That was a great team. Of course it speaks a lot for the 1975 Red Sox as well to take them to the end of 7 games. The Sox did not have the overall talent that the Reds did, but they had a lot of scrappiness.
I became a Sox fan back then due to the great rookie seasons of Rice and Lynn, and the '75 WS
was a huge agony that wasn't erased till 2004.
Of course I'm OK
with being a Boston sports fan over that era, with multiple championships from the Sox as well as the Patriots, Bruins and Celtics.
My friends from Ohio can only dream of such things.
|Quoting seb146 (Reply 2):|
IMO, taking drugs to have an advantage is worse than that
My feelings are that while gambling and doping are equally bad at the individual morals level, gambling is a far greater danger to the game/industry and always will be treated harsher.
From what I've read, doping can't take a poor athlete and make him a great one, it can only make a good athlete better. With gambling, a relatively average player can change the outcome of a game totally because it usually only takes one or two bad mistakes to blow a game. Also note that gambling doesn't take good players and make them better, it takes average players and turns them into chumps by motivating them to make bad plays. Doping still requires the player to compete and to excel over time because it doesn't give the player the ability to do something they could not do overnight, whereas gambling can change the game overnight because it requires nothing more than a lot of money and one corrupt player.
Personally I have no need to see Pete Rose back in baseball's good graces. It's clear he was treated harshly, but it seems to me that it is having a strong deterrent effect with regard to gambling. There definitely were rules about gambling going back to the Black Sox scandal. Rose had every reason to not break the rules, but still chose to do so, and is dealing with the aftermath.