Quote:
Originally Posted by uruguru
The real "larger point" is that all of the innuendo in the world cannot make your point. It's been almost 40 years. Every game that Rose bet or didn't bet on has been examined in detail by people who desperately want to prove he fixed games.
|
And that is entirely irrelevant to the rule involved. It does not matter whether he bet on his own team to win or lose. It's completely immaterial. People keep looking for nuance or loopholes in a rule that has neither. From the 1986 Major League Rules:
Quote:
MLR 21
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
|
There is no ambiguity in the above. There is no wiggle room, no shades-of-grey. The rule is about as black-and-white as it's possible to get.
Bet on someone else's team and you're gone for a year. Bet on your own team and you're gone permanently. That's it.
Rose knew this rule yet stupidly broke it. The fault is entirely his own. If he had limited his betting to other teams he'd have been out for a year and probably would be in the Hall now. But he bet on his own team, got caught, and the axe fell.