TheBoost said:

I didn't mean to imply YOU were the one unfairly comparing the two. Just contrasting the two men's treatment in the general media.

I'm not sure you can point to their 'status' without somehow considering race and perception. Vick wasn't just a footbal player. He was a guy from the projects, doing dirty, project crime. I'm not sure if the backlash would have been quite as heated if Brett Favre was caught doing something cruel to animals with less of a social/racial stigma, for example fox hunting illegally or the Victorian sport of ratting (of course, this is impossible to test objectivly). As for Hollywood, I think there would be a very different mood of Spike Lee gave a girl malt liquor and raped her as opposed to Polanski with qualudes and champagne... a difference in perception based on both race and perceived economic class.

you make a good point here the situation might not have been as heated if Brett Favre was caught fighting dogs. But, on the other hand, Favre couldn't play the race card and he would have Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the NAACP to defend him. Spike Lee would have all those to defend him. I suspect if Lee was the one who raped a 13 year old girl and fled the country and was then caught, I suspect the outcry injustice would be much larger and would include cries of racism. Another example: would Pete Rose still be banned from baseball if he were black?

But I do beleive you and I are in agreement that Polansky and Vick are both scum who should have the book thrown at them.

I agree as well.