ESPN uncovers evidence that Pete Rose bet on baseball while still playing for Reds

[primal defense]

Charlie Hustle strikes again. Good this will stop the talk of Rose in the Hall of Fame.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/06/22/espn-uncovers-evidence-that-pete-rose-bet-on-baseball-while-still-playing-for-reds/

 

[UTK66]

I've been hoping Rose would eventually get in the HOF because the dude definitely deserves to be there and I think they eventually would've lifted the ban and allowed him to return. After this, I don't see any way that ever happens now.

 

[Dieselprime]

I know its not a popular opinion but I couldn't care less about Rose betting on baseball. From all appearances, it looks like he bet on his own team to win so I doubt he was effecting the "integrity" of the game. He wasn't going to have any chance to get in before he died anyways ,imo, so the story doesn't really change my opinion of the situation.

.

 

[streettopeschel]

Betting ON his team doesn't absolve of anything. What message does it send when you don't bet?

 

[Johnstark23]

There is one sign that hangs in every major league clubhouse and I unpardonable sin... if you bet on baseball you are subject to a lifetime ban. I don't want him anywhere near baseball.

 

[Dieselprime]

Betting ON his team doesn't absolve of anything. What message does it send when you don't bet?

I'm not trying to absolve him of anything, I just said IMO he didn't do anything to compromise the integrity of the game. There is a Massive difference between betting on yourself to be the best versus betting on the team you're playing that day and "taking a dive".

I've never seen this much outrage over a pitcher having a little something extra in his glove which can have a direct effect on the game. I've even started hearing the radio guys mumble about Clemens, one of the best pitchers ever to play the game, and Bonds, the current HR king, being allowed in the hall of fame but for some reason with Rose its an absolute no way, no questions asked even before this latest scandal.

I guess this is where baseball lost me. Not over Pete Rose, because to be honest I'm not all that passionate over the subject, but this constant clinging to the unwritten rules no matter how much sense or logic is involved.

Why is it okay for a pitcher to retaliate for a guy taking him yard, but not okay for a guy to show more than 1 second of joy over hitting that same home run? Why is it not okay to do everything you can to break up a no hitter but instead pulling a Brett Farve and taking a sack so a guy can get a record? What is so bad about a guy betting on himself and his teammates to win a game but no one will ever be banned for life from baseball for adding some pine tar to a glove or using a corked bat both of which can potentially change the outcome of the game?

I'm not trying to insult anyone here or your opinions but pro level baseball's unwritten rules and reluctance to change has turned me off on the game and judging from its fall from unquestioned #1 sport in the country to 3rd or 4th, I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.

 

[streettopeschel]

Betting on baseball isn't an unwritten rule.

 

[primal defense]

He doesn't deserve to have anything to do with baseball with the betting and all the lying throughout the years.

 

[Dieselprime]

Betting on baseball isn't an unwritten rule.

And that's not the argument I'm trying to make. Betting on a game you're involved in makes you ineligible permanently but a forward thinking commissioner could look at the circumstances and see that he's been banned from the game for over 25 years and his actions did nothing to effect the integrity of the game. It's not like anyone will look at a 25+ year ban and think he got off easy.

To me, this is where baseball should use common sense and not stick to the "He has gambled on baseball and shall forever be banished!". Reinstating him after his long ban would be the right move.

The catch to everything I've said is this, If anyone ever provides proof that he gambled against his team then he shouldn't even be allowed to sell snow cones at a tee-ball game.

 

[streettopeschel]

We fundamentally disagree . Gambling does effect the integrity of the game. Yes, even if he bet on his team. If I bet on my team 3 days in a row, what message am I sending to my wise guy friends if I don't bet the fourth day?

 

[java]

Ok fellows, here goes (deep breath)...I'm going to give you my opinion, but it is just that-an opinion. Some of you will probably be incensed about it. I regret that.

Pete Rose was a great baseball player, and that has never been brought into question. In my humble opinion, that is what the HOF represents. Which baseball great required two liver transplants as a result of alcoholism? Pretty sure he's in the Hall. Wasn't it Mantle! How many MLB players were juicing during most of their career and are in the Hall?

