Quote:
Originally Posted by Questdog
That is not a well-thought out statement.
One person fixing games, yes......one person betting on his team to win, no......
|
Disagree entirely.
Quote:
|
I agree he should not have bet period, but there is absolute no proof or hint of proof that he ever bet against the Reds.
|
Doesn't matter.
Quote:
|
What he did was wrong because it gave the perception of impropriety.....what the juicers did was wrong because it was 1) illegal and 2) cheating, both in a real sense, not just in the perception........
|
What Rose did was banned decades before Rose was born, and for
very good reason. The players and managers cannot and should not have links to gamblers.
Steroids weren't even enforced until after Rose's ban.
Quote:
|
Back in the late 1800's it was common practice (as in every game) for the two teams to put up a stake to go to the winner of the game. The only difference in what Pete did was that it was no longer an accepted practice.....
|
That's the only difference? This is not a very well-thought-out statement.
Rose dealt with bookies and other criminals. How is two teams placing a prize pool on a game the same as a manager illegally betting through criminal organizations?