Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fozzy" data-source="post: 2579300" data-attributes="member: 283991">argue for Pete Rose&#039;s reinstatement? It seems the only argument most people have about the subject is that &quot;Steroids are MUCH worse than betting on your team to win.&quot; What sort of straws would the Rose apologists blindly grasp at had steroids never been an issue? Or would they perhaps actually get it that what Rose did was incredibly wrong and not deserving of leniency if there had not been something happen that they somehow think was more egregious?For Machinehead - when Bonds becomes eligible, will you use &quot;SEVEN HUNDRED, SIXTY-TWO&quot;&nbsp; as an argument for him? After all, he is the lifetime leader in homers.For Real Eyes&nbsp; - so should baseball lower its&#039; standards to meet those of the NFL? Or would perhaps the better solution be for the NFL to raise its&#039; standards instead? You may as well state that the WWE allowed steroid use for years, so why is it so bad?For Sox Fan - I agree that it&#039;s a stupid argument to make, but it seems it is made all of the time -&nbsp; You know - &quot;If steroid users can still play, why can&#039;t Pete Rose be reinstated?&quot;. And can you really be sure it never affected the way Rose managed? He has admitted that he did not bet on every game. Could it be possible that he may have stuck with a pitcher too long, or maybe played a player who could have really used a day off to try harder to win? Keep in mind that part of managing a baseball team is managing for 162 games, and that sometimes actually involves realizing that a game is out of reach and simply letting it go on order to set yourself up for the next game? And wouldn&#039;t part of the fact that Rose didn&#039;t bet on his team to win every single game mean that he was in effect betting against his team on those days - saying they didn&#039;t have a chance to win so why bet?Again for Machinehead - I like your comment &quot;Who the f*ck do you think you are to impose your holier-than-thou morals on others?&quot; Are you not imposing YOUR morals on me by stating that? Are you not judging me in your statement? Shame that what could be a fairly intelligent discussion has to end up in a pissing match and a personal attack.Again for Machinehead - I like your comment &quot;Who the f*ck do you think you are to impose your holier-than-thou morals on others?&quot; Are you not imposing YOUR morals on me by stating that? Are you not judging me in your statement? Shame that what could be a fairly intelligent discussion has to end up in a pissing match and a personal attack.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fozzy, post: 2579300, member: 283991"] argue for Pete Rose's reinstatement? It seems the only argument most people have about the subject is that "Steroids are MUCH worse than betting on your team to win." What sort of straws would the Rose apologists blindly grasp at had steroids never been an issue? Or would they perhaps actually get it that what Rose did was incredibly wrong and not deserving of leniency if there had not been something happen that they somehow think was more egregious? For Machinehead - when Bonds becomes eligible, will you use "SEVEN HUNDRED, SIXTY-TWO" as an argument for him? After all, he is the lifetime leader in homers. For Real Eyes - so should baseball lower its' standards to meet those of the NFL? Or would perhaps the better solution be for the NFL to raise its' standards instead? You may as well state that the WWE allowed steroid use for years, so why is it so bad? For Sox Fan - I agree that it's a stupid argument to make, but it seems it is made all of the time - You know - "If steroid users can still play, why can't Pete Rose be reinstated?". And can you really be sure it never affected the way Rose managed? He has admitted that he did not bet on every game. Could it be possible that he may have stuck with a pitcher too long, or maybe played a player who could have really used a day off to try harder to win? Keep in mind that part of managing a baseball team is managing for 162 games, and that sometimes actually involves realizing that a game is out of reach and simply letting it go on order to set yourself up for the next game? And wouldn't part of the fact that Rose didn't bet on his team to win every single game mean that he was in effect betting against his team on those days - saying they didn't have a chance to win so why bet? Again for Machinehead - I like your comment "Who the f*ck do you think you are to impose your holier-than-thou morals on others?" Are you not imposing YOUR morals on me by stating that? Are you not judging me in your statement? Shame that what could be a fairly intelligent discussion has to end up in a pissing match and a personal attack. Again for Machinehead - I like your comment "Who the f*ck do you think you are to impose your holier-than-thou morals on others?" Are you not imposing YOUR morals on me by stating that? Are you not judging me in your statement? Shame that what could be a fairly intelligent discussion has to end up in a pissing match and a personal attack. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…