ESPN blows Vick 'scoop'

That was some scoop ESPN had on Michael Vick Thursday night. The report dominated the network's "SportsCenter" show and ESPNEWS channel well into the early morning hours and was picked up by news organizations around the world within minutes.

Quoting an anonymous source, the report said that when Vick pleads guilty to dogfighting charges, he won't admit any guilt to killing dogs or gambling on dogfighting as detailed in his federal indictment. Instead, the report went on, the Atlanta Falcons quarterback will admit to one count of interstate commerce for the purpose of taking dogs across state lines for dogfighting.

First, ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson speculated that if true, Vick's plea agreement could be jeopardized. Later Roger Cossack, also an ESPN legal pundit, said it was hard for him to believe the report for it would mean that someone was lying to the court and that would no doubt rankle Judge Henry Hudson.

As it turns out Munson and Cossack were both right to be dubious: The report was dead wrong.

When Vick did plea on Friday, he copped to many of the charges but not to betting on the dogfights himself. In the agreement, Vick admitted to conspiracy in a dogfighting ring and acknowledged that the enterprise included killing dogs and gambling. While denying he made side bets on the fights he did avow to bankrolling them. He also conceded that he was involved in the "collective efforts" to kill six-to-eight underperforming dogs.

No one in a decision-making role at ESPN should have underestimated Vick's arrogance, after all he had the stones to tell NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Falcons owner Arthur Blank to their respective faces that he was not involved in dogfighting. But with a prison sentence hanging over his head and his football career in the balance it's hard for anyone, not just the legal analysts, to comprehend why at this stage Vick's legal team would risk their own plea agreement and chance a jury trial where a guilty verdict could mean a much harsher sentence than the reportedly recommended 12-18 months.

With all the manpower ESPN has on this story it seems unconscionable that it could be so far off in its reporting. Maybe the network should reassess its policy of going with a single source on a story of such magnitude. Clearly the informant on this one didn't have his/her facts straight.