Pete Rose admits to betting on Reds

[cbbryan]

Yeah, when Rojas's arm was about to fall off and Rose knew it............. he bet for his team to win! Sure!

 

This guys says something to get a headline and comes back 3-4 years later and says something else.

 

He's a liar and a douche and always will be.

 

His production on the field should be noted, just like other scumbags in the past (Ty Cobb), but he should not be allowed in baseball.

[CarolinaCubFan]

I like Pete.

 

Steroids disgust me more than the gambling.

[Omar]

There's only one solution to this.

 

Move the Florida Marlins to Las Vegas. Name them the "Las Vegas Gamblers" and make Pete Rose the manager.

 

You heard it here.

[ConstableRabbit]

He's been saying for years that he bet on the Reds to win. That's not anything new.

 

And if that's all he did, I don't see what the problem would be with betting on your own team.

 

It's been discussed, but you could overwork a starter to secure a large bet, leave in a reliever and screw the rest of the team because he runs out of gas in August, etc etc

 

So are you saying that there is the possibility that Dusty use to bet on the Cubs, and thus we have today's Mark Prior and Kerry Wood? :)

 

No, Dusty probably wasn't smart enough to make money off of pitcher abuse.

[Jehrico]

He's been saying for years that he bet on the Reds to win. That's not anything new.

 

And if that's all he did, I don't see what the problem would be with betting on your own team.

 

I don't understand how people don't see what the problem is.

 

Throwing games is what I would take issue with. Betting on your own team to win doesn't seem all that evil to me.

But, there is no way to know whether he bet for or against them.

 

That's only part of the problem. The other half is how his losses could affect games he doesn't bet on. Even if he never bet against them, he was in with the bookies. You don't have to have the cash to make bets, you can bet on credit. Rose put himself in a situation where he could have found himself in a big hole to the bookies. That could lead to him being influenced to throw a game here and there. As a manager in MLB, he shouldn't have been associating with bookies, period. Nothing good could come out of him getting in debt to those types of people.

[Wheelimus]

I detest gambling and believe that the ban was the right thing to do at the time, but I also think it's been long enough and he should be reinstated.

 

Lets face it, when baseball gave Shoeless Joe his lifetime ban, they actually had some credibility left. Now, with the whole steroid ordeal, they can't really say "we can never let Pete Rose in the HOF, or else lose integrity" with a straight face. In fact, I would even support Shoeless Joe Jackson being reinstated and finally put in the hall. Sorry MLB, but your hall is already filled with cheaters and bad people. One or two more won't hurt...

 

That being said, I would also support a reinstatement agreement where Pete Rose is allowed to be inducted into the HOF and participate in Reds on-field events, but agrees to never take anything more than a front office job with a team. He would just be a circus as a teams skipper.

 

However, THAT being said, it would not shock me one bit to see someone give him the job if he were ever reinstated. There would be a lot of small market teams interested in the press coverage and fan interest that a Pete Rose comeback as manager would bring. Do you really think the Pirates aren't going to take a chance to fill some seats? Or the Devil Rays?

[Soul]

This is the problem with lifetime bans.

 

 

A life is a really, really long time for the rest of us to have to watch the proverbial chicken run around the chicken coop with its head cut off. And that's what Rose has become.

 

So now we watch, forever, as Rose struggles and frets and whines and cries and begs and pleads. And we wish it would all just end. But it won't.

[fiver]

This is the problem with lifetime bans.

 

 

A life is a really, really long time for the rest of us to have to watch the proverbial chicken run around the chicken coop with its head cut off. And that's what Rose has become.

 

So now we watch, forever, as Rose struggles and frets and whines and cries and begs and pleads. And we wish it would all just end. But it won't.

 

I don't mind watching Pete squirm. I deem what he did to be worse than a player taking steroids or amphetimines when it was prevalent, and I believe a lifetime ban is appropriate. I have zero doubt that Pete's gambling affected the decisions he made as the manager of the Cincinatti Reds, and I certainly do not believe that he never bet against the Reds. He had a gambling problem. He lived for the high that one experiences when they win a big bet. It's akin to the high one feels on cocaine per my understanding. The brain releases that very same dopamine in large quantities. You aren't going to tell me that he never compromised his "integrity" to obtain that high.

 

Keep showing more and more of your cards, Pete. At this rate, you may not even enter the Hall posthumously.

[Soul]

This is the problem with lifetime bans.

 

 

A life is a really, really long time for the rest of us to have to watch the proverbial chicken run around the chicken coop with its head cut off. And that's what Rose has become.

 

So now we watch, forever, as Rose struggles and frets and whines and cries and begs and pleads. And we wish it would all just end. But it won't.

 

I don't mind watching Pete squirm. I deem what he did to be worse than a player taking steroids or amphetimines when it was prevalent, and I believe a lifetime ban is appropriate. I have zero doubt that Pete's gambling affected the decisions he made as the manager of the Cincinatti Reds, and I certainly do not believe that he never bet against the Reds. He had a gambling problem. He lived for the high that one experiences when they win a big bet. It's akin to the high one feels on cocaine per my understanding. The brain releases that very same dopamine in large quantities. You aren't going to tell me that he never compromised his "integrity" to obtain that high.

