Michael Vick's life could be an NFL template. He was born out of wedlock to a 16-year-old woman who already had one child. When he became a disciplinary problem in school, his mum urged him to take up sports. Until his recent troubles, the 27-year-old quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons had an endorsement income heading toward US$50 million and a skyrocketing salary.

He faced the usual pitfalls of celebrity athletes with high testosterone and income to match: in 2006 he settled a negligence and battery suit by a woman who alleged he infected her with genital herpes. Hundreds of thousands of North Americans suffer from herpes which they did not get from toilet seats, but normally they cope with it stoically rather than legally. Giving heckling fans the finger cost Vick a US$10,000 fine plus US$10,000 to charity. Last January, Vick was reluctant to surrender his 20-oz. bottle of Aquafina water to airport screeners. Though it has been suggested that Vick's water bottle was retrofitted with a compartment for contraband, no charges were laid.

Vick's behaviour is unsurprising for a 27-year-old male athlete earning zillions. Until the July 17 dogfighting charges surfaced, I hadn't a clue of his existence. Then came his trial by media. Three other accused copped plea bargains, one in exchange for pointing the finger at Vick. Prosecutors hovered with new indictments if Vick himself didn't agree to plea bargain. I know this game backwards. Whether or not you have feelings about dogfighting -- and personally I think it vile -- watching the pit-bull tactics of American justice makes dogfights look sedate. Vick gave in. "This has already cost him hundreds of thousands in lawyers' fees," said one legal commentator. "A trial would cost him millions."

It takes a hero or a madman to fight the U.S. Department of Justice, and Vick's lawyers were neither. I can't blame them. A gambling conviction would outlaw him from the NFL for life. Just as bad, the superseding indictment was expected to contain RICO(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)charges. That's a killer. RICO sentences are up to 20 years per charge and damages can be tripled. Theoretically designed to prevent organized crime, RICO is now used for just about everything but. "The real purpose of invoking the RICO statutes," writes William L. Anderson, adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, "is to employ a 'legal' weapon that is so powerful that few people can avoid being crushed by it." As Anderson points out, a RICO charge can freeze an accused's assets pre-trial, leaving him no money for a proper defence. Within a week, Vick pleaded guilty to one charge in exchange for "co-operation," a.k.a. fingering other people. That this approach to justice is an outrage seems a matter of indifference to Americans.

Farewell procedure, what about the crime? In gladiatorial human sports such as boxing, wrestling and especially mixed martial arts, there's a good chance of injury and, occasionally, death. I find such sports sick-making, but participants enjoy themselves. I have no idea how dogs feel about fighting. They get terribly mutilated or killed, but this "sport" is apparently enjoyed by huge numbers. Just because many of us find it distasteful and brutalizing does that justify outlawing it?

I wouldn't outlaw bullfighting, fox hunting or shooting birds, which makes me question why I am sympathetic toward outlawing dogfighting. Class and caste play their role: fox hunting is considered upper-class and dogfighting is seen as a vice of the cultural underclass. Dogfighting is gaining popularity in Russia and Afghanistan, where it was outlawed by the Taliban. I suppose it's a step forward for both countries, which formerly used people rather than dogs.

In America, dogfighting is big business. All states legislate against it, though not all against being a spectator at dogfights or owning fighting dogs. Normally Vick would have been charged by the state, but the feds used the vehicle of interstate commerce for jurisdiction, allowing ambitious prosecutors to target this high-profile accused. The selective prosecution of Vick aside, the further question remains: does any government have the right to legislate against entertainment simply because some people find it cruel and repellent? I have three dogs myself and I'd as soon lay down my life for them as see them in a dogfight. But whose tastes are to be the law of the land? My justification is that dogs, including pit bulls and mastiffs, are domesticated animals and using them for so savage an entertainment is uncivilized. But what right do I have to distinguish between "good" blood sports and those my class and culture consider to be bad ones?

Print Article    Send to a Friend    Write a letter to the editor

Digg this Stumble It!   Post to del.icio.us Seed Newsvine   Share on Facebook Technorati links