Posted: 6/16/2014 7:41 AM
Posted: 6/16/2014 10:25 AM
Posted: 6/16/2014 10:55 AM
Last edited 6/16/2014 12:38 PM by Skipjacks
Posted: 6/16/2014 11:24 AM
Posted: 6/16/2014 1:54 PM
Last edited 6/16/2014 1:57 PM by insagt1
Posted: 6/16/2014 3:24 PM
insagt1 wrote: This will be interesting for sure. I'm not so sure that someday the roiders will be admitted to the HOF. Time heals some wounds. Rose is banned from baseball first. Just like Shoeless Joe. If Rose gets into the HOF, the Jackson should be right there next to him. IMO.Rose is disliked by many. He is arrogant and defiant. In fact he defines those words. I don't like Selig either. For reasons discussed ad nauseum over the years here and elsewhere. (If you have ever been an Expos fan, you can never like Bud Selig....ever)With some of the craziness going on in pro sport today, it wouldn't surprise me if the ban were ultimately lifted. And if Rose gets into the HOF...I'm sure that you'll see the likes of Bonds and Clemens to follow eventually.I really don't know what I want. Both sides of the discussion are extremely compelling and can't be minimized. (thats why I brought it up....really do want to see what others are feeling about it.)When you reflect today about the passing of Tony Gwynn...there was a man who was a great ballplayer and an even greater human being. I don't think Rose fits both those descriptions.
Posted: 6/16/2014 5:36 PM
Last edited 6/16/2014 5:39 PM by POPPA
Posted: 6/17/2014 1:12 AM
Posted: 6/17/2014 8:48 AM
stephenjames1979 wrote: Question: did Rose ever bet on a game that he is directly had contact with? In other words, did he bet on games that his team played?
Posted: 6/17/2014 8:49 AM
POPPA wrote: I hope the rule stands. We used to be known as a country of rules and the law, that we followed or suffered the consequence.
Posted: 6/17/2014 10:55 AM
Posted: 6/17/2014 12:42 PM
Posted: 6/17/2014 12:53 PM
Posted: 6/17/2014 1:57 PM
stephenjames1979 wrote: If he bet on his team to win and not purposely throw games, then I'm more on the side of Rose. I get that you shouldn't bet on baseball especially after the Black Sox scandal but at the same time those guys were told to throw the game. Lifetime ban is excessive especially when you have players that were allowed to play after being caught drinking and driving, drugs, PED, etc.
Posted: 6/17/2014 2:04 PM
Posted: 6/17/2014 5:15 PM
Skipjacks wrote: stephenjames1979 wrote: If he bet on his team to win and not purposely throw games, then I'm more on the side of Rose. I get that you shouldn't bet on baseball especially after the Black Sox scandal but at the same time those guys were told to throw the game. Lifetime ban is excessive especially when you have players that were allowed to play after being caught drinking and driving, drugs, PED, etc. 1) He has lied to many times about so many aspects of this that there is no reason whatsoever to believe him when he says he never bet against the Reds. 2) Even if he only bet for the Reds to win, it can still adverse affect their chances to win the next night since he would be motivated to use everyone up to insure the win in the game he bet on.
Posted: 6/17/2014 5:40 PM
stephenjames1979 wrote: Even if he did lie, if there is no evidence that he bet against his team then we can't say for sure that he did. Far as him reusing his best players to try and win games, that's a poor argument. The point of using your best players is to win games whether you bet in them or not.
Posted: 6/17/2014 5:42 PM
Posted: 6/18/2014 6:26 PM
Skipjacks wrote: Side note...A buddy of mine has one of these....http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/...3MuYcAZisgQ.jpgBest sports collectible EVER. I made him bequeath it to me in his will.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2014 Microsoft|