 

Keep showing more and more of your cards, Pete. At this rate, you may not even enter the Hall posthumously.

 

And I wouldn't attempt to. And I'm not arguing Rose should be in. Although, as I'm sure you realize, the chances that there are similarly bad people already in the HOF are pretty high.

 

I'm just lamenting that there's no end to this charade. Only Pete's death will bring this thing to a close. Maybe not even then; but at least we won't have to hear about it over & over & over.

[Sammy Sofa]

I detest gambling and believe that the ban was the right thing to do at the time, but I also think it's been long enough and he should be reinstated.

 

Lets face it, when baseball gave Shoeless Joe his lifetime ban, they actually had some credibility left. Now, with the whole steroid ordeal, they can't really say "we can never let Pete Rose in the HOF, or else lose integrity" with a straight face. In fact, I would even support Shoeless Joe Jackson being reinstated and finally put in the hall. Sorry MLB, but your hall is already filled with cheaters and bad people. One or two more won't hurt...

 

I don't agree with that at all. The gambling rules have existed for the better part of a century. The steroids are an ongoing process that have only come up relatively recently in the game's history. You go back to when the gambling ban was created, gambling had been part of the game for years, a la steroids. The gambling ban set the correct precedent we should be hoping leads to better rulings over the steroids issue...letting steroids negate older rules seems bass-ackwards to me.

[Careless]

He's been saying for years that he bet on the Reds to win. That's not anything new.

 

And if that's all he did, I don't see what the problem would be with betting on your own team.

 

I don't understand how people don't see what the problem is.

 

Throwing games is what I would take issue with. Betting on your own team to win doesn't seem all that evil to me.

But, there is no way to know whether he bet for or against them.

 

That's only part of the problem. The other half is how his losses could affect games he doesn't bet on. Even if he never bet against them, he was in with the bookies. You don't have to have the cash to make bets, you can bet on credit. Rose put himself in a situation where he could have found himself in a big hole to the bookies. That could lead to him being influenced to throw a game here and there. As a manager in MLB, he shouldn't have been associating with bookies, period. Nothing good could come out of him getting in debt to those types of people.

he's claiming there were no games he didn't bet on. not sure if he said he bet equal amounts every night, though

By talking is he digging his grace deeper or trying to be honest in hope that the MLB will let him back in?

heh

[Soul]

I don't think the league rules make a distinction between whether you bet for or against your team though. It's just.....gambling is prohibited (from what I've heard).

 

Anyway, let's say Pete bets on every game. Game 1 he bets $200 bucks. Game 2 he bets $300. Game 3, $400. He says he bet on his team because he believed in them to win. So does that mean he believed more in Game 3 than Game 2? Does it mean he really didn't believe all that much in Game 1?

 

How can you say it DOESN'T mean that, for sure?

 

I don't think we want to go down that rabbit hole. He gambled, got caught, got punished. Whether he should be re-instated at some point is another argument, but there can be no doubt what he did was dead wrong.

[CubinNY]

I have no problem with Rose in the HOF for his baseball playing career. In fact, I think he should be in. However, he should never be allowed to coach or be in the front office of any ball club.

 

It doesn't really matter that he bet on his team to win. What matters is that he bet. These guys who take the bets don't give a rip who the better is betting on, but he better pay up when he loses. If he doesn't he better find a way to make things right. Making things right includes giving inside information about players, including what they do on and off the field, injuries and what not. If not that then he better start point shaving, or doing dumb things to decrease the chances of his team winning.

 

Betting is harmless for us, but for people directily involved in the sport it is very dangerous.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I have no problem with Rose in the HOF for his baseball playing career. In fact, I think he should be in. However, he should never be allowed to coach or be in the front office of any ball club.

 

 

I agree with this wholeheatedly. I also think this is why he hasn't been reinstated. I'm pretty sure that Selig likely offered to reinstate him with a tacit agreement that Rose not seek employment with baseball. Judging from Rose's comments, I'm certain Pete wasn't willing to compromise and that has kept him out of the HOF as well.

[Jehrico]

He's been saying for years that he bet on the Reds to win. That's not anything new.

 

And if that's all he did, I don't see what the problem would be with betting on your own team.

 

I don't understand how people don't see what the problem is.

 

Throwing games is what I would take issue with. Betting on your own team to win doesn't seem all that evil to me.

But, there is no way to know whether he bet for or against them.

 

That's only part of the problem. The other half is how his losses could affect games he doesn't bet on. Even if he never bet against them, he was in with the bookies. You don't have to have the cash to make bets, you can bet on credit. Rose put himself in a situation where he could have found himself in a big hole to the bookies. That could lead to him being influenced to throw a game here and there. As a manager in MLB, he shouldn't have been associating with bookies, period. Nothing good could come out of him getting in debt to those types of people.

he's claiming there were no games he didn't bet on. not sure if he said he bet equal amounts every night, though

That may be, but the problem is he's putting himself in a situation where he can be influenced. Professionals who affect the outcome on the field shouldn't be keeping company with bookies. Doing so will always invite questions, and will undermine the game. It doesn't matter if the outcome of any of Rose's games were influenced by his gambling or not. You can't afford to make even the slightest of exceptions. As much as we all detest steroids, if there were a gambling problem today, it would be MUCH more damaging to MLB than steroids ever were or ever could be.

