Well...Vick's turn has come to face Goodell...

That's crap. One of the charge he is facing is conspiracy. Which means he doesn't need to have his hands dirty, just a link to show that he agreed to be involved in some manner in illegal dog fighting (which could be even to the extentofsponsoring training facilities). They don't need a smoking un with Vick's fingerprints.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...NIKE?SITE=TNNAT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

nike drops his line.

 

Yes I have read te indictment. The 80+ incidences are all allegations. I'm not saying he's innocent, I really don't care, but there is no physical evidence. Just the word of other dogfighters attempting to get a deal. The feds should have placed a mole in the ring to get some detailed physical evidence.

You are making my point. It's a conspiracy charge, which is difficult to prove. Without proof the NFL will be hard pressed to suspend Vick. Bottom line is the NFL looks at the situation and thinks "if he's innocent, do we still have grounds to suspend?" With Pacman they did. With Vick they don't.

 

So, enlighten us, which grounds did they have to suspend Pacman? He hasn't been found guilty of anything other than disorderly conduct, so nothing else has been proven. Then he has 2 counts of not telling the NFL about an arrest. That doesn't even come close to justifying the suspension Pacman got.

 

Way to sidestep a suspension. Goodell will look really weak if Vick gets a leave of absence.

 

conspiracy is usually quite easy to prove seeing as you do not even have to have the means to commit the crime or even the intention to do so to be guilty. Just stating you would like to sell some heroine would, in theory, be enough to get a conspiracy conviction. As usual though only the poor usually go to jail for conspiracy as in America you get as much justice as you can afford.

 

Get with it Sherlock.

At the most basic level, the conspiracy charges means that Vick and his buddies agreed to start a dog fighting venture and then took steps to do so. According to the indictment Vick and his pals bought and developed property, bought dogs, trained and bred dogs to fight, took dogs across state lines to fight, invited dogs from outside Virginia to fight, and funded other expenses of the operation.

To be guilty of conspiracy, Vick only needs to have conspired (or agreed) to be involved in one facet of this activity. The fact that it is his property is not in dispute. I can't see how he is anything but a co-conspirator.

And conspiracy charges are not hard to prove.

In essence, the members of the grand jury are asked two questions. First, is there reason to believe, based on the testimony given by the witnesses that a crime was committed? Second, is there reason to believe, based on the testimony given that the defendant (in this case Mr. Vick) is guilty. The prosecutor's burden of proof is exceedingly low, which is much different than a criminal trial where guilt must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.