Because the Dowd report produced no credible, reliable evidence whatsoever that he bet against him own team??

 

It was also unable to provide betting sheets and results from the unknown bookies in New York. He lied about everything else why should we believe that all of those bets made with those bookies were only on the Reds to win? Sorry, I'm just not buying it on Pete's word.

No one has mentioned crying because "There is NO crying in baseball." :jump:

Roger Clemens never used them.

 

There's nothing wrong with B-12 and lidocane :lol:

Did he bet or cheat while he played? If it comes, is he being inducted as a player or a manager? I have no problem seperating his managing career from his playing career.

Did he bet or cheat while he played? If it comes, is he being inducted as a player or a manager? I have no problem seperating his managing career from his playing career.

 

Wonder if Pete took any of the drugs that were prevelant in the 1970's clubhouses?

PED's.

PED's

WOW!!! How can anyone even think it is gambling?

WOW!!! How can anyone even think it is gambling?

 

Do you he any logic for why it isn't gambling? :idunno:

WOW!!! How can anyone even think it is gambling?

 

Probably because if you bet on your team to lose and you're an important player or the manager, there is a lot that you can do to secure that outcome.

 

Personally, I don't see one as worse than the other. You're getting a tainted result either way.

 

However, looking at it from a broader perspective, I think the performance enhancing drugs is worse. It starts a domino effect where more and more guys start to use them to get an edge, to keep up with everyone else, to make the roster, to boost stats a little so they can get paid more, etc...it also sends a terrible message to young people who look up to these players.

 

Gambling isn't going to spread like wildfire throughout the sport...most of these guys make enough money so they don't need to throw games. It does set a bad example, but again, I don't think young kids are going to start gambling because their favorite baseball player does.

 

So, if you're just looking at it from a strictly baseball perspective and the games in question, I'd call it a wash. But, big picture, I think PED's are worse.

 

JMO

WOW!!! How can anyone even think it is gambling?

Easy, I think it's gambling. Again, other then recovery time and maybe HR's, PED's really don't give you an advantage in baseball.

Easy, I think it's gambling. Again, other then recovery time and maybe HR's, PED's really don't give you an advantage in baseball.

 

HR's in baseball is a pretty substantial advantage.

Easy, I think it's gambling. Again, other then recovery time and maybe HR's, PED's really don't give you an advantage in baseball.

 

Recovery time may be THE most important thing for a team. How many times has an injury plagued team or pitching staff won a WS?

 

The Reds have proven that HR's alone don't win pennants but to blow off recovery time as insignificant is grossly understated.

 

Something that's not tracked that would be interesting, but impossible, how many more broken bat hits in the steroid era. Again, impossible to prove but I wonder if there's a big difference. Something that's overlooked by the gaudy HR #'s.

HR's in baseball is a pretty substantial advantage.

How many titles did the Giants have with Bonds? How many titles did the Cards win with McGuire? Cubs with Sosa?

Recovery time may be THE most important thing for a team. How many times has an injury plagued team or pitching staff won a WS?

 

The Reds have proven that HR's alone don't win pennants but to blow off recovery time as insignificant is grossly understated.

 

Something that's not tracked that would be interesting, but impossible, how many more broken bat hits in the steroid era. Again, impossible to prove but I wonder if there's a big difference. Something that's overlooked by the gaudy HR #'s.

I didn't blow off anything. I said it's over stated.