I certainly can't respond to that with any degree of legal expertise. But certainly one of the problems with the wording in the legislation that does refer to dogfighting is that it does leave that specific area where one of the examples, at least--whether it's the only acceptable one, or if it's just an example--is that the accused be present at the fighting.
In the Vick case, what happened was, subsequent to another investigation on the property on drug charges, they found evidence that there was dogfighting and that he owned the premises at which it was occurring.