Many times athletes bet on themselves to win, as in horse racing. Jockey's bet to win on themselves...I don't think there is anything wrong by betting on yourself to win as long as you play to win throughout the game and not intentionally lay back or not give it your all throughout the nine innings.
Other athletes have had problems with alcohol and gambling, but they handled it differently. One or three scenarios are presented here, which one do you subscribe to, if either...
1. Pete Rose deliberately threw games and allowed his team to win by only a margin to satisfy the win but not the coverage or points-runs offered by the odds makers. and/or allowed the other team to win, outright..... Which is wrong and illegal and suggests Rose was beholding to the odds makers and not to the game of baseball for whatever reason.
2. By the Commissioner of baseball taking the action he did, did the commissioner make a statement as to the legitimacy of the career of Pete Rose and condemn Rose to the accusations being 'fact' in the court of public opinion.
3. If Pete Rose handled the matter differently, perhaps by admitting he was a gambler, would the matter of Pete Rose have a different scenario. Was Pete Rose innocent and did Rose simply handle the whole thing wrong?
Which one of the above scenarios is accurate, if either....What is your take on the matter of Pete Rose being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame..?
2006-10-02
16:49:22
·
18 answers
·
asked by
marnefirstinfantry
5