now i got you thinking, take the rose example out of this discussion.

 

we are discussing cheating. whether it is scuffing the ball and going to all length

to hide it and some one on PED and going to all length of hiding it.

 

it is still cheating.

different level of cheating.

 

how can 1 come up with an excuse for 1 example of a cheat and let the others go by.

 

it has to be 1 penalty. plain and simple. there is no degrees of interpretation.

 

Rose was not accused of cheating. The ban against betting exists so as not to encourage players/managers to intentionally risk or throw the game in the interest of covering a point spread or whatever.

Rose was not accused of cheating. The ban against betting exists so as not to encourage players/managers to intentionally risk or throw the game in the interest of covering a point spread or whatever.

 

it is still cheating. no matter how you define it.

 

 

edit

 

btw i love your definition. way to go.

Edited October 21, 201411 yr by LDF

now i got you thinking, take the rose example out of this discussion.

 

we are discussing cheating. whether it is scuffing the ball and going to all length

to hide it and some one on PED and going to all length of hiding it.

 

it is still cheating.

 

It is cheating, and there are penalties as such. There are also different levels of cheating, and those will get you different penalties. Cheating is one thing, going to a massive cover up scheme to lie about it is another.

now i got you thinking, take the rose example out of this discussion.

we are discussing cheating. whether it is scuffing the ball and going to all length

to hide it and some one on PED and going to all length of hiding it.

 

it is still cheating.

 

No, you got me disagreeing that they are similar situations, because they are not. Betting on baseball isnt necessarily cheating, but it could be. Regardless, it is a banishment level offense, and everyone in the game knows this. If you are gambling, then you could be throwing games in order to win money, this is something that is controllable by the gambler, ESPECIALLY someone like Rose who was managing the game.

 

Taking a steroid or scuffing a ball to win a game is increasing your chances, but you arent in total control of the outcome, a hitter can still get you, a pitcher can still strike you out.

 

And banning someone for scuffing a ball is just silly.

And banning someone for scuffing a ball is just silly.

(would they eventually work their way up to a ban if they were caught like 9 times?)

I hope they look at Headley.

No, you got me disagreeing that they are similar situations, because they are not. Betting on baseball isnt necessarily cheating, but it could be. Regardless, it is a banishment level offense, and everyone in the game knows this. If you are gambling, then you could be throwing games in order to win money, this is something that is controllable by the gambler, ESPECIALLY someone like Rose who was managing the game.

 

Taking a steroid or scuffing a ball to win a game is increasing your chances, but you arent in total control of the outcome, a hitter can still get you, a pitcher can still strike you out.

 

And banning someone for scuffing a ball is just silly.

 

the player is adding an element to help in the outcome. when the baseball bosses

are saying no to PED, as they are saying no to scuffing the ball. they are manipulating

the rules to break the rules.

 

I am not saying nor have i said anything about banning. i am making an example.

(would they eventually work their way up to a ban if they were caught like 9 times?)

 

that would be a hilarious test case.

 

hey guys thanks for the discussion. it was fun.