick plays aren’t enough anymore?
(My only quibble with Billick’s complaint is wondering how he can be certain that the Jets’s defenders were yelling out signals that deliberately mimicked the Ravens’ offensive signals. Isn’t it possible that the teams just have similar terminology? Does either team have a copyright on yelling out “Red 22″ or whatever?)
I also note the classy way Mangini attempted to deal with the situation:
Billick and Mangini spoke yesterday - Mangini placed the first call - and Billick made it sound like the conversation ended on good terms. He insisted he wasn’t thinking about the Jets-Patriots video scandal when he made his comments on Monday, which sparked a firestorm. “This isn’t New England, Part II,” he said from the Ravens’ offices.
Evidently, Billick’s original remarks struck a nerve with Mangini, who is being painted as the bad guy for reporting Belichick’s blatant disregard for league rules. Mangini phoned Billick to let him know the Jets “weren’t trying to pull anything illegal or duplicitous,” Billick said. “He called to make sure I knew it was nothing by design,” Billick said. “Halfheartedly, I said, ‘You’re better than me.’ I coach it. Frankly, we don’t get away with it that often. That’s gamesmanship.”
UPDATE: In the comments, John wants evidence that taping can be used in a game, citing “intense time constraints.” I’m not so sure the constraints are so overwhelming. Even if, say, three coaches are sending in signals, on the first play, you know those three signs (A, B, or C) are the sign for the defense in the first play. Any time the defense re-uses that play or package, you can eliminate any coach’s signal that contradicted the first sign as a decoy; whichever coach gave the same signal is the real signal. Also, on each subsequent play, any repeated signal by the same coach that precedes a different strategy or arrangement by the defense can also be discarded as a fake. (Keeping all of these signs straight probably requires great concentration and an eye for detail, which is why the taping provides such an advantage.) It’s not like you need an Enigma codebreaker here; it’s simply a matter of observing the signs and the defensive plays and seeing which pairs match up consistently.
By the second or third drive (unless it was a 3-and-out, atypical for the Jets’ defense), you start accumulating enough evidence to see which signals are predictive (i.e., which signal always shows up when there’s a safety blitz on the right side). Even if the analysis took an hour (and I’ll bet someone prepared can do it in less time), footage recorded in the first quarter can easily be ready for usage in the fourth quarter.
As for the argument that Belichick’s recording represented “data collection for its own sake,” it seems like an enormous risk (particularly after the warning from the Green Bay game), for no discernable advantage. If Belichick chose to do something that he knew the League had banned, and warned him about (and ultimately could cost him a $500,000 fine, cost the organization a $250,000 fine, and possibly a first round draft choice), just for the sake of his urge to collect information, he’s beyond obsessed to reckless.
If Dean Barnett were an Atlanta Falcon fan, we would be hearing about how dogfighting isn’t such a big deal and that rivals were whining because they were jealous of Vick’s success in pitting dogs against each other in deathmatches. And also, probably, how the whole thing was good news for Mitt Romney.
No one has said that the Jets would have won the game if the Patriots had not been videotaping. It’s a straw man that Barnett thrashes with glee. In fact, considering how talent-laden the Patriots are, it’s what makes the videotaping so bizarre — why would a team like the Patriots need to try to steal the Jets’ signals? Between this and the allegations after last year’s Green Bay game, it’s easy to wonder if Belichick’s competitive streak overcomes his good judgment.
Either way, the League has determined videotaping the other team to steal their signals is against the rules. Barnett might be able to dismiss this with a “who cares,” but that’s an easy call for a substitute radio host sitting in the New England area to make; it’s tougher for Commissioner Goodell. After demanding a much higher standard from players in compliance with the rules and good conduct on and off the field, he’s supposed to look the other way when a coach does breaks league rules? If this is such a non-issue, why did Belicheck feel the need to issue an apology to “everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff, and players”? Dean, if even Belichick has dropped the argument that this is no big deal and harmless, then it’s time to stop emulating the Japanese soldiers off on the Pacific Islands fighting long after the Emperor surrendered.
Commissioner Goodell is facing a decision of how you deal with a coach who operates outside the rules. Some have suggested a fine (not a big deal to a wealthy franchise), some have suggested forfeiting draft choices. I think I like the suggestion that Belichick be suspended for one week of practices and a game - later in the season, when the Patriots and Jets play again.
Cam: As a Pats fan, I would have no problem with your suggestion being implemented. I wasn’t keen on the addition of Randy Moss to the team, and this event has me paying far more attention to my mediocre Oklahoma State Cowboys than my excellent New England Patriots.
Marshall: I’m a few days late in weighing in, but as such, I have the benefit of knowing how Goodell did, in fact, act. And also the benefit of knowing that there are new allegations against the Patriots. Specifically, that in addition to their illegal video taping, they may also have been recording audio of the Jets’ quarterback and line calls. If that turns out to be true, I think the Commissioner should take even tougher action against Bellichek and the Pats. Bellichek had already been caught and warned once. He’s serial offender. I think he should be suspended for the remainder of the season and the playoffs. Enough is enough.