Realto Margarino <rm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:BMNxi.46556$jE4.45444
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In rec.s****t.baseball brianj <firstpres@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says:
>
>>> So you are under the impression that Pete is not banned from
>>> baseball? And as for proof, I'm pretty sure he came at least
>>> part way clean in his book, though I will confess, I never read
>>> it.
>
> No impression. It's a fact. Pete Rose walked away from the game
> without putting up a fight. If MLB wanted to ban him, they would
> have to prove that he did something wrong. They accused him, but
> they never proved anything.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
So you're saying that the fact that he denied ever betting on baseball,
and certainly not on any Reds games, and then, after some years,
admitted, well, yeah, he DID bet on baseball, but not Reds games -- and
then later, well, yeah, Reds games too, but ---
After a while, don't all the lies just make you give up? Nobody denies
he had terrific baseball playing skills, but he was a schmuck who bet on
games he was involved in and lied about it. This is not something one
can argue about: he himself admits it -- now. (Well, not the schmuck
part.)
Why anyone would give even a fraction of a rat's tiny ass about some
mythical "Rose Award" is beyond me. Are you also running the Shoeless
Joe Jackson Award?
And don't insult our collective intelligence - "walked away without a
fight"? I think you misspelled "whined and moaned and lied and lied and
lied and lied and lied for years and years, and is still a lying
bonehead today".
Rose Award. Sheesh. What a putz.
-JAH
|
