Pete Rose Finally Admits He Gambled On Baseball (1 Viewer)

[KyleS]

I love baseball and Agree that Rose WAS a great player but he blew all chances of reaching the Hall of fame IMHO not when he cheated baseball by betting on it but when he agreed to the LIFETIME ban. How can he come back now and say I didnt realize if I was banned from baseball I couldnt get into the hall of fame. Personally they have not let people in the past like shoeless Joe in so why let Pete in?

He had his chance to come clean and only thought of himself by not coming clean until he was almost guaranteed for reinstatement by telling the truth. This is all about him and not about baseball. I say let him sit on the sidelines and never get into the hall of fame even though he is the all time hit leader.

Keep Pete out of the Hall of Fame and For sure keep his ass out of baseball so that he will never have the chance to coach again.

KyleS

 

[Chris]

Only if you buy that every one of his bats was corked, which we know as fact could not possibly be the case. Why? Because the HOF already has 14 Sosa bats from the year he chased Mantle; and 17 bats were collected the year after and sold as merchandise to boosters; and 19 bats were collected this year, plus 37 broken bats that were not corked.

So, unless you assume every other bat he ever used was corked (highly unlikely) then the argument doesn't hold much water. It's the same kind of argument as saying "Maddux got caught with sandpaper, he should never be in the hall of fame" .. getting caught once never destroyed anyone...

 

[Bill J]

I never actually believed that all of Sosa's bats were corked when he was trying to break Maris' record because otherwise it would have been discovered much sooner. However, as a baseball fan I am far more offended to hear about a player who is closing in on 600 home runs to be caught cheating than Pete Rose's gambling controversy.

 

[John Thomas]

Well, I'm no Rose fan but as a baseball fan, I've got to be in awe of his hit total. I'm sure the arguement has been gone over and over already but it -is- part of baseball history; you can't change that. To leave him and the total out of the HoF entirely is stating that he (and the gambling) is bigger than the game overall. The solution seems simple: Put him in the HoF, denoting why he was banned from baseball on his plaque and keep him out of the game.

MLB seems to be a bit hypocritical here; seeing Brain's list, I'd tend to agree with that. Though Strawberry's offenses in my eyes seem to be much, much worse they aren't directly related to MLB and shouldn't be held up to the administration of baseball to dole out punishment.

Regarding the steroid usage policy, it's a joke. That will be the new crack in the integrity of MLB.

 

[Adam Bluhm]

2:1

 

[Chris]

Then you are greatly missing the perspective of the history of baseball. Gambling has brought baseball nearly to it's knees three times in it's history. While we are all familiar with the blacksox scandals, let's remember it started -way- before that.

Before Morgan Bulkeley became a part of the game, in the late 1800s, the game was riddled with problems related to gambling; so bad that most people believed that in general, the games were "fixed". In 1876, Bulkeley based the entire national leauge around teh concept that the game would be presented as "fair" and "honorable" and established that no crime against the game would be greater then the tainting of it's outcome. Before Bulkeley, twice, the game was threatened with being run out of towns for being racketeering.

Before baseball became a sanctioned monopoly, they had to agree to police the game and present a fair product, with no stain of doubt as to the effort being presented - and this is one of the ONLY rules specifically imposed on the league not by themselves, but by the Congress of the US.

After the blacksox scandal, there was a great fear that all of baseball was tainted. So much so that the game for two years suffered attendence so badly that new standards were looked for to make sure that people knew the product was fair. And in 1921, when an outside reporter had pretty much exhonerated Shoeless Joe Jackson, he would still not be re-instated..

Baseball went through a fair period where this did not come up again; but after NBC's debacle with "Quiz Show" once again, the stranglehold was put on all games and the league once again re-affirmed it's stances against any rigging.

When Sosa corks a bat, it may, or may not, have an outcome on the game, but an outcome generally positive toward his team (unless caught). The problem with gambling on the game is, whether it is true or not, it risks within the mindset of the public that there was, at least at some chance, an opportunity to "throw" or intentionally derail the outcome of a game. Trying to "win" a game is something you can never guarantee; deciding to "lose" a game is, in fact, something you can guarantee.

Did Rose ever bet against his own team? He swears not. But, the problem is, as he admits, he at times was hundreds of thousands in the hole to bookies. He now acknowledges that he gambled on baseball. The problem baseball had was that they needed to make sure there could be no suspicion that at any point in desperation Rose threw games to recoup money.

And let's be honest, and this is mean, but probably true: Rose by his own acknowledgement was down more then 1/2 a million. Do you think, had it gone unchecked, that he would have eventually reached the point where he -needed- to bet against his team? Once you start gambling on the game, you risk the sanctity of the outcome, which is why gambling on the game is the greatest offense in the game

 

[RobertR]

Well said, Chris.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Also do not forget that college basketball suffered through a huge point-shaving scandal in the 1950's that almost destroyed the sport.

Competitive sports rely on fans believing that the outcome is not predetermined, that only those factors inherit to the game determine who wins and loses. If the fans begin to suspect that games are fixed, that the outcome is predetermined, they will abandon the sport. Look at the tarnished image that professional boxing lives under for a good example. That sport has almost completely disappeared from the mainstream sports world -- a long fall from the glory days of Joe Louis, Ali, etc.

 

[Brian Perry]

Not trying to be a Rose apologist (and I agree with most of what's been said regarding the evils of gambling), but Rose seems to be a victim of a slippery slope. Listening to sports radio the past day or so, I've seen Rose go from someone who admitted in a book to betting on his team to win, to portrayed as someone who:

* bet on his team to lose (as manager)
* intentionally made moves to lose games as manager, even with no bets on the line
* bet on games as a player
* tried to lose games as a player

The common theme seems to be that if he's lied to us all these years about betting at all on baseball, why should we doubt that any off those other things couldn't have occurred? He has become a monster, capable of anything.

