Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#124,028
#124,028
Weezer said:
So not betting on his team is betting against his team? That's a ridiculous assertion. It basically says when he felt his team would win, he bet on them. And when he didn't feel confident in a win, he didn't bet on them. You understand that's not the same as actually betting against them, right?
Click to expand...
If you’re betting on a game that your team’s playing in and the bet isn’t FOR your team? That’s what you’re asking, Teach?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volator and InVOLuntary
#124,030
#124,030
butchna said:
McGwire and Sosa did get the ball rolling for Bonds on the cheating...none get a pass. It’s one thing to cheat to improve your performance in order to HOLD ON to a MLB career. Still no pass but understandable. When you use artificial means to bump up elite skills in order to reach and surpass hallowed records, then you deserve the requisite repercussions. Brady Anderson using the juice to become a one time 50 hr hitter when his previous max in the preceding 8 seasons was 21 is dubious. Bonds using the juice in an already established HOF career to best Maris and Ruth’s single season marks (I don’t count McGwire and Sosa) and then Aaron’s career total, is a travesty. We know when he ramped up the PED’s in response to the two others, but I trace it back to his first season with the Giants. 46 in that first season when his previous high was 34 the last season with the Pirates. He simply didn’t go all-in until he saw the national attention and glory involved with that stat. I think the writers who are barring his HOF entry will eventually die off and the new guard will vote him in...but I’m glad his punk azz has to wait.
Click to expand...

Hard to knock anyone for juicing in that era. Lots of reports that 70% or more of players were juicing, including pitchers. Teams were aware of it and encouraged it behind the scenes.

Kudos to the guys who didn't cheat but they were in the minority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CreiveHallVol and VOLSONLY
#124,031
#124,031
butchna said:
You think the bets were LEGAL? He had a pattern of betting against his team when Gullickson pitched. Bookies would inform their Mafia bosses that a fix was in. Patterns...Weez.
Click to expand...
lmao You're reaching. I never said his bets were legal, just that he didn't bet against himself and throw games. Big difference. Every baseball player knows that gambling is against the rules. IIRC, it's posted in clubhouses. It's been a big deal since the Black Sox scandal at least. But no evidence shows Pete bet against himself, or that he threw games. What he did was wrong, and against the rules, but it wasn't "cheating". Nothing shows he ever threw a game to win a bet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTSuave’
#124,032
#124,032
butchna said:
If you’re betting on a game that your team’s playing in and the bet isn’t FOR your team? That’s what you’re asking, Teach?
Click to expand...
No proof of what you're asserting according to ESPN. He bet on the Reds, but no evidence he bet against them. When he felt like the Reds would lose, he just didn't bet the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTSuave’
#124,033
#124,033
Weezer said:
lmao You're reaching. I never said his bets were legal, just that he didn't bet against himself and throw games. Big difference. Every baseball player knows that gambling is against the rules. IIRC, it's posted in clubhouses. It's been a big deal since the Black Sox scandal at least. But no evidence shows Pete bet against himself, or that he threw games. What he did was wrong, and against the rules, but it wasn't "cheating". Nothing shows he ever threw a game to win a bet.
Click to expand...
You asked why a BOOKIE would take it as part of your argument...I solved that mystery for you. 4 games he managed in that he didn’t bet for his team to win...used the same pitcher with a 12 era in all of them. All I need. Irrelevant to the reality. He agreed to a lifetime ban and here we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner
#124,034
#124,034
Weezer said:
lmao You're reaching. I never said his bets were legal, just that he didn't bet against himself and throw games. Big difference. Every baseball player knows that gambling is against the rules. IIRC, it's posted in clubhouses. It's been a big deal since the Black Sox scandal at least. But no evidence shows Pete bet against himself, or that he threw games. What he did was wrong, and against the rules, but it wasn't "cheating". Nothing shows he ever threw a game to win a bet.
Click to expand...

I see very little wrong with betting on yourself to win. Isn't that essentially what every free agent does?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTSuave’ and OrangenSC
#124,035
#124,035
Weezer said:
No proof of what you're asserting according to ESPN. He bet on the Reds, but no evidence he bet against them. When he felt like the Reds would lose, he just didn't bet the game.
Click to expand...
Didn’t bet on his team to win but he BET. Keep driving this circle.
 
