Disgusted with Bonds?

[Hog1]

D,
Did you hear the int the other day on the Dan Patrick show? Pete stated he bet on the Reds EVERY night. he indicated for an extended period.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

D,
Did you hear the int the other day on the Dan Patrick show? Pete stated he bet on the Reds EVERY night. he indicated for an extended period.

I haven't heard that, but this is why he is not in the hall. (and he was banned due to speculation of betting on his team...just like Bonds taking roids.)
Baseball should ban bonds barring an investigation.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I haven't heard that, but this is why he is not in the hall. (and he was banned due to speculation of betting on his team...just like Bonds taking roids.)
Baseball should ban bonds barring an investigation.

No Pete was banned for betting on baseball in general and its was always thought that he bet on the Reds. How can baseball ban him on speculation?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No Pete was banned for betting on baseball in general and its was always thought that he bet on the Reds. How can baseball ban him on speculation?

It was "speculation" cause no court of law ever deemed him guilty. Ie: Bonds with roids.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It was "speculation" cause no court of law ever deemed him guilty. Ie: Bonds with roids.

OK now you're conveniently remembering things incorrectly. They had betting slips and sworn testimony that he had bet. The fact that he wasn't convicted had nothing to do with it. Bonds on the other hand has, as far as we know, no direct evidence against. Sure we all believe he juiced and he probably di. Also Pete Roses situation had a precedent. Gambling have always been strictly prohibited. The performance enhancerment situation has no precedent. Rose's situation was easy to deal with. It didn't involve the entirety of the league.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

OK now you're conveniently remembering things incorrectly. They had betting slips and sworn testimony that he had bet. The fact that he wasn't convicted had nothing to do with it. Bonds on the other hand has, as far as we know, no direct evidence against. Sure we all believe he juiced and he probably di. Also Pete Roses situation had a precedent. Gambling have always been strictly prohibited. The performance enhancerment situation has no precedent. Rose's situation was easy to deal with. It didn't involve the entirety of the league.

I think you're misunderstanding me.
Someone brought up the point, Bonds wasn't convicted of doing roids, therefore we shouldn't do anything. Rose was not convicted either. I am just pointing out the similarities. I'm in no way saying Rose is innocent. There is overwhelming evidence in BOTH cases to prove they are guilty. There is direct evidence...court reports, books implicating Bonds etc. Just no one on the stand saying it under oath right now.

So I ask this question...what if after Bonds gets the record, he retires, then all this drug abuse comes out and he is convicted...what does MLB do?

BTW, there has always been rules banning substance abuse in MLB too...but enforcing it is where MLB lost their path.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I think you're misunderstanding me.
Someone brought up the point, Bonds wasn't convicted of doing roids, therefore we shouldn't do anything. Rose was not convicted either. I am just pointing out the similarities. I'm in no way saying Rose is innocent. There is overwhelming evidence in BOTH cases to prove they are guilty. There is direct evidence...court reports, books implicating Bonds etc. Just no one on the stand saying it under oath right now.

So I ask this question...what if after Bonds gets the record, he retires, then all this drug abuse comes out and he is convicted...what does MLB do?

BTW, there has always been rules banning substance abuse in MLB too...but enforcing it is where MLB lost their path.

Please give the overwhelming evidence that Bonds used roids because you seem to be the only person with this slam dunk evidence against him. What court reports, I can write a book and what is your other etc...

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No Pete was banned for betting on baseball in general and its was always thought that he bet on the Reds. How can baseball ban him on speculation?

Apparently, they were correct, as was suspected. The int was about 2 weeks ago on the DP show with Kieth O. They were as stunned as I was at the admission. There was silence on the air for a moment or two. pretty funny actually.

[jsarno]

Sorry, hit post too early...here's the last proof:
SI.com - MLB - Shadows reveals truth behind Barry Bonds' steroid use - Tuesday March 7, 2006 4:49PM

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Hog1

D,
Did you hear the int the other day on the Dan Patrick show? Pete stated he bet on the Reds EVERY night. he indicated for an extended period.

i heard the interview. he also said he bet on the reds TO WIN every night. whatever, anyway. like someone stated, it should be about accomplishments on the field, period. OJ Simpson is still in the hall, isn't he?