Pete Rose was betting as a player.
- Thread starter WhiteBus
- Start date
So what, honestly as long as he didn't bet against his team I am fine with it. But I am not one of those stuck up baseball purists that think people should still wear suits to the game. I believe Ty Cobb tried to intentionally tried to hurt people while playing but he is a baseball Icon. I just don't get it.
Hear what you're saying but the gambling thing almost ruined the game once...it's a big deal.
Because its not like he bet on his team in every game. So maybe he played harder in games where he had money riding on it then didnt. Or maybe he would try and take out the catcher on a play at the plate in games where he had money on it, potentially knocking the catcher out of that game and future games, but in games where he didnt, he would just slide in.
But that doest matter, because we already know that he bet on the Reds as a manager. And its even easier to conceive of ways in which his playing to win on games hat he bet on would influence games in the future that he didnt bet on.
And maybe the bookies and his friends could put 2 and 2 together, and say "well, why isn't Pete betting on his team to win today?" and went the other way.
This. Gambling can take down a sport. I cringe when someone compares it to steroids. I just comprehend that people can be so dumb.
Peter Gammon on Dan Patrick this morning said he won't be surprised if we find out that he did bet against his teams. Degenerate gamblers have no morals.
Alot of people in Halls of Fame have no morals. Morals have nothing to do with your performance in sports. It isn't the morals hall of fame.
I've been to the HOF and Rose is all over it. The only place he isn't in is the Plaque Hall. He's mentioned on the Hit List, he's got memorabilia there (IIRC) and I saw references to him all over. So it's just no Plaque.
That said it's the 21st Century and maybe some changes need to be made at the ol HOF.
Up until now a plaque was used to convey a qucik description of the accomplishments and a really bad picture of the player.
How about we go small video screen in place of every plaque? You can show highlights, do graphics for stats, add music, commentary, video, whatever. That way you can put the stupid Rose and Bonds and Arod plaques in the HOF and have opinions and the Full Story - explain the cheating and the negatives along with the accomplishments. Regardless of what they did Bonds, Rose and ARod are famous because of baseball. Plug in your headphones and hit play.
As for the historic players of yore. Do a Ken Burns type of mini-documentary for each of those guys too.
I think if you explain the entire story it would add, not detract from the Hall of Plaques or whatever they call it.
Because like I said if you go there and look at the list of Career Hits Rose is there and Bonds is on the Homerun list.
That said it's the 21st Century and maybe some changes need to be made at the ol HOF.
Up until now a plaque was used to convey a qucik description of the accomplishments and a really bad picture of the player.
How about we go small video screen in place of every plaque? You can show highlights, do graphics for stats, add music, commentary, video, whatever. That way you can put the stupid Rose and Bonds and Arod plaques in the HOF and have opinions and the Full Story - explain the cheating and the negatives along with the accomplishments. Regardless of what they did Bonds, Rose and ARod are famous because of baseball. Plug in your headphones and hit play.
As for the historic players of yore. Do a Ken Burns type of mini-documentary for each of those guys too.
I think if you explain the entire story it would add, not detract from the Hall of Plaques or whatever they call it.
Because like I said if you go there and look at the list of Career Hits Rose is there and Bonds is on the Homerun list.
The guy is a little crazy, have you ever heard an interview with him? I dont put anything past him
I wonder if MLB knows that he bet against the Reds and they are keeping that close to the vest for integrity purposes. Could you imagine people going back to review games where Pete bet against the Reds and what might be discovered.
If you think Pete Rose would ever bet against himself, you don't know Pete Rose.
Yeah, the owner of the absolutely untouchable all-time hits record was clearly tempering his performance on a game to game basis.
Holy sweet Jesus, RUScrew has a good idea. There's not a point there with which I can disagree. And I tried pretty hard to find one. Actually sounds like a solid plan. Thankfully, you have me on ignore so you'll never get this bit of praise.
I need a shower now.
The point isnt whether he actually was or not - its that he might have been because he had money on the game.
Anyway - Pete knew the rules - dont gamble on baseball. He chose to ignore that rule and is paying the consequences. Maybe when hes dead the veterans committee can put him in the Hall.
Because of the Black Sox scandal of 1919, betting on baseball games is the ONE thing that baseball players simply can not do. Ever.
It doesn't matter if he never bet against his team. (And, would anyone really be surprised if it comes out someday that he did?) What if he had bet so much that he became indebted to the mob? And to repay his debt he had to throw a game? It's something the league can not risk.
It doesn't matter if he never bet against his team. (And, would anyone really be surprised if it comes out someday that he did?) What if he had bet so much that he became indebted to the mob? And to repay his debt he had to throw a game? It's something the league can not risk.
As a manager he hated a few of his pitchers. And a degenerate gambler only cares about winning money.
1) "Moral" Standards are selectively applied for the Baseball HOF. Consider Ty Cobb..... was pretty much a known racist, was a suspected KKK member, was charged with attempted Murder (not enough evidence), was implicated in a game fixing scheme (with another HOF member Tris Speaker. Cobb once went into the stands and physically beat a handicapped man who he thought was heckling him.