I guess I view it from a different perspective because all these years I assumed he bet on the Reds games (for them to win, never to lose). I felt that he couldn't admit it publicly and he hoped that circumstances would change to enable him to be reinstated. So now I don't feel betrayed--as some seem to be--by the 14 years of lying. Since Pete realized that his only hope is coming clean, people seem to be shocked that he's changing his story, and they're speculating that he could have also done many other things.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

That's the problem with tolerating gambling from a sport's participants, Brian. No one can ever be sure exactly where the money went. It's that doubt that is created that eats away at a sport's credibility.

Did Rose never bet on Reds games? Did he only bet on them to win? No one will ever be sure, and people will doubt Rose's word, no matter which tale he tells. It's that doubt in the public's view that damages the sport's credibility.

I also believe that performance enhancing drugs can destroy a sport in the same manner. That's why baseball's lack of real action on steroid use is all the more ridiculous, in light of their hard stance on gambling.

 

[Peter Kline]

Rose brought this upon himself. Plain and simple. Many of his baseball friends say they asked him if it was true and he said that he did not gamble on baseball. He lied to them... for 14 years. According to an article published today he shows no remorse in his new book about what happened. He's only sorry that he waited so long to tell the truth. This is all part of a campaign to sell his book and to try to get into the Hall before 2006, when the writers will no longer be able to put him there. Calculating and dishonest is Mr. Rose.

 

[Doug Miller]

Brian --

Interesting point on the money line, I've never been a big gambler, so never really understood a lot of the odds side of things. (Doesn't change my opinion about Rose's perception of whether the Reds would lose or not, affecting the bet. I don't think the money line was a deterrent to his gambling given how much he was in debt.)

John (and others) --

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Rose criticized for hanging around too long just to break the record? I'm not old enough (no offense oldies ) to remember, but Hank Aaron exceeded Ruth's Home Run total while still an effective player, but I seem to remember a few documentaries that talked about how Rose was hanging on, his average dropping to the low 200's, just to get his hits.

Doug

 

[KyleS]

[Not trying to be a Rose apologist (and I agree with most of what's been said regarding the evils of gambling), but Rose seems to be a victim of a slippery slope. Listening to sports radio the past day or so, I've seen Rose go from someone who admitted in a book to betting on his team to win, to portrayed as someone who:

* bet on his team to lose (as manager)
* intentionally made moves to lose games as manager, even with no bets on the line
* bet on games as a player
* tried to lose games as a player
-----------------------------------------------------------

I guess the main point is we dont know what to believe anymore. Why should we believe him that he only bet on his team to Win? Its coming from the Horses mouth who lied for almost 15 years and even told another author multiple times that he never bet at all. I think that even if he is let back into baseball that he wont be let in unless the veterans let him in. No chance IMHO for him to make it in, in his last 2 years.

KyleS

 

[Chris]

Gammons summed up a lot right here that I agree with:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1701992

 

[Josh Simpson]

I don't always care for Gammons, but I agree with him on this one. Based on what I've read lately, Rose shows no remorse for what he did. He talks being sorry "it" happened, the "it" being getting caught and all, but he never really says he is sorry for anything he did. He's basically telling everyone they need to move on, and in my opinion he's telling many people to stick it. I don't have much respect for this man, and would not vote him in. I know we all make mistakes and maybe I shouldn't be throwing stones, but I also believe baseball doesn't owe Pete anything. Actually, MLB has nothing to to really with the Hall. They are two seperate beings.

 

[RobertR]

It should be noted that Pete Rose is still lying. He claims he didn't bet as a player. Evidence shows otherwise.

Pete Rose is still a liar.

 

[Bill J]

It is true that he has been criticized for not retiring sooner, but if you look at his statistics he was still a pretty decent player up until his final season (his average did drop as low as .245 but climbed back to .286 the following season). It is still an obvious drop-off in production, but this type of behavior is pretty common for a baseball player.

Another example of this would be Cal Ripken who will definitely be a first ballot hall of famer. Ripken hit about .245 in his final two seasons in which he reached 3,000 hits. I believe that out of all of the players in the 3,000 hit club, Ripken has the lowest career batting average.

 

[Diallo B]

first to clarify things, i am a huge baseball fan.

with that said, why is this story getting so much press. i realize that i speak for myself but I REALLY DON'T CARE! espn dedicated nearly all of today to talk about this and it was the lead story or on the front page of many media outlets today.

is this really that important? that was not rhetorical.

also imo, if ty cobb, babe ruth, daryll strawberry (potentially) and some other unsavory characters are in the hall of fame i'm not sure why rose should be excluded. especially considering his unsavory activity took place after he played while the others i mentioned did their dirt while they played.

 

[KyleS]

Times have changed and just because people got away with it before doesnt mean that it always has to be allowed. I hope the league sticks to its guns and keeps him out but only time will tell.

KyleS

 

[Scott Merryfield]

It's quite simple. Rose violated the one and only capital offense in baseball -- he bet on the game. Rose knew the consequences of his actions should he get caught, but obviously he didn't care.

While those other people mentioned certainly are/were of questionable character, their actions never placed into question whether there was fair competition on the field, or if the games may be fixed. Having players or coaches associated with gambling brings this issue into doubt, and will kill a sport. Therefore, the penalty for violating the rule needs to be harsh and strictly enforced.