Lifetime Ban for A-Rod?

[chippewastud79]

I have no problem with banning players for life, but the problem is that there needs to be consistency. If Rodriguez goes for life, why does Braun get 65 games off his schedule on a team that is 20 games below .500? One could argue that Braun actually looks worse for baseball because he won an MVP and then immediately tested positive, to which he responded by throwing everyone under the bus, wrecked the testers reputation, lost Aaron Rodgers a year of salary and bet his own life on not cheating.

The Lifetime ban actually helps the Yankees, which I think is a joke. The Yankees don't want Alex back, they don't want to pay him, so the MLB is going to bail them out. Better believe the Yankees are pushing his ban behind the scenes.

Yahoo actually had one of their "sports commentators" release a video claiming that Pete Rose betting on baseball is actually worse than cheating the game with PED's. Of course the guy is a moron, but I digress.

[The Poet]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

Yahoo actually had one of their "sports commentators" release a video claiming that Pete Rose betting on baseball is actually worse than cheating the game with PED's. Of course the guy is a moron, but I digress.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with those who support Pete Rose. The rule against gambling was hard and fast ever since the Black Sox scandal, with no doubts as to the consequences. But with PEDs, MLB first ignored the problem, then frowned upon the problem, then finally at last banned usage. As much as I might consider this "cheating", I can somewhat understand both the confusion and the temptation players faced. Furthermore, how can you condemn A-Rod for not confessing to his sins when Pete Rose was the poster-boy of denial?

Ban A-Rod for life if you must, but don't defend Charlie the Hustler at the same time. That's just flawed logic.

[Blueface]

They are saying the reason for the tougher punishment with A-Rod has to do with potential criminal activity to degree of tampering, recruiting and a few other things with that clinic. It's more than the use of PED's. They want to send a message as such.

[The Poet]

Originally Posted by Blueface

They are saying the reason for the tougher punishment with A-Rod has to do with potential criminal activity to degree of tampering, recruiting and a few other things with that clinic. It's more than the use of PED's. They want to send a message as such.

If A-Rod was shilling for illegal activity, then he should not be banned . . . he should be jailed. However, though I am no fan of his, I still want to see this proved, not merely "said".

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by The Poet

If A-Rod was shilling for illegal activity, then he should not be banned . . . he should be jailed. However, though I am no fan of his, I still want to see this proved, not merely "said".

If he accepts the suspension, or does not contest it even if doesnt accept it, that will be all the proof in the world.

[The Poet]

Originally Posted by Blueface

If he accepts the suspension, or does not contest it even if doesnt accept it, that will be all the proof in the world.

The whole thing seems to me like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you accept a plea bargain, you are guilty. If you fight it, you are hiding something and thus are guilty.

Hey, I keep telling you I don't like this jerk any better than the next thinking guy. I merely want justice done, not spiteful vengeance.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by The Poet

The whole thing seems to me like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you accept a plea bargain, you are guilty. If you fight it, you are hiding something and thus are guilty.

Hey, I keep telling you I don't like this jerk any better than the next thinking guy. I merely want justice done, not spiteful vengeance.

Can't look at it that way.
If innocent, you defend yourself.
If you accept a plea, you are guilty and have a reason to take the plea, generally to reduce your sentence/punishment.
Happens in criminal courts and prosecutors offices every day.
If we applied same logic, those criminals with now convictions are the A-Rod you refer to.
Just food for thought.

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by The Poet

If A-Rod was shilling for illegal activity, then he should not be banned . . . he should be jailed. However, though I am no fan of his, I still want to see this proved, not merely "said".

This.


I can't stand A-Rod, but let's have proof before anything rash is done.

[357]

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

I have no problem with banning players for life, but the problem is that there needs to be consistency. If Rodriguez goes for life, why does Braun get 65 games off his schedule on a team that is 20 games below .500? One could argue that Braun actually looks worse for baseball because he won an MVP and then immediately tested positive, to which he responded by throwing everyone under the bus, wrecked the testers reputation, lost Aaron Rodgers a year of salary and bet his own life on not cheating.

The Lifetime ban actually helps the Yankees, which I think is a joke. The Yankees don't want Alex back, they don't want to pay him, so the MLB is going to bail them out. Better believe the Yankees are pushing his ban behind the scenes.

Yahoo actually had one of their "sports commentators" release a video claiming that Pete Rose betting on baseball is actually worse than cheating the game with PED's. Of course the guy is a moron, but I digress.

I value your opinon on this Adam. I don't have issue with lifetime bans for PEDs. There should be daily or weekly testing of every player with a lifetime ban / voided contract for a positive test.

Unfortunately I think you're right about the Yankees. They're probably lobbying for him to get the ban so they don't have to pay $100 Million on an average player of the next few years.

On Rose, I disagree somewhat. If a player/manager admits to gambling on games he's involved with it implies a high probability of losing for proft. This is a bit worse than trying to get a competitive edge with some new drug. At least the cheaters are trying to win, not losing on purpose for profit. Both are unacceptable but I see the sports writer's side of this one.