#124,036
#124,036
butchna said:
If you’re betting on a game that your team’s playing in and the bet isn’t FOR your team? That’s what you’re asking, Teach?
Click to expand...
Aw, you misread what I was saying, and admittedly, I said it poorly. Read my previous post. When he felt the Reds would win, he bey on them to win. If he didn't like the Reds chances, he didn't bet the game. Period. So he didn't bet against his team or himself.
 
#124,038
#124,038
Weezer said:
Aw, you misread what I was saying, and admittedly, I said it poorly. Read my previous post. When he felt the Reds would win, he bey on them to win. If he didn't like the Reds chances, he didn't bet the game. Period. So he didn't bet against his team or himself.
Click to expand...
He bet 4 games he managed in and it wasn’t for them to win.
 
#124,041
#124,041
gainesvol82 said:
Hard to knock anyone for juicing in that era. Lots of reports that 70% or more of players were juicing, including pitchers. Teams were aware of it and encouraged it behind the scenes.

Kudos to the guys who didn't cheat but they were in the minority.
Click to expand...
The rest of them don’t hold records. McGwire and Sosa aren’t in the HOF. Teams didn’t encourage it...just powerless to stop it because the player’s union were on a winning streak and it took Congress to get testing done. And then ONLY because a vast majority of players failed the anonymous testing despite being warned of the exact date...including Bonds. Bonds is a HOF player based on the other parts of his career. Couldn’t get this record straight so he cost himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTSuave’ and drvenner
#124,042
#124,042
Weezer said:
No evidence of that according to ESPN and John Dowd, the man who led the investigation. But you keep pretending you know more than the man who gathered the actual evidence.
Click to expand...
I know what the facts look like...no pretension there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner
#124,044
#124,044
Weezer said:
lmao You're reaching. I never said his bets were legal, just that he didn't bet against himself and throw games. Big difference. Every baseball player knows that gambling is against the rules. IIRC, it's posted in clubhouses. It's been a big deal since the Black Sox scandal at least. But no evidence shows Pete bet against himself, or that he threw games. What he did was wrong, and against the rules, but it wasn't "cheating". Nothing shows he ever threw a game to win a bet.
Click to expand...

I think every Astro player who was complicit in the electronic sign scandle should be banned since they banned the 1919 Sox. Throw their butts out.
 
#124,046
#124,046
butchna said:
I know what the facts look like...no pretension there.
Click to expand...
butchna said:
I posted it. They have the bets.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't know what facts look like. Read the ESPN article I posted, the one your Rolling Stone post referenced. There is no evidence Pete Rose bet against himself. It quite clearly states that. But I guess you're hung up on believing what you want to believe rather than what the investigators actually found.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTSuave’
#124,048
#124,048
Alright you can only choose one, what would y’all rather see?

1. Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus, both in their primes, final round pairing at The Masters. Tiger enters the day with a 1 stroke lead.

Or

2. Jordan vs Lebron, both in their primes and with their respective best teams, 7 game NBA Finals.


I gotta say, I’m taking Tiger and Jack at Augusta!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brillovol and Bassmaster_Vol
#124,049
#124,049
Smokeytom said:
Alright you can only choose one, what would y’all rather see?

1. Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus, both in their primes, final round pairing at The Masters. Tiger enters the day with a 1 stroke lead.

Or

2. Jordan vs Lebron, both in their primes and with their respective best teams, 7 game NBA Finals.


I gotta say, I’m taking Tiger and Jack at Augusta!
Click to expand...

#1. Easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokeytom, Cosmo Kramer and Bassmaster_Vol
#124,050
#124,050
Smokeytom said:
Alright you can only choose one, what would y’all rather see?

1. Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus, both in their primes, final round pairing at The Masters. Tiger enters the day with a 1 stroke lead.

Or

2. Jordan vs Lebron, both in their primes and with their respective best teams, 7 game NBA Finals.


I gotta say, I’m taking Tiger and Jack at Augusta!
Click to expand...
2, because golf is boring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gainesvol82
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top