Pete Rose Bet While Playing

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pete Rose has been denied employment in basically the only trade for which he is qualified for long enough. He's never going to manage again. I suspect he would have had a very lengthy career in that role. Enough is enough. I don't think many people have ever said he's a "bad" guy. He's a gambler. I know several. Everybody has their faults. The punishment does not fit his crime. Rapists do less time in prison.

I believe he should be able to broadcast and participate in activities with the Reds, etc.

Many in baseball will tell you he isn't a great guy, not even a good guy or a decent guy. The same with Reghie Jackson.  

Your comparison is crazy.  Pete isn't in prison, so to make a statement like rapists do less time in prison is absurd since Pete didn't have to serve one day in a prison.  I guarantee you rapists would trade their prison terms for the "punishment" Pete Rose has gone through in an instant.

Rose lied. And lied again.  And lied again.  Each time they tried to get him to come clean, and he put Pete above baseball, his employer, etc.  

He had been able to survive just fine as a "victim".

[ChicosBailBonds]

It is just too bad that none of that matters.  Betting on baseball is a lifetime ban.  Rose knew it.  He did it anyway.  He needs to remain expelled.  Not just because of what he did (which is reason enough), but to continue the precedent and show other players what will happen to a player who bets on baseball, regardless of their skill and attitude on the field.  

I don't understand why this is so complicated.  There is a rule with a defined punishment.  Why should Rose not be subject to the stated punishment?  Because he slid headfirst?  Cmon. 

Bingo

It isn't complicated.  It is black and white.  When I worked for the Angels, Day One we were told this, signed off on it, etc.  In the clubhouse it was everywhere.  This wasn't some obscure line in a contract, of a footnote.  This was pounded into you.

Do not bet on baseball.  If you do, you will be gone for life.  Do you understand?   Could not have been more clear.

What people fail to acknowledge is Pete accepted the lifetime ban, partly because it prevented a bunch of other stuff from coming to light. 

[WI inferiority Complexes]

Rose has never been in prison. So he hasn't "suffered" a severe punishment like a rapist. To suggest so is plain silly.

Rose spent 5 months in prison for tax evasion.

[MU82]

Mike, looks like you started a good discussion.

I know we agree on Rose ever being involved in any MLB activity (even though I think he should be in the Hall for his on-field career), but what about McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, etc. Again, these guys are douches, but should they be allowed in?

I consider you the Scoop expert on these matters.

Yes, I think they should be "allowed" in. The fact is, they won't get in. If players as great as Bonds and Clemens were can't come even close to getting 50% of the votes they need in any year, it's simply not going to happen for them. And they were fairly close to exonerated.

Since the earliest days of baseball, signs warning of a zero-tolerance for gambling have been in every clubhouse. There never was such a sign for roids. Maybe there should have been, but that's a separate discussion.

You and I have discussed Rose. My feeling for a long time was that he should have been a HoFer as a player but should not have been allowed near MLB for what he did as a manager. But now that we have 100% lead-pipe-cinch evidence that he broke the cardinal rule as a player, too ... no effin way.

In my eyes, it IS worse than juicing. Others might disagree, and that's fine.

I think it's safe to say that neither Rose nor the likes of Sosa and McGwire are going to get into the Hall. You and I have about as good a chance as all of them!

[MU82]

We had a debate on this last year and I haven't waivered a bit.  I used to work for a MLB club, and in EVERY clubhouse it is plastered everywhere...NO BETTING.  LIFETIME BANISHMENT.

He knew this.  This new news is nothing new in my opinion and doesn't change a thing.  You can't bet as a player, manager, etc.  It is drilled into everyone's heads...employees, players, etc.

Sorry Pete, you lied and lied and were caught.  No soup for you. Black and white, cut and dried.

Holy Effen Shyte!! You and I are in 100% agreement about something!!!

That alone was worth starting this thread for!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Part of the problem is that he just won't stop lying.  If he would have come clean...completely clean...way back in 1989, he probably would have been suspended for a few years, but reinstated...in the HOF...and could have very likely found he way to the bench as a manager again.

Very unlikely based on baseball's code of conduct and rules.  Maybe the HOF, unlikely in any management position.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Holy Effen Shyte!! You and I are in 100% agreement about something!!!

That alone was worth starting this thread for!

You must be wearing your blind squirrel costume today

[jesmu84]

Granted, I'm not nearly the same degree of fan of baseball as many of you are, so maybe you can explain this...

