that's right

  I've heard about a gambling scandal involving a major league pitcher and his interpreter. A Japanese sensation from what I've read. I haven't been following baseball much in the last decade or so and so am not well informed. Anyway, this player claims he didn't know anything about betting on any sporting events. His claim is his interpreter, a close personal friend of his for many years, was doing the betting. His friend owed millions to the "bookies", and he paid his friends debt off. That's the jest of the story. Whether he knew or not I can't say, but I will say I'm skeptical that he at the very least wasn't aware of his friends gambling habit. I'm certain there will be an investigation. If this player violated the rules he should be suspended and/or fired and possibly banned for life. The rules are the rules.

 Now, as I read about that I was also reading all the comments from those advocating for Pete Rose to be included in the hall of fame. Their argument being this current player bet on baseball games and was involved in gambling. That argument holds no water for me as two wrongs still don't equal one right. At the time Pete Rose was betting it wasn't a legal activity at all. There was no such thing as sports betting, it was all done illegally and controlled by criminals! Granted our government has now decided to fund our economy through gambling in many forms but the rules haven't changed. I'm not aware of what the exact contract/agreement is, what it actually says or doesn't say but I know as a professional athlete you are not allowed to gamble on games you are in, and I suspect, any games at all.

 The whole Pete Rose thing is clear enough to me. He was gambling, illegally, on games. He at first attempted to deny that, then he made a deal. He would accept a lifetime ban from major league baseball with no possibility of ever being in the hall of fame. He agreed to that, signed the documents and that's that. Whatever anyone else has done, is doing or will do in the future has no bearing on that. Was justice served? It's what he agreed to, and that is the best form of justice I think one can receive sometimes. That punishment wasn't imposed upon him, it was agreed to. 

 I am always annoyed with these folks that advocate for conditional morality or rules. It's wrong this time, right in this case or some other ridiculous reasoning involved. This guy hasn't been found guilty of anything. Rose was banned in 1989! That was thirty five years ago. He has done nothing but complain since. Yes, his accomplishments on the field were outstanding, worthy of the honor of being in the hall of fame. The problem is his moral character excluded him from that honor as he conducted himself in a dishonorable fashion. He agreed to that ban and that's the bottom line. You can't go back on your word and claim integrity! 

 This is just an example, however. I really am not concerned with Pete Rose, or this latest pitcher being accused of the same offense. I'm just annoyed with the reasoning. There are those letting people out of prison because the law changed. That was the law when you broke it, and you should be punished according to the law. The law wasn't unbroken when it was changed. It's likes paying reparations. It doesn't undo what happened in the past. Getting an abortion doesn't make you unpregnant! There are two genders regardless of how you feel. If you cross the border into my country illegally, you are an illegal alien! You are not a migrant, an immigrant or a refugee. You are an illegal alien. Doesn't make any difference what happened thirty-five years ago or fifty years ago or a hundred years ago. The rules haven't changed. It is still illegal to enter my country without the proper paperwork. Oh, you can ask for help, for asylum or whatever but you have to ask before entering the country! All I'm hearing is the old excuse we all tried to use at one time or another, "but everyone was doing it." Yeah, that makes it right?