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>
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?