Why is betting on baseball such an insult to the "sanctity of the game" while steroids, or the decades of amphetamine use, not nearly the insult?

I agree that Rose shouldn't get in. Rules are rules.

My problem, is that I just don't understand why some things are rules, and some things aren't.

[brandx]

Granted, I'm not nearly the same degree of fan of baseball as many of you are, so maybe you can explain this...

Why is betting on baseball such an insult to the "sanctity of the game" while steroids, or the decades of amphetamine use, not nearly the insult?

I agree that Rose shouldn't get in. Rules are rules.

My problem, is that I just don't understand why some things are rules, and some things aren't.

Steroids are taken by players trying to be better players - presumably to score bigger contracts.

Betting would lead to teams throwing games and undermine the integrity of the sport.

[hairy worthen]

As far as mlb is concerned there is nothing worse than betting on games. It tears at credibility of the product. If players bet on games mlb doesn't exist, plain and simple. Its not a contest as far as who is more despicable. In the context of society of course rapists, drug addicts, etc are worse than gamblers. In the context of mlb nothing is worse than gambling because it could bring the game down very quickly. Rose should be banned forever. I think an acknowledgement of the person and his stats  in the hof is appropriate though. And yes PRN he is a bad guy and a liar

[jesmu84]

I mean... I get that betting undermine's the sport. It ruins the integrity. Agreed.

But how do drugs, steroids or amphetamines, or other performance enhancers (pinetar, etc) not undermine the sport? Or ruin the integrity?

[hairy worthen]

I mean... I get that betting undermine's the sport. It ruins the integrity. Agreed.

But how do drugs, steroids or amphetamines, or other performance enhancers (pinetar, etc) not undermine the sport? Or ruin the integrity?

they do as well just not to the same degree. If players are throwing games the whole premise of the sport is gone the game wouldn't exist.

[Lighthouse 84]

If Rose didn't bet on his team every game to win, the inference to bookies is he didn't feel his team would win that night.  Why doesn't banned for life mean banned for life?

[MU82]

If Rose didn't bet on his team every game to win, the inference to bookies is he didn't feel his team would win that night. 

Superb point, Light. Excellent answer to those who say, "But I don't see what's wrong with betting on his own team to win."

And here's another:

Rose was player-manager. So even though he was still playing, he also had control over lineups, bench, bullpen, etc.

Hello, douche; meet bag!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Granted, I'm not nearly the same degree of fan of baseball as many of you are, so maybe you can explain this...

Why is betting on baseball such an insult to the "sanctity of the game" while steroids, or the decades of amphetamine use, not nearly the insult?

I agree that Rose shouldn't get in. Rules are rules.

My problem, is that I just don't understand why some things are rules, and some things aren't.

Part of it goes back to 1919 (?) when baseball was nearly destroyed by Chicago's Shoeless Joe Jackson.  Baseball was on the brink of death, not being trusted, etc.  Huge scandal at the very core of the sport.  Coming out of that and the first decade or two afterward, it was imperative that they set the tone for it to never happen again.  To the core of the sport, betting is a central pillar of stability that must be protected at all costs.

[CTWarrior]

I mean... I get that betting undermine's the sport. It ruins the integrity. Agreed.

But how do drugs, steroids or amphetamines, or other performance enhancers (pinetar, etc) not undermine the sport? Or ruin the integrity?

Steroids and amphetamines represent an extension of the tradition of players trying to get an edge to improve performance to help win.  All sports have a long tradition of trying to gain an edge (stealing signs, corking the bat, doctoring the baseball, "diving/flopping" in soccer/basketball) through means that are against the rules.  Associating with gamblers opens up the possibility that the participants in an event may be trying to lose.  If fans don't think the games are on the level, that would kill the sport.  That is why gambling is worse.

[Lennys Tap]

Part of it goes back to 1919 (?) when baseball was nearly destroyed by Chicago's Shoeless Joe Jackson.  Baseball was on the brink of death, not being trusted, etc.  Huge scandal at the very core of the sport.  Coming out of that and the first decade or two afterward, it was imperative that they set the tone for it to never happen again.  To the core of the sport, betting is a central pillar of stability that must be protected at all costs.

