Quote:
Originally posted by dougaiton
The way I see it, if he was betting on his team to lose, it would be exactly the same problem: it still the players that decide the result, but Rose stills has an influence. I think its just as bad both ways - either way, you're involved in influencing the result of a gamble on your own team.
Rose could make his team lose exactly the same as he could make them win - the influence he exerts would be the same (a good pinch-hitter or a bad pinch hitter, good reliever or bad releiver). They are the same moral and legal crime in my book - it makes no difference to the gravity of the crime.
Only when the BlackSox's individual bans are rescinded should Rose lose his. When Shoeless Joe is Hall-eligible (although I don't think he should make it), so should Rose be (who is obviously worthy).
|
I just don't get that. In my book, betting on your team to win and throwing the World Series are very different crimes.
Saying that the Black Sox' bans should be lifted before Rose's is strikes me as completely ludicrous.
-Spielman