[BigbadB]

I have no problem with Rose in the HOF for his baseball playing career. In fact, I think he should be in. However, he should never be allowed to coach or be in the front office of any ball club.

 

I definitely agree with this. What he did as a manager shouldn't have an affect on his ranking among the greatest to play the game.

 

Had he been elected to the HOF prior to becoming a manager, would they pull him back out of the Hall later when he was caught gambling as a manager?

 

I think it's a strong enough punishment to never allow him on a baseball diamond in any capacity.

 

Seems to me like the whole thing could be put to bed by honoring him as an inductee into the HOF on the premise he goes away forever, quietly.

[goonys evil twin]

I have no problem with Rose in the HOF for his baseball playing career. In fact, I think he should be in. However, he should never be allowed to coach or be in the front office of any ball club.

 

I definitely agree with this. What he did as a manager shouldn't have an affect on his ranking among the greatest to play the game.

 

Had he been elected to the HOF prior to becoming a manager, would they pull him back out of the Hall later when he was caught gambling as a manager?

 

I think it's a strong enough punishment to never allow him on a baseball diamond in any capacity.

 

Seems to me like the whole thing could be put to bed by honoring him as an inductee into the HOF on the premise he goes away forever, quietly.

 

He'll never go away. There's no need to induct him. He deserves nothing.

[biittner77]

ON Fox Radio today they had an interview with Fay Vincent. According to the Dowd report Rose didn't bet on the Reds every night. Evidently he didn't like Soto and one of his other pitchers. Vincent said the reason he is saying that he bet on them every night is because people have been criticizeing him for only betting on his own team sometimes.

 

I agree that putting Rose in the HOF won't make him go away but it could help. If Rose was in the hall he's no longer a story. So no one will seek that annual publicity grab.

[soccer10k]

I have no problem with Rose in the HOF for his baseball playing career. In fact, I think he should be in. However, he should never be allowed to coach or be in the front office of any ball club.

 

 

I agree with this wholeheatedly. I also think this is why he hasn't been reinstated. I'm pretty sure that Selig likely offered to reinstate him with a tacit agreement that Rose not seek employment with baseball. Judging from Rose's comments, I'm certain Pete wasn't willing to compromise and that has kept him out of the HOF as well.

 

I agree as well.

 

The only thing I would like to add is that if he does get into the HOF, his plaque/bio in the HOF should explicitly say that Rose was banned from baseball as a manager for gambling and he is only being recognized for his playing career.

[NCCubFan]

Had he been elected to the HOF prior to becoming a manager, would they pull him back out of the Hall later when he was caught gambling as a manager?

That's actually an interesting question. As far as I know, there's no precedent for somebody getting a lifetime ban AFTER being elected to the Hall. My feeling is that, if a lifetime ban means being ineligible for the Hall, that should also apply if the player was elected before the ban. I don't know if it would work that way, though.

[wastra]

I don't like steroids, but I liken them more closely to corking a bat or doctoring a baseball- just more extreme.

 

Gambling is far worse. Why?

 

When you take PEDs, cork a bat, or engage in other cheating activities, you at the elast do not alter the fundamental truth that the two sides are going out on the field every day and trying to win a ballgame. Hence, it's still a sport, and its intergrity in that aspect is intact, though its image may be tarnished.

 

gambling is a whole different beast. It introduces the possibility (AKA the Black Sox) that one team is intentionally trying NOT to win, at which point it means it's not longer competition, as the outcome is pre-determined. It's then no longer a sport at all, and its integrity as such is compromised. It's WWF wrestling.

 

And baseball knew in the early part of hte last century that gambling is difficult to track and the intent of the gamblers is so hard to discern that they can't allow ANY gambling to take place. If you only bet for a team, but once ion a month, when you are deep in debt to a bookie, you don't bet on your team. Is that a signal that you don't think your team is going to win based on who's on the mound? What does that imply?

 

 

 

Hence, no one is arguing that steroids are GOOD for baseball or sports or individuals. But it's somethign the game can overcome so long as people enjoy the sport of baseball. But gambling can utterly destroy baseball's very excistance as a "sport" at its most basic level, and that cannot be tolerated to any degree.

 

 

lifetime ban=for life. Sorry, Pete, you dug your own grave.

[ConstableRabbit]

Comparing gambling to steriods is essentially irrelevant in this discussion.

 

The rule said if you bet on baseball, you're banned for life from the HOF. Rose bet in baseball, therefore he is banned.

 

The fact that steriods might be worse might lead the MLB to make a lifetime ban for steriod use, but it has absolutely no bearing on the betting ban and whether or not it's going to be repealed.

 

It's like a guy getting arrested for marijuana possession who says "hey man, cigarettes and tobacco kill way more people every year and they're legal. I'm just smoking pot!"