2) Gambling is a compulsion to some.... a gambling undercurrent runs through all professional sports as well as college. There have been high profile professional athletes who have rung up significantly high gambling bills....some into the millions. There have been implications of NBA referee involvement in Gambling syndicates, there have been point shaving scandals in the college ranks. MLB is making an example of Pete Rose just like they did with Shoeless Joe Jackson. The purpose is to maintain their appearance of a game with integrity. However I'm not naive enough to think that there is much that is hidden from public view. Rose is no more a degenerate than many who walk this earth as well as many who participate in professional sports.
I can see it with the way society is going, Rose is going to say he was and is a gambling addict. Now addiction is classified as a disease. He is going to sue MLB for discriminating against him due to his disease that he had no control over. Here comes the ACLU and ADA.
Baseball was my first love in life. I stopped following MLB about ten years ago because of the steroids issue. I tuned in on occasion for the postseason for awhile, but then came a time when I stopped caring altogether and I've never looked back.
The problem you're running head on into is that it's incredibly obvious he wasn't. So, no, there's no point in "he might have been."
I'm pretty ambivalent about Pete Rose in the Hall, but arguments like that make me root pretty hard for him.
Addiction is a disease. he should have sought treatment, or at least admitted the full scope of his gambling problem. He did neither as far as I know. I think MLB would be alot more forgiving if Rose were more truthful and contrite.
its not about moral standards. Its about integrity of the game standards. If people think your game is fixed, they stop watching in general. No one cares if Pete Rose gambled on the outcome of the NBA finals.
I'm not saying your wrong and I dont like my scenario, but I could honestly see it happening within a few years if society keeps furthering itself from self-responsibility.
Admitting thata addiction is a disease is not furthering anyone from self-responsibility. It just means that you need to treat it differently than you would if you merely considered it to be a personality flaw like really being into Justin Beiber.
I agree with that , I was talking about the lawsuit with the ACLU joining in using the ADA
1. My comment about morals was not about why Pete Rose isn't in the HOF. My comment was that this belief that Rose would never bet against his team is complete garbage as degenerate gamblers have no morals.
2. And like most degenerate gamblers there is a price to pay. Rose getting banned is his price. Others lose jobs, marriages...
Have no morals when it comes to gambling and choosing gambling over other things. Obviously they arent all ISIS members.
So I take it you don't believe that gambling is an addictive disease. My point was that there are potentially much bigger issues at play who can have a much bigger influence on the integrity of a sport than a Gambling addict who couldn't keep his problem in check like Pete Rose. There are also morally bankrupt individuals who were much more morally degenerate than Pete Rose and ended up in the HOF.
Professional and College Football / MBB have become mostly about Big Money & nepotism. Money/Greed is what often drives individuals, programs and organizations to cheat......and nepotism is what influences decisions and often keeps the cheaters protected and on the playing field. Big money players control much of this action behind the scenes. Pete Rose is small potatoes in the scheme of gambling & sports. He is a sacrificial lamb to make it look like Baseball cares.
I look at Rose no differently than someone with any addiction. He had an out of control problem that lead to poor decision making that led to job loss, public humiliation and shame. He has been punished dearly for his transgressions. ......kicked out of baseball...something that he devoted his entire life to....and not allowed in as a HOF member....even though he plainly should be there based on performance and the Records he holds.
Gambling addicts might lose their jobs, marriages etc....but they can always pay the price of punishment, attone and find new jobs, get remarried etc.
I don't belive Pete would ever bet against his own team. He was a great guy, and always took time out for rookies and cup of coffee guys. Every time I got to first base, he'd say "way to hit the ball kid" he was an awesome hitter, and played hard, he yell to me from first base with less than two outs, Zappa, I'm coming hard on a double play, he'd hit me and help me up, I'm strong in the legs, he'd try to get me and run into my planted legs, he'd get up and say " what are you made of fuc*ing steel kid"
I loved to play against Pete!
I loved to play against Pete!
WOW. That's twice in the same thread you have serious reading comprehension issues.
I was agreeing with you that gambling is an addiction. Holy crap it gets hard to make points with you if you can't read
Zappaa ...You are the son of one of the greatest players and persons to ever grace the game of baseball...no doubt Pete Rose was another great ball player but, as someone who saw him in action back in 1971, ( in Houston versus Astros Marriott Hotel July 1971 ) you might think differently...Pete Rose was smug...boisterous bordering on being obnoxious...and not the type of guy I or anyone else would characterize as good ole guy.... Rose " wouldn't bet against his own team?" ...come on Zap you were a fellow professional who was due respect because of dad and your own ability ...he didn't care what people thought back then...Pete proves still he has no shame for the simple fact he refuses to admit what he did was basically detrimental to the GAME...Does he belong in the Hall of Fame alongside those others ...many of them you played against or knew from your childhood... Pete has what is called lawyers selective memory..." I can't recall".
I do not know if he did or didn't - but it is clear that Rose has a gambling 'problem' - an addiction - and one thing that you can count on with an addict is that there is nothing that is totally out of the question - because that is the nature of an addiction - it is more powerful than the addict.
I agree, he was a ball player first and foremost, I didn't know him off the field, but from what I've heard you described him well, he was unrefined and crass. The only thing I find weird about your rememberance is he was known as a lobby sitter, so he interacted with and did not avoid people, from all I've heard he was very fan friendly…loud and bordering on obnoxious, but meant well.
As for betting against his own team, I stand by the Pete I played against would never have done so, the Pete that managed/played the Reds in 86 might very well have, he was a diseased shell of himself by then.
Where have I haven't. But it doesn't mean we should let him back into the game. He still gambles
