The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> HALL OF SHAMER br> Re: Paul Beston's Charlie's Latest Hustle : /p>

Paul Beston buys into the same tired argument that all the Keep Rose Out posse has been using in recent weeks.

Yes, Paul. Rule 21(d) is clear. Bet on baseball, you're out for a year. Bet on your team, you're out permanently.

Only problem is, Commish Giamatti signed an agreement that there was NO CONCLUSION on whether or not Rose bet on baseball!!!

So unless there is some new evidence to convict him, Rule 21(d) would have no bearing on the Rose case. In fact, I am quite certain that no court in the U.S. would convict Rose of betting on baseball. That is why Giamatti was so eager to sign a deal with Rose back in '89 accepting his suspension.

p>In fact, that is why they waited until his playing career was over. For many years, his gambling was well known by the authorities. But as a player, Rose would have grieved and easily won any "gambling" suspension. br> -- Richard Goldstein br> Somerset, NJ /p>

topics:
Sports, Law