Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballMan
I dont know why you keep on insisting that I need a way out when I clearly dont. The fact that I doubt Rose did it or not is irrelevant. I didnt write the article alleging that he made managerial decisions based on what he was and wasnt betting.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether I think Rose's was innocent of doing what the article claims he did.
I'm not making that claim as I KNOW I cant say for sure. He may have let his betting affect his managerial decisions. I dont know. But my belief is
not the claim made in the article.
This whole argument is over whether the article supports the suspicion that Rose used his managerial position to aid his betting habit.
The article is making the claim that Rose was using
his managerial position to aid in his betting. Whether it was when he was betting or not betting.
I found the evidence of 4 games weak.
That's all. I have said that over and over again.
I dont know what you are getting from the article as you havent said as much on that. Mostly it's been vague statements The only statement you made regarding your interpretation of the story was basically what I said. Only difference was you put more emphasis on Rose not betting on those 4 games and using his position has manager to play and not play players as his bets required of him.
Thus affecting the Reds outcome.
I did not find 4 games and roster moves to be sufficient evidence to support the article.
That's it.
|
If you wish to continue please respond to post 311. Maybe you can get some discussion there.