stevestojan Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 comments: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Where's the choice that states that they both disgraced the game and should BOTH be banned from the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Giambi is way worse. Not even close. But if you factor in how Rose was so defiant and bitter and delusional about the whole thing, it gets a little closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Drug cheats are the worst of all. At least you are playing withing yourself if you bet against yourself and you wilfully throw the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Where's the choice that states that they both disgraced the game and should BOTH be banned from the league? 142473[/snapback] I agree. Does anyone think Giambi will be suspended? I honestly hope so. But this is just the tip of the iceburgh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I suppose Giambi could take the fifth, lie about never taking roids like Bonds and Sosa and 70% of MLB and that would be more honorable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Giambi is worse...he cheated to be better than the other players. Rose had no effect on the actual game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Betting on baseball increases the possibility that decisions won't be made in the team's best interests, but rather because of the money riding on the game. As an example: a manager may bring a player off injured reserves sooner than he should in order to win, play a player who is nursing an injury and possibly make it worse or end a guy's career, or he may pitch a reliever without enough rest, not caring that he won't be able to pitch for several extra days. If a betting manager gets in large debt to bookies, he can clear his account by merely revealing inside information about the team. The opportunity for corruption is greatly increased. The chance that such impropriety could result is the reason for such a strict taboo on betting baseball. Rose not only gambled with his money. He also gambled with other people's careers. Not only that, but on days he DIDN'T bet the Reds to win (apparently he never bet them to lose) it was obviously a signal to his scumbag bookmaker that he didn't think the team could win. Both things are bad and both probably deserve equal punishment. However, Giambi's issue doesn't really have such a profound affect on so many other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Rose is worse. The existance of gambling calls into question the legitimacy of the entire leauge. I can live with a guy juicing himself up to give himself an unfair advantage. I can't live with skepticism that the whole leauge is a charade orchestrated by swindlers. Rose's actions were the first step on that path, which is why he needed to be hammered as badly as he was. Shoeless Joe may be a folk hero now, but Landis was 1000% right to ban the Black Sox for life. (Sorry for posting this in the other thread first. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Giambi is worse...he cheated to be better than the other players. Rose had no effect on the actual game. 142488[/snapback] Gambling is so verboten because there is no way you can know whether the comment that Rose's gambling had no effect on the game is true. Even if he bet on his team to win, it certainly effects the game if he attempts to run up the score one day to beat the line and the opponents get pissed and make the team pay on the field by playing harder or trying to injure folks the next. Besides, Rose alreay proved he was liar in saying he never bet on baseball when he did, how can one be sure that he is not lying when he says he never bet against the Reds or never subtly threw a game to settle his gambling debts. In the end, Pete Rose was required not to gamble or associate with gamblers so you and I can gamble on the game with some sense that it is predictable rather than like the NY Lotto. Pete Rose screwed his teammates, opponents, and you and me for his own benefit. Asking one to choose which of these two is worse is like choosing whether to kill your wife or your mother. Neither choice works nor does it make the other choice a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Betting on baseball increases the possibility that decisions won't be made in the team's best interests, but rather because of the money riding on the game. As an example: a manager may bring a player off injured reserves sooner than he should in order to win, play a player who is nursing an injury and possibly make it worse or end a guy's career, or he may pitch a reliever without enough rest, not caring that he won't be able to pitch for several extra days. If a betting manager gets in large debt to bookies, he can clear his account by merely revealing inside information about the team. The opportunity for corruption is greatly increased. The chance that such impropriety could result is the reason for such a strict taboo on betting baseball. Rose not only gambled with his money. He also gambled with other people's careers. Not only that, but on days he DIDN'T bet the Reds to win (apparently he never bet them to lose) it was obviously a signal to his scumbag bookmaker that he didn't think the team could win. Both things are bad and both probably deserve equal punishment. However, Giambi's issue doesn't really have such a profound affect on so many other people. 142496[/snapback] You have the proof to back up he did all of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 You have the proof to back up he did all of this? 142598[/snapback] yes. He watched that ESPN movie about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 You have the proof to back up he did all of this? 142598[/snapback] The Dowd Report does this very welll Dowd Report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 They both threatened the integrity of the game, but in different ways. Rose did so by gambling for, or not gambling (against) on the reds and other teams. Giambi cheated by using drugs. I'd say they're equally bad and both should be banned for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Giambi is worse but you also have to include Barry Bonds along with Giambi. Both should be banned for life and all their records & stats taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I say Rose is worse. His crime against baseball was defined, and known to be a crime from day one. While what Giambi did was wrong, in some ways you might say it was condoned by MLB. Anyone with a discriminating eye has known that baseball players have been using the juice for the last 10-15 years. MLB didn't make an issue of it, until the press and even GW started mentioning it. It is almost like MLB is begrudiginly facining up to the problem. MLB makes me sick! Guys like Bonds, Sosa, Sheffield and Giambi are likely to take the fall and be disgraced in the steroid scandal, but there were plenty who have retired in the last few years that are likely just as guilty....the got away with it, because MLB was willing to look the other way. Gambling has always been condemned in sports....baseball owners are as much to blame for the steroid epidemic in baseball as the players themselves are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Rose is worse. Yes Giambi took roids BUT the roids are only making him stronger. They don't improve his hand eye coordination whether it be batting or fielding. He still had to have the skills to hit the ball and this is talent NOT steroid induced. Do I condone what he did? No, but the numbers are too high to count of all the other players that are juicing one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 You have the proof to back up he did all of this? 142598[/snapback] Read the Dowd Report. Pretty much says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Ok, I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but Giambi isn't the only player to have used or is currently using steroids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Ok, I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but Giambi isn't the only player to have used or is currently using steroids. 143048[/snapback] You don't say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts