Posted on 08/22/2003 10:12:15 AM PDT by Keyes2000mt
Just because I choose to answer outside your narrowly constructed framework doesn't make me inconsistent. It's just not the answer you wanted.
I hope he gets in and will do what I can to help get him in.
I'm glad he's out and will do what I can to see that he stays out.
How is betting on a baseball game and not doing anything but trying to win more damaging to the game than a guy showing up drunk, on drugs or on steroids?
This is your comparison. My position (which has been consistent throughout) is that betting on baseball, even to win, is damaging enough that it warrants a lifetime ban. A manager managing his team to win a single game, that he has bet a significant sum on, may choose tactics and misuse players in ways that would hurt his team in the long run, and possibly damage a player's career. If that manager bets on his team to win on certain nights he is delivering a message to the gambling community as to what he thinks of his team's chances on the nights he does not bet. Finally, should that manager become significantly indebted to a bookie the likelihood that he would be encouraged to throw games increases. For the above reasons, I strongly believe that anyone who bets on their own sport while they are active in it, deserves to be banned, regardless of whether or not an "affect on the game" has been proven. Again as far as drinking, drugs, steroids, etc., I believe that these are damaging to the game to varying degrees and should be addressed more seriously up to and including lifetime bans for certain offenses. My personal position is consistent. You wish to give Rose a pass because you find MLB to be inconsistent. I do not.
That isn't any narrow construction. I am talking about objective analysis. I have been a fan of basball all my life and I care about the game, but I don't feel the need to punish the guy anymore than he already has been for what it is said he did.
I have been a fan of baseball all my life and I care about the game, although I believe the game is being seriously diminished by the actions of the players, the owners, and this commissioner. I think that the punishment fit the crime. I believe that Rose could have taken actions that would have led to his reinstatement, whether I supported it or not. He has chosen not to do so.
Now, if it came out that he threw games that would be a different matter, but it hasn't come out that he threw games. Is a gambling "addiction" or "problem" more severe than a drug, alcohol or steroid addiction. ESPECIALLY the steroid use. They flat KNOW that guys have used steroids for years and this DIRECTLY affects the games that are played.
Comparing addictions doesn't have any bearing as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I believe that steroid use should be severely punished, up to and including lifetime bans. However, because MLB's actions do not rise to what I consider an appropriate level here, it does not follow that penalties should then be lessened for gambling on the game. I would work for stronger enforcement and penalties in this area as opposed to further weakening them in others.
So, here we have one man who no one has offered any proof that he did anything to affect the outcome of any game, except try to win and many other guys using drugs to alter their own performance, in essence cheating, just like a race horse that was injected with something to win the race.
For the last time, "affecting the outcome" is not necessary for Rose's ban. What he did was damaging enough to the game. I can't make you see what you coose to ignore. I believe that guys using performance-enhancing drugs should be dealt with similarly, but I don't feel that Rose gets a pass because MLB doesn't do so. MLB needs to step up penalties in this area not lessen them in others.
Where is the outrage, yours and MLBs, at what obviously is the greater crime?
I already told you that I was outraged which you dismissed. I really don't care which is the greater crime or why MLB isn't as outraged as it should be, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION. All I care about is that Rose's ban fit the crime. If other transgressions are not being addressed appropriately, then they should be.
Why is the first guy banned for life and the others keep drawing a paycheck?
Because "the first guy" deserves it. Others who may also deserve it are lucky that I'm not running the show.
If you don't see that as inconsistent then....
You feel that Rose deserves reinstatement because MLB chooses to be inconsistent in how it addresses other transgressions that directly "affect" the game.
If you don't see the fallacy in that reasoning then...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.