Unfortunately for Humpty Dumpty, all Tito Francona's horses and all Tito Francona's men could not put him back together again this evening in the Bronx. The Yankees took two out of three from the Sox, and there are some signs that everything that has gone so spectacularly awry to this point just might start coming together over the next few weeks. Whatever else may happen, it's sure to be a downbeat post on 38pitches, and that's usually cause for celebration on this end.

But baseball is only a peripheral concern this evening. Over the last few weeks, the story that Michael Vick owned a home where his cousin lived and allegedly operated a dog fighting ring has for some strange reason become the biggest single problem in America today. A very, very, very small part of this is my fault because I enjoying ripping Vick and his alter ego Ron Mexico. But now it has gotten way out of hand.

Out of all the parties that have weighed in on this sordid little mess, it is hard to determine who is the most wrong (not grammatically or stylistically elegant, but this situation defies conventional forms of expression). Somewhere in all of this, a tool of note is waiting to be mocked. Clinton Portis, tailback of the Washington Redskins, is a good place to begin.



Portis has waded into the midst of this farce and attempted to defend the indefensible player (Vick) and pastime (dog fighting). NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was not only disappointed, but also embarrassed at Portis' words of something less than wisdom. I don't know if Portis found much time to study jurisprudence in his time at the University of Miami, but that's no excuse for some of what he said.

I particularly enjoyed this gem from Portis' comments: "I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property. It's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it." While I appreciate the sanctity of private property as much as the next man, I don't think the "a man's home is his castle" defense is going to fly in this case. Just because you own a house doesn't mean that you or your guests can commit felonies there till the cows come home. You (or your cousin) can't run a meth lab or fight dogs or ritualistically kill people in your home and get away with it. That's just not the way the world works.

But some of the forces that have arrayed themselves against Michael Vick in this are little better than his would-be defender Clinton Portis. Animal rights groups are calling for the NFL commissioner to make sure that dog fighting is treated with the greatest possible severity under the newly adopted standardized personal conduct policy. And even better, a member United States House of Representatives agrees. And all I can say is...who cares?

Dog fighting is a felony. As such, it should be treated like any other felony under the terms of the new conduct policy at best. At worst, people should realize that just because they have formed inexplicable attachments to a vaguely domesticated four-legged pest-carrying civic nuisance doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit. Domestic violence, operating a motor vehicle, providing dangerous narcotic substances or partaking of same are far more serious offenses than going to the occasional dog fight or sponsoring a combatant.

Don't get me wrong, I do not support dog fighting. I think it is an antiquated, barbaric, disgusting endeavor. It should be illegal. Offenders should be punished when caught in the act. I just hate dogs. And before any reader rises up with bleeding heart over my egregious insensitivity to man's best friend, consider this proposition: when should a felony committed against an animal be regarded as more serious than a felony committed against a person? If your answer isn't never (the malapropism is deliberate, hoping to shock the dog lover back into consciousness), then you're a jackass, and the world would be best served if you opted to save the next generation from the burden of your progeny.

And as for Congressman Tom Lantos, who feels that he needs to take time out of his busy day to press Roger Goodell to strike down on Michael Vick with great vengeance and furious anger, I wonder would the Gentleman from California kindly consider the notion that he and his 434 colleagues might want to exercise the power of the purse to stave off financial ruin from the nation? Perhaps it's better that the Congress confine its powers to regulating sport. God only knows what a mess they could make out of the nation if they actually addressed issues of immediate concern like the war.

I will leave you to decide which of the interested parties can best be described as a tool of note from this post. If I say any more, I fear my readers and I might meet in the Place Where There Is No Darkness.

I must apologize for my long silence. I had some personal business which occupied my time for a few days and I had some travelling I had to do. I really hate flying, so I wasn't in much of a frame of mind to post. The problem with the long delay, beyond the fact that it puts a dent in the slowly increasing stream of visitors to my site, is that I have a few topics I need to cover in a hurry before they get too stale.

First, toward the end of last week, an unnamed source close to Ron Mexico informed a Sports Illustrated writer that the embattled Falcons quarterback (my three word effort at conventional sports journalism) almost certainly knew of the dog fighting ring that allegedly operated out of a Virgina house owned by Michael Vick and inhabited by some of his relatives. This story has been covered thoroughly, but I have to discuss it because it's been bothering me.

I have never understood the rationale that allows sportswriters to cite unnamed sources. Investigative reporters like Woodward and Bernstein need to use unnamed sources because they break important stories which could result in death or serious injury for the whistle-blowers who leak key information. Sports journalists use unnamed sources to carp at athletes, coaches, team executives and owners with immunity for both source and writer with little or no reason to fear anything more than an ass kicking.

Journalists who cover sports aren't breaking stories that will cause the planet to spin off its axis, literally or metaphorically. Even Game of Shadows was little more than a series of leaks from grand jury testimony that did not conclusively prove what 99.9% of sports fans suspected about Barry Bonds in the first place. I have long suspected, with neither the access or to be honest the inclination to ferret out the cold hard truth, that those who use unnamed sources in their coverage of a team or a player are simply protecting a good man for a sound byte because said source makes their jobs easier. To wrap that up in a mantle of journalistic ethics fails to impress me.

But long story short, back to the Ron Mexico story. Don Banks, the SI writer in question, has an unnamed source who has the dirt on the nature of Vick's association with a family member who allegedly ran a dog fighting ring out of the notorious Virginia home and on the nature of Vick's relationship to Falcons owner Arthur Blank. The writer claims that the multiple sources whom he consulted in writing his piece on Michael Vick had to remain anonymous because of their close relationship with him. Perhaps you are willing to accept this, but I am not.

Reviewing the small segments of quotations from these sources provided by Banks, I just don't believe that they came from a member of Vick's inner circle. I know next to nothing about Vick's entourage, but I bet there are very few (if any) guys in his crew who make a habit of using words like affinity. It just doesn't strike me as a word that makes the rounds of those connected to the dog fighting subculture (another choice phrase from the Banks article).

The sources go on to talk about Vick's posse and circle of friends being a part (if not all) of the problem. My question here is simple - if Vick's posse surround him at all times, who is telling Don Banks about his affinity for barbaric sports best left in the medieval period? Sources go on to say (it was unclear whether these were the same unnamed informants or a whole new crop) that Arthur Blank and his wife coddle Vick and let him get away with murder.

Not being a journalist, I can indulge in all sorts of wild speculation. When I first heard the quotes from the article on ESPN, I was no more convinced of the authenticity of the source close to Vick than I am now. For some reason, I got to thinking that it could have been a guy like Jim Mora (Sr. or Jr.) or Greg Knapp who made the comments to Banks.

There is no easy way to prove that either Knapp or Mora made the comments. It would make sense for either one to stay anonymous if they had any hope of landing another coaching gig in the NFL but still wanted to air some grievances against Vick or Blank or both. I couldn't find any smoking gun to that effect, however (this was about as close as I could come).