When the law and sports intersect I turn to Rob Becker, legal analyst for FoxSports.com. You can check out his views on Tim Donaghy’s plea deal here or Michael Vick’s arraignment here. Rob stays busy but he set aside some time to answer a few questions about the Michael Vick case for YBB. Read the full story

How many times have you heard a lawyer (real or fake) say “I could indict an innocent man/dead man/ham sandwich? The idea being that it’s easy to get an indictment. So when the feds come back and say that they are unlikely to indict Vick because:

The authorities have told the Falcons and league that there has not been any evidence that can be tied to Vick with the alleged dogfighting ring.

That’s a pretty powerful statement. It goes against almost everything we’ve heard during this saga. Michael Vick was tried in the media, and found guilty, because people wanted him to be guilty. There was a rush to judgment on the public’s part, but with a lot of the misinformation being given, what could you expect?

Whatever happened to the videotape that shows Mike Vick at a dogfight party? It would’ve turned up by now if it really existed. It sucks that something like that can get floated out by major outlets without consequence. Vick got done wrong in the media, Dwil has a whole lot more to say about it, and hopefully everybody has learned from it.

The news is good for Michael Vick but not for everybody in his camp. The feds still plan to indict at least 3 people, and the Surry County investigation hasn’t concluded yet. At least Vick’s name is safe from the smut for a few days.

Vick indictment seen unlikely in feds’ dogfight probe. Courtesy of ESPN.com

Michael Vick Will Not Be Indicted: Shhhhhhhh! Courtesy of The Starting Five

DIGG IT  *  DEL.ICIO.US  *  REDDIT  *  BALL HYPE