Please don't try to tell me anything about gambling. I don't really like it, except for the occasional social trip to Vegas or Reno. It took me years to get that far after someone close to me had a serious gambling problem.

Yet, I don't think Rose's contributions as a player should be denied because he gambled. He never hurt his team or altered the game. Is MLB trying to protect a sportsbook and a betting line or are they trying to protect the game?

 

[streettopeschel]

You don't know he didn't hurt his team or alter a game.

 

[streettopeschel]

For those who think his betting was no big deal, read the Dowd report or excerpts from it and you might change your mind

His bookies were connected to the mob. Like any heavy gambler, he'd fall into debt periodically. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to think the days he didn't bet on his team was telling someone it would be smart to bet the other way.

There are any number of ways a manager could subtlety influence a game without arousing suspicion. Give your star a day off, leave a starter in a few batters too long.

Bottom line, you can't bet on baseball and he knew that. No way he should be reinstated.

 

[Johnstark23]

For those who think his betting was no big deal, read the Dowd report or excerpts from it and you might change your mind

His bookies were connected to the mob. Like any heavy gambler, he'd fall into debt periodically. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to think the days he didn't bet on his team was telling someone it would be smart to bet the other way.

There are any number of ways a manager could subtlety influence a game without arousing suspicion. Give your star a day off, leave a starter in a few batters too long.

Bottom line, you can't bet on baseball and he knew that. No way he should be reinstated.

You are absolutely right Street. It is a travesty that this even is an issue. He had just needed to go away and stay away for a long time now. He is a joke and I don't care how many hits he has.

 

[java]

Street, there's many things we don't know about many topics and will never know.

 

[primal defense]

From Rolling Stone:

2. "Yeah, but he never bet against his team," you say? That's an assumption. Up until yesterday, you had no idea about his gambling as a player.

Consider that, when a manager bets on his team to win, it sends a signal to the gamblers that he may do more to affect that game's result than he otherwise would if he didn't have money on the contest. He might do it intentionally; he might not. It doesn't matter.

Say, for example, that Rose bets on his Reds to win some hot August day at Riverfront in 1986. Since he's gambling on that game, but not on the one before or after (and only he knows his plan for the next day), maybe he allows reliever John Franco to take the ball for one more of his career-high 101 innings to get the particular outs that Rose must have to win that particular bet. Or maybe ace Tom Browning stretches out longer than he would have otherwise. Maybe Eric Davis appears in 133 games that season, instead of 132.

When Rose doesn't bet on the Reds to win the next day – or doesn't bet on any particular Reds' game – that tells the bookies the skipper doesn't think his club is good for the win. And on and on it goes, even if the Reds finish 162-0 with Rose winning every last bet

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/features/pete-rose-caught-red-handed-20150623#ixzz3duaXZYCa
 

 

[java]

I am not passionate about MLB, but I am passionate about athletics. I honestly wish there were no sportsbooks involved in professional or college athletics, or in horse racing or dog racing. I believe that organized gambling takes advantage of people with addiction issues. I really enjoy an occasional weekend in Vegas or Reno, but they make their living on compulsive gamblers, like the person that I knew.

Rose knew it could ruin his life, but did it any way. Compulsive?

 

[streettopeschel]

I am not passionate about MLB, but I am passionate about athletics. I honestly wish there were no sportsbooks involved in professional or college athletics, or in horse racing or dog racing. I believe that organized gambling takes advantage of people with addiction issues. I really enjoy an occasional weekend in Vegas or Reno, but they make their living on compulsive gamblers, like the person that I knew.

Rose knew it could ruin his life, but did it any way. Compulsive?

one would think. Probably felt a little bullet proof too. I mean the oldest allegations are from 1986. Rose was 45 years old then. If I was a betting man(get it?) id wager he didn't just start doing this then.

 

[java]

You are right, street. He probably started in his 20's or 30's. It's sad.

Hook 'em!