Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Lafayette, post: 5280524, member: 14008"] I worked for MLB back in '08 and we talked openly at the time about Rose vs Bonds (who retired the year prior) in specific what "the integrity of the game" is defined at because we know MLB uses that to cover as much and as often as our government uses "for security purposes". Ultimately we, my group of employees talked about this ~35 deep, and said for Rose while it was not a question of him tampering (no lineup changes, benching, ever a word to players to play poorly), but he bet on games while managing. That puts into question by fans who care about both betting and ethics of managers, which would be a decent population and make them think somewhat less of the game. That felt like an integrity issue so we supported the ban. Bonds was a little different, alleged roid and cocktails vs betting. But given we had McGwire, Sosa, and others test positive and come out but for Bonds it was a question of 'alleged'. Some could infer that his buddy going to jail for refusing to testify was hurting Bonds chances, while others did not think so. So at the time it was Bonds should not be because we don't have hard proof. We noted Rose if his gambling was alleged not proven would get the same. [/QUOTE]