Apparently, Tori Hunter came through on his promise for a case of Champagne for the Royals if they swept the Tigers in Sept.'06....Looming is a 3 year suspension for Hunter and heavy fiines for the Twins, because they in fringed on the integrity of the game. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2847416
The way the article is written, it more or less sounds like things are going to be alright. The booze is going to be returned.. Hunter might get some games.. but I betcha it's closer to 10 than 486.
Thats a crap suspension, if he gets it. I see it as him more joking around, ya know "thanks alot guys, here's something for you help :up: " than any real bribing or anything. Ehh, whatever.
When the integrity of the game comes into question (the biggest red flag of them all) I think that MLB MUST make or take an immediate, swift and punising stance. I'm thinking more like 40 games...It might sound harsh, for what appears to be a "freindly bet", but there is a rule to deter such actions and if you are MLB you can not jeopardize the games integrity..
What a fucking joke this is. The integrity of the game is zero when you have frauds like Bonds and Giambi out there on the field still. But yeah, lets come down hard on the guy who bought a few bottles of champagne for players on another t eam.
It's not like he was telling them to fix the games, he wanted them to win. You're supposed to try to win to begin with. Asstarded rule.
Hunter won't get suspended at all, as he shouldn't plus, a 3 year ban would effectively end his career and seeing as how he's been an "ambassador to the game", I don't see this happening. Not to mention that Hunter is a black baseball player and a lengthy suspension would create a situation where Al Sharpton would be banging down the doors of Bud Selig's office.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. The integrity is comprimised when you have admitted cheats and denying cheaters being embraced by baseball and their resective teams. I find it ironic that Steinbrenner has a problem with guys having long hair and sideburns yet none with a guy taking an illegal substance.
Yes, you're right. Bonds and Giambi are the only players that were using illegal substances. When are people going to realize that the majority of baseball players were on something throughout the 90's and early 2000's/
He didn't say they are the only ones, but they ARE at the forefront of the topic.. whether 1 person, 100 hundred players are using... it still hurts the integrity of the game.
That only proves my point. Until very recently baseball wasn't interested in finding or punishing these players, where was the integrity of the game then? Yet they're worried about a guy sending some champagne to another team. It's utterly ridiculous.
In my mind, its not that big of a deal. If Hunter tried to bribe the Tigers with something to lose all three, then thats different. But this is more of a thanks than a bet or a bribe.
Here's my take. He has to be punished. Why? Not because I think he deserves it, but because if you punish one guy, you have to punish them all. I would have zero problems with Giambi getting a permanent vacation, if it meant Bonds was gone too. Regardless of how it would affect the Yankees, right is right. But noone "important" is getting punished for steroids. If you don't punish everyone, you shouldn't pick and choose people to get it. (Which they are still doing anyway.) On the other hand, betting on baseball is betting on baseball. There's no reason to believe Rose bet on any team other than his own, yet he was punished for breaking a clear rule: "No betting on games." Friendly or not, Hunter made a wager. He broke a clear rule, just like Rose. Rose got punished, so Hunter should be as well. Do I agree with it? No. I don't have a big problem with guys betting on games. Does anyone believe that regardless of which way Hunter or Rose bet, either ever fixed an outcome? I don't. But again, the rule is the rule. If you allow Hunter to get away with it, you negate the argument against Rose. (I'd love to see it turn out that way, since I want Rose in the HoF, but I doubt it ever happens.) (At the same time, I'd like to see everyone punished for steroids. But again, that will never happen.)
Royals 3-0 when promised champagne 59-100 in other games When do the Royals play the Yankees this year?
I don't see it as so much of a bet, it was more of a thanks. If he gets suspended, Selig will have yet ANOTHER botched situation on his record.
I must say, Alio, this is a very well-thought out explanation of the situation, and I admit that I hadn't thought of it quite that way. I do agree with devil that it was probably more of a thank you than a bet, but major league baseball can't just let it go without a response. Having said that, I can't see anything nearly as long as 3 years from something like this. I am also forced to come to this conclusion for a reason you mention, as I fervently hope that Rose never gets into the Hall of Fame. First, as you note, even he (now) admits that he broke the cardinal rule of baseball. Second, perhaps unlike you, I absolutely believe that his bets had a direct effect on games that he managed, in terms of the way he used players and implemented strategies, whether he was betting on the Reds or not (this is why I most definitely do have a problem with players betting on games; another reason is that players or managers in debt to bookies are way too vulnerable to coercion). Third, everything he has said since the allegations came out has been by his own admission a lie, and there is no reason to think that he isn't still lying (and that he actually bet against the Reds, for example). Fourth, in doing this, he dragged the names of two good men (John Dowd and Bart Giamatti) through the mud, and one of them (Giamatti) couldn't even defend himself. I find this latter point particularly distressing, since I actually met and spoke with Bart Giamatti when he was president of Yale (we talked about baseball, naturally, and he seemed to be a very nice guy), and his signature is on my diploma.
