Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad K
If you wish to continue please respond to post 311. Maybe you can get some discussion there.
|
Post 311 has nothing to do with the article. I have already acknowledge that i dont know for sure that Rose didnt bet against or even for his team. Why do you think i didn't contest Boomcoach's opposing view. I have not claimed for a fact that Rose didn't do what the the article claims that he did. I dont believe he did but i would need to do more research to state it as fact.
The article was on whether Rose was harming the game and betting against his team by using his manager position. The article offered up four games for its claim. I found the claim to be weak. I did not see enough evidence to support the claim that Rose bet on his team to lose or to win. Now if you have a picture of a betting slip from Rose that shows he bet on the reds or a an audio of Rose saying he was starting or not starting players to help his betting during the four games in question i would concede it to be more favorable to the article's claim. But so far my position is that the claim is weak. I offered up reasons why i thought it was weak.
Do you have stronger evidence that his roster moves during the 4 games he didn't bet were due to gambling?
I'm done arguing over this as you simply refuse to say what your interpretation of the article is.