What Happens If An ESPN Report Negates An ESPN Report?

Friday, August 24, 2007

Does Bristol implode? Who knows, but we're about to find out. In an awesome catch this morning by MDS over at Fanhouse, we've learned that an analyst doesn't believe last night's Breaking News on Mike Vick.

ESPN's legal anyalist Roger Cossack was on ESPN Hollywood Cold Pizza First Take this morning disputing the ESPN Breaking News item that Vick won't have to admit to killing dogs and gambling. Via MDS and Fanhouse....

Last night ESPN reported that although Falcons quarterback Michael Vick intends to plead guilty to federal conspiracy charges on Monday, he will not admit to killing dogs or gambling, the two crimes that would be likely to significantly damage his ability to return to the NFL some day.

But on ESPN First Take this morning, ESPN legal analyst Roger Cossack said of the report, "It's hard for me to believe." Cossack explained that if the federal prosecutors allow Vick to enter a plea in which he does not take responsibility for killing dogs or gambling, the prosecutors are essentially saying that it's OK with them for Vick and his co-defendants to make mutually exclusive claims in their "confessions."
I was pretty much done with the whole Vick thing, but now I'm back in. This wouldn't be the first time ESPN has pulled this. Heck earlier in this whole ordeal Chris Mortensen botched about 4 reports on Vick.

I'm also with Cossack on this one. If this is actually the case, people should (and probably will be) in an uproar.

ESPN Legal Analyst Casts Doubt on ESPN Report on Michael Vick Guilty Plea (Fanhouse)

Posted by Awful Announcing- at 10:24 AM


Who would you be outraged at? The Feds? If this is the case, the Feds would have agreed to it. If they had a sufficient case to prosecute Vick on gambling and dog killing charges, why offer a plea that excludes those charges? Vick? Is he supposed to cop to heavier charges if he doesn't have to? When he pleads, he's definitely going to do time. He's not getting off scott free. Why would there be an uproar? People have done worse and done no time.

Gangsta D said...
Aug 24, 2007, 11:22:00 AM  

Come on guys. It was a slow news night. The Yankees weren't playing. The Red Sox were rained out. The Beckham game was in progress. The biggest story was between Little League and pre-season football.

That gives ESPN the right to just make up sh*t, right?

Anonymous said...
Aug 24, 2007, 11:42:00 AM  

Ha...you're right Anon.

GD- It's just a closure thing. People think of him as such an awful person and want him to fry. Copping a deal without having to admit anything would piss a ton of people off.

Aug 24, 2007, 11:50:00 AM  

I kinda figured the weirdness of this whole thing wasn't quite settled yet.

Thanks Mike Vick!

"I wish people would stop sugarcoating it," Boddie told The Journal-Constitution. "This is Mike's thing. And he knows it ... likes it, and he has the capital to have a set up like that."

hollywood wags said...
Aug 24, 2007, 11:52:00 AM  

Cossack has to be right. You cannot plead guilty to charges without admitting the underlying crime. It's, like, the law and stuff. In fact, once you plead guilty, the judge asks you specific questions about the facts listed in the indictment and you have to admit it, or else the court won't accept the plea.

Anonymous said...
Aug 24, 2007, 12:17:00 PM  

There is a way to take a plea bargain without admitting to any wrongdoing. It's called an Alford Plea. Is this the case here? I don't know. Frankly, I think he's still in denial.

Bruce said...
Aug 24, 2007, 1:29:00 PM  

So... it looks like he admitted to killing the dogs (i think?) but the AP article i read makes no mention of gambling...

I guess BOTH espn's were right!

Anonymous said...
Aug 24, 2007, 3:21:00 PM  

I've heard this a few times today, that Vick wasn't admitting to gambling so that the NFL wouldn't come down even harder on him.

What people are failing to realize is that the NFL isn't a court of law. They'll weigh all of the evidence, whether it's in the plea agreement or not. Does anyone really think Roger Goodell is going to say, "Oh! Well, there's no gambling in the affidavit, that part must have been a big misunderstanding!"

Also, I'm guessing the legal strategy behind not admitting to actually killing the dogs is to not give the prosecution any cheap points in a Virginia state case. Just a hunch.

Aug 24, 2007, 3:53:00 PM  

Roger Cossack is quite photogenic.

GMoney said...
Aug 24, 2007, 3:54:00 PM  

This is why ESPN needs competition, or an ombudsman who has the authority to hang the guy who let last night's SportsCenter get through by the balls.

And what does it take for Chris Mortensen to get fired?

Anonymous said...
Aug 24, 2007, 4:17:00 PM  

"This is outrage of justice!"

- Nicole Ritchie, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton

Anonymous said...
Aug 24, 2007, 5:04:00 PM  

"Who is Michael Vick?"

- Sage Steele

Anonymous said...
Aug 24, 2007, 5:05:00 PM  

RUTS- Good point on the state case. Although, Poindexter basically had to be dragged kicking and screaming to say he would file charges, so don't be surprised if he decides not to prosecute, afterall.

Bruce said...
Aug 24, 2007, 6:34:00 PM  

Mike is bitch snitchin!!!

The fuckin irony...

DMX in tha house!!!!

Wait, I mean, those were my cousin's dogs...yeah, my cousin's...


hollywood wags said...
Aug 24, 2007, 8:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment