But Rose never got a fair trial. Ever. Our country is founded on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. No matter what the public or Dowd Report or Commissioners Office or Rose himself feed us through the press. Does it look like his handwriting on a betting slip? Well OK, MLB tells me it is, and tells me its his fingerprint. So I guess I have to believe that. Were the 3 police informants who testified against Rose really just trying to cut deals for themselves? I dont really know, but thats what Rose tells us. He never got his proverbial "day in court" to refute this evidence. Yet everyone wants to string him up on the premise of "guilty until proven innocent." I dont get this. I know Rose doesnt do himself any favors by acting the way he does, but why should we assume he is guilty until proven otherwise, why not the other way around?AR182 said:obviously nobody but rose knows which is true, but unless prooven otherwise we should assume that he did bet
In case there were any questions, I think that 1 - he did bet on baseball as a manager 2 - he should be in the HoF for what he did as a player and 3 - he is an arrogant SOB who needs to own up to what he did whatever that may be
Last edited:
