The Rose Award For 6-10-2007.
in [Detroit Tigers]
|
From: slidge on 13 Jun 2007 08:38 > > 4256 is well known to baseball fans. Apparently you, and most of > the people you know, don't qualify. > And his gambling is known to even more baseball fans. Apparently you, and most of the people you know, don't qualify, by definition and without qualification. Thanks for playing, please try again.
From: rm on 13 Jun 2007 10:29 In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > In article <jmLbi.210702$3h2.156021(a)fe08.news.easynews.com>, > <rm(a)biteme.org> wrote: > >> You are accusing him of doing this a couple of hundred times, right? > > Nope. Not even once. > > Us simply answered all of y'alls question. Our question was simple. Show us a single example of a situation where Rose made a controversial decision. You then went on to describe a game situation that had nothing to do with Rose or the Reds. You did not answer our question, and it is obvious why you didn't. >> Again, whose interests are conflicted when you bet on yourself to >> win? > Rule 21(d) provides: > Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall > bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which > the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently > ineligible. And that is a bad rule, based on the outmoded notion that gambling is of itself an evil entertainment. Obviously betting against yourself leads to a conflict of interest, and should be banned. But there is nothing "despicable" or immoral at any level about betting on yourself to win. > Where in the rule do you find that it is acceptable to bet even on > your own team to win? We find the rule itself unacceptable. And unacceptable rules should, and often are, ignored. > Any player, even Pete Rose,who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon > any baseball game in connection with which he has a duty to > perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible. And in many states it is still legal to beat your wife, as long as the switch is not thicker than your thumb. But that rule has been ignored for years, even though it has never been taken off the books. We have a duty to ourselves and society to challenge and ignore bad rules. Now, run along and play. cordially, as always, rm
From: rm on 13 Jun 2007 10:30 In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <maxfaq(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> You cannot agree to be banned. > > You can agree to sign an agreement, which, by definition > and without qualification, constitutes agreement. If there is agreement, then there is no ban. >> And what difference does it make that Rose signed it? > Well, you've got me there. Good. Now as we said before, run along and play. cordially, as always, rm
From: TenderRage on 13 Jun 2007 11:09 On Jun 13, 10:29 am, r...(a)biteme.org wrote: > In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <max...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > In article <jmLbi.210702$3h2.156...(a)fe08.news.easynews.com>, > > <r...(a)biteme.org> wrote: > > >> You are accusing him of doing this a couple of hundred times, right? > > > Nope. Not even once. > > > Us simply answered all of y'alls question. > > Our question was simple. Show us a single example of a situation > where Rose made a controversial decision. You then went on to > describe a game situation that had nothing to do with Rose or the > Reds. You did not answer our question, and it is obvious why you > didn't. > > >> Again, whose interests are conflicted when you bet on yourself to > >> win? > > Rule 21(d) provides: > > Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall > > bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which > > the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently > > ineligible. > > And that is a bad rule, based on the outmoded notion that gambling > is of itself an evil entertainment. Obviously betting against > yourself leads to a conflict of interest, and should be banned. But > there is nothing "despicable" or immoral at any level about betting > on yourself to win. > > > Where in the rule do you find that it is acceptable to bet even on > > your own team to win? > > We find the rule itself unacceptable. And unacceptable rules > should, and often are, ignored. > > > Any player, even Pete Rose,who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon > > any baseball game in connection with which he has a duty to > > perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible. > > And in many states it is still legal to beat your wife, as long as > the switch is not thicker than your thumb. But that rule has been > ignored for years, even though it has never been taken off the > books. > > We have a duty to ourselves and society to challenge and ignore bad > rules. > > Now, run along and play. > > cordially, as always, > > rm gambling affects the "natural" order of the game. money motivates one to do more than just win or to (horrible concept) to deliberately lose. gambling on sports isn't a good thing. I don't mean bar bets and local stuff.... I mean the big time bets where teams and players can be cajoled (sp) into doing the wrong thing for profit.
From: TenderRage on 13 Jun 2007 11:10
On Jun 13, 10:30 am, r...(a)biteme.org wrote: > In rec.sport.baseball Steve Cutchen <max...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> You cannot agree to be banned. > > > You can agree to sign an agreement, which, by definition > > and without qualification, constitutes agreement. > > If there is agreement, then there is no ban. > > >> And what difference does it make that Rose signed it? > > Well, you've got me there. > > Good. Now as we said before, run along and play. > > cordially, as always, > > rm gosh....you sound like someone I know by the name of hound....naw, it couldn't be.... : 0 |