Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.
Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.
|
The counter argument is that for the Reds games he didn't bet on, is that telling people that may know that they should bet against the Reds since maybe Rose didn't think they would win or would manage the game differently to save his better relievers for a game he was going to bet on.
I'm a big Rose fan because I don't think the 1980 Phillies win the World Series without him, but I go back and forth on if he should be in the HoF because of the betting on his own team since it definitely has the potential to impact the integrity of games even if he never did bet on the Reds to lose. Usually I end up with the compromise that he should have been allowed on the HoF ballot to at least get voted on but shouldn't have been allowed to be hired by a MLB team. When he was first banned, it was still expected that he would be on the HoF ballot, but that was changed before the first time he would have appeared on it to prevent banned players from also being on the ballot.