| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | irishgit (137)
05/23/2008 | As far as I'm concerned, its irrelevant whether the betting player or manager tanks a game. The perception is that they might, and further, their involvement and potential debt to professional gamblers sets up a unsavory situation. Historically, and well before the BlackSox, this was the cardinal sin of baseball, and should remain so.
(8 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | doobiesNhof (21)
03/13/2006 | Another bad thing. Ask Pete Rose how he feels about not being in the MLBHOF.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | PlanetaryGear (52)
07/26/2005 | Betting on games is a terrible offense. But if you are betting on your own team to win, then it's not so bad, because you can't make the other team 'throw' the game, right? If one of the teams involved did 'throw' the game then it would be the worst thing imaginable ( for baseball, that is ). Was Pete betting on his team to lose, or to win? See, to me there is a BIG difference ... Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | dpostoskie (7)
07/26/2005 | As long as it's not a game they are directly associated with who cares. And damnit, Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame!
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | CanadaSucks (45)
07/26/2005 | Along with steriods, the most serious cheating offense that should be punished.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | 93century (36)
07/26/2005 | I guess Pete Rose has learned his lesson. He still has a gambling habit.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | numbah16tdhaha (147)
07/26/2005 | If you play, you don't bet. How hard is that?
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | magellan (153)
07/26/2005 | I guess it's not really cheating until you start intentionally manipulating the outcome of the game, but it does create, shall we say, a potential conflict of interest.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-8 OF 8 | View All |
