Reader Mail
Keep Rose Out?
And Lott? And women at Augusta? And who else?
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>
Letter to the Editor Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles From Reader Mail
http://spectator.org/archives/2002/12/17/keep-rose-out
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
