This is exactly the reason Rose is worse. You cannot overestimate the integrity issue.

 

So Bonds (and many others) didn't mess with the integrity of baseball?

Rose the Player - was the epitome of hustle, playing the game the right way, hard and to win. Perhaps the best/compact swing ever, could hit to opposite fields and the gaps. Ran everything out, made the turn with intent to advance and was intense.

 

Rose the Manager - was effective but could never live up to his role, as a Player. The gambling issues, perhaps the most reprehensible act wasn't the gambling but the deceitfulness, in which he maintained his innocence. Disgraced the position of Manager.

 

Bonds the Player "Early Years" - tremendous speed, athleticism early and a passion to be the best. A solid defensive OF, who hit for average but utilized his aggressive base-running/stealing, to win also. Never could produce in the post-season, for the Pirates. Developed a reputation, as spoiled, pretentious and not a team player.

 

Bonds the Player "Later Years" - perhaps the biggest transformation, one player ever made. Went to hitting for average, to very seldom being able to throw a FB by him. HR totals skyrocketed, the continued reputation still followed him and he separated himself, from the media and teammates. His current situation, can only leave the baseball purist, shaking their heads.

 

Rose - lacked integrity off the field and it went into the Clubhouse. His accomplishments as a Player, can't be questioned. His role as Manager, certainly can.

 

Bonds - lacks integrity on the field and has now tarnished himself, the game forever. His accomplishments as a Player, certainly can be questioned.

 

This great game can recover from Managers and Umpires, who falter....but when Players manipulate the respect, integrity, love and history of the game, nearly impossible to forgive.

So Bonds (and many others) didn't mess with the integrity of baseball?

 

No. Not even close. He (perhaps) was able to hit a baseball 10% further with the "cream" and the "clear". Did Gaylord Perry's spitter affect the game? Did Phil Neikro's nail-file? Did Sammy and Sabo's corked bat? I would put those events in the same file cabinet as Bonds' strength enhancers.

 

It truly isn't close to gambling on your sport. Look at the reaction to Donaghy's case this summer in the NBA. You think you'd get that type of universal fear and panic if you found out Shaq was on "the juice"? Me neither.

No. Not even close. He (perhaps) was able to hit a baseball 10% further with the "cream" and the "clear". Did Gaylord Perry's spitter affect the game? Did Phil Neikro's nail-file? Did Sammy and Sabo's corked bat? I would put those events in the same file cabinet as Bonds' strength enhancers.

 

It truly isn't close to gambling on your sport. Look at the reaction to Donaghy's case this summer in the NBA. You think you'd get that type of universal fear and panic if you found out Shaq was on "the juice"? Me neither.

 

The Dowd report was 225 pages long. Not one of those pages said that he bet against the Reds or fixed any game. Donaghy was giving secrets to the Mob in exchange for cash. I do think what Rose did was very wrong but he never changed the outcome of a game.

No. Not even close. He (perhaps) was able to hit a baseball 10% further with the "cream" and the "clear". Did Gaylord Perry's spitter affect the game? Did Phil Neikro's nail-file? Did Sammy and Sabo's corked bat? I would put those events in the same file cabinet as Bonds' strength enhancers.

 

It truly isn't close to gambling on your sport. Look at the reaction to Donaghy's case this summer in the NBA. You think you'd get that type of universal fear and panic if you found out Shaq was on "the juice"? Me neither.

Bottom line, wrong is wrong....cheating is cheating and I make no discernible difference, between someone who does.

 

Very good examples HSSB.

 

....I do think what Rose did was very wrong but he never changed the outcome of a game.

You have no idea, if this statement is accurate. Any Manager, can make decisions for several reasons. No way, can you know this to be true....only Rose knows. I'm sorry, no way.

Bottom line, wrong is wrong....cheating is cheating and I make no discernible difference, between someone who does.

 

Very good examples HSSB.

 

You have no idea, if this statement is accurate. Any Manager, can make decisions for several reasons. No way, can you know this to be true....only Rose knows. I'm sorry, no way.

 

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rose-faq.html

 

4) Did Rose bet on Reds games?

 

The evidence of his baseball betting includes evidence that he bet on Reds games. The Dowd Report clearly states that there is no evidence that Rose ever bet on the Reds to lose. Additionally, it appears that Rose bet on the Reds every night that they played. During the time period that was documented, Dowd found only one occasion where the Reds played but Rose chose not to place a wager on the game.

 

In December 2002, Dowd told the New York Post that he had reliable evidence that Rose bet against his team but didn't include it in his 225-page report because of time constraints. He later backed off of those statements. "I was never able to tie it down," Dowd said. "It was unreliable, and that's why I didn't include it in the report. I probably shouldn't have said it. I was not trying to start something here."

Leo, I'm not sure if you are being intentionally forgetful or just were out of the Country for a decade, but Rose admitted to betting on Baseball when his book came out and he did his come-clean interview. You know, when he was broke and needed money so he wrote a book.

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rose-faq.html

 

4) Did Rose bet on Reds games?

 

The evidence of his baseball betting includes evidence that he bet on Reds games. The Dowd Report clearly states that there is no evidence that Rose ever bet on the Reds to lose. Additionally, it appears that Rose bet on the Reds every night that they played. During the time period that was documented, Dowd found only one occasion where the Reds played but Rose chose not to place a wager on the game.

 

In December 2002, Dowd told the New York Post that he had reliable evidence that Rose bet against his team but didn't include it in his 225-page report because of time constraints. He later backed off of those statements. "I was never able to tie it down," Dowd said. "It was unreliable, and that's why I didn't include it in the report. I probably shouldn't have said it. I was not trying to start something here."

Evidence to validate, is one thing and not being able to prove, is entirely different manner. Be honest, unless you're Rose or his gambling sidekicks, no one knows....no one. This isn't a business, with tremendous tracking and accountability.

Refresher:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/magazine/01/05/rose_excerpts/index.html

So Bonds (and many others) didn't mess with the integrity of baseball?

 

Not nearly to the same degree.

 

While a fan may wonder if Bonds or (fill in the blank) using HGH or steroids to get stronger, it doesn't take away from the fact that they player has to have some amazing skill and is attempting to succeed.

 

On the other hand, you have fans wondering if the players on the field or the coaches in the dugout are on the up and up and making every effort to win and that they are not being influenced by Vegas.

 

Big difference.

Did Phil Neikro's nail-file? .

 

Joe, not Phil.

Joe, not Phil.

 

Tomato tomato.

Potato potato.

 

Leo, I'm not sure if you are being intentionally forgetful or just were out of the Country for a decade, but Rose admitted to betting on Baseball when his book came out and he did his come-clean interview. You know, when he was broke and needed money so he wrote a book.

 

I know he admitted to betting on baseball & the Reds. The Dowd report said that also, but it also said he never bet on the Reds to LOSE.

 

My problem with steroids is that it takes away from the God given ability that a player may have had. That, in my mind, is the bigger sin between the two.

 

Also, he admitted to Bud Selig to betting on baseball and the Reds 1 year before the "come clean" interview. Rose has never been "broke".

I can't believe anyone, with any objectivity at all, could say Bonds was the bigger Villain.

 

Bonds was the bigger villian.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Rose in a landslide.