The 1919 Chicago White Sox were maybe the greatest pre 1927 NY Yankees team ever assembled. Their owner, Charles A. Comiskey, was a notorious skinflint who was hated by most of his own players. Gamblers rode the trains with the players back then. They were drinking buddies with the players. Poor players, cheap and hated owner, proximity to gamblers - perfect storm for players to cash in and throw the World Series. Could it happen today given the player's salaries? No freaking way. Point shaving in CBB where the players make nothing? Sure, it would be easy to get to a player for a few thousand dollars and you would barely disturb the betting line. But MLB? Nope - the landscape has radically changed, players and management are partners, both wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. The idea that 8 disgruntled players would conspire with gamblers to throw a WS today is absurd. Gambling isn't the bogeyman it used to be in baseball no matter what the signs hanging in the clubhouse say.

[CTWarrior]

The 1919 Chicago White Sox were maybe the greatest pre 1927 NY Yankees team ever assembled. Their owner, Charles A. Comiskey, was a notorious skinflint who was hated by most of his own players. Gamblers rode the trains with the players back then. They were drinking buddies with the players. Poor players, cheap and hated owner, proximity to gamblers - perfect storm for players to cash in and throw the World Series. Could it happen today given the player's salaries? No freaking way. Point shaving in CBB where the players make nothing? Sure, it would be easy to get to a player for a few thousand dollars and you would barely disturb the betting line. But MLB? Nope - the landscape has radically changed, players and management are partners, both wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. The idea that 8 disgruntled players would conspire with gamblers to throw a WS today is absurd. Gambling isn't the bogeyman it used to be in baseball no matter what the signs hanging in the clubhouse say.

Going to disagree with you here a little, Lenny.  It is much, much, much less likely, for sure nowadays.  With that I agree.  Pete Rose owed illegal bookies an estimated $200K in the late 80s.  He wasn't making so much money that that was insignificant.  What's to keep him from throwing a game to erase that debt?  Again, I absolutely do not think he did it or even considered doing it.  So while I agree that is not very likely at all, MLB (wisely, I think), wants to eliminate even that remote possibility as much as it possibly can.

[withoutbias]

again, it's not allowed.  period.

[Lennys Tap]

Going to disagree with you here a little, Lenny.  It is much, much, much less likely, for sure nowadays.  With that I agree.  Pete Rose owed illegal bookies an estimated $200K in the late 80s.  He wasn't making so much money that that was insignificant.  What's to keep him from throwing a game to erase that debt?  Again, I absolutely do not think he did it or even considered doing it.  So while I agree that is not very likely at all, MLB (wisely, I think), wants to eliminate even that remote possibility as much as it possibly can.

One player (even a pitcher) or a manager can't throw a game. The gamblers in 1919 needed 8 guys just to make sure the Sox lost 5 of 9.

But don't get me wrong - I agree that baseball wants to avoid even the appearance of any gambling related hanky panky.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Many in baseball will tell you he isn't a great guy, not even a good guy or a decent guy. The same with Reghie Jackson.  

Your comparison is crazy.  Pete isn't in prison, so to make a statement like rapists do less time in prison is absurd since Pete didn't have to serve one day in a prison.  I guarantee you rapists would trade their prison terms for the "punishment" Pete Rose has gone through in an instant.

Rose lied. And lied again.  And lied again.  Each time they tried to get him to come clean, and he put Pete above baseball, his employer, etc.  

He had been able to survive just fine as a "victim".

Do I really need to explain my comparison? You rape a woman, you can get a year or two in prison. Violate baseball's laws you get punished for going on 30 years. Even murderers get parole. (Not comparing Pete Rose to a murderer.

Every baseball fan in America knows Reggie Jackson is a douche bag. Thanks. Pete Rose has had former teammates, including Mike Schmidt and Joe Morgan, coming to his defense for years. Johnny Bench is another matter, but that's another story.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Do I really need to explain my comparison? You rape a woman, you can get a year or two in prison. Violate baseball's laws you get punished for going on 30 years. Even murderers get parole. (Not comparing Pete Rose to a murderer.

Every baseball fan in America knows Reggie Jackson is a douche bag. Thanks. Pete Rose has had former teammates, including Mike Schmidt and Joe Morgan, coming to his defense for years. Johnny Bench is another matter, but that's another story.

Sorry, but your analogy was silly and you were comparing the punishments.  A lifetime banishment from baseball is a walk in the park compared to prison term, especially as a rapist.

He knew the rules, it is IMPOSSIBLE to miss them.  IMPOSSIBLE.  It was impossible not to know the consequences of them, as they were also drilled into all of us that ever worked for MLB, for a team, etc. 

Do the crime, do the time.  In this case, the time is lifetime banishment, but he still gets to go home every day, make a ton of money, not get rear rammed by his inmate companions, etc, etc.

[WarriorFan]

Rose is