Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksabr
[*]Even if he bet only on his team to win, and only in the selected games on which he did bet, that in itself is problematic, because the very act of his not betting on the other games is a tell to the bookies he's acquainted with that he doesn't believe the Reds have as much of a chance, which affects the betting, and furthermore, that could have been an actual arrangement he had with bookies that he could get a kickback on. That is an actual thing. Maybe that does not affect the competitive integrity of this particular game on this particular day, but it does sully the general integrity of the game for it to be used by players and managers inside to communicate to gamblers outside on their chances for making a bet, even if explicitly by the action of not making a bet.
|
just my 2 cents on this one... even if we assume it's true he only bet on the Reds to win; chances are, he didn't always win those games. Start losing too many of those bets and suddenly those bookies start pulling his strings for their benefit, whether he wants to make a bet or not.
someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the HOF isn't actually affiliated with MLB itself, right? So technically, the HOF/sportswriters can decide to elect anyone they want, regardless of MLB banishment. They just choose to abide by those bans and not make them eligible. MLB doesn't have to change the rule at all, the HOF can just choose ignore the ban (I don't see that happening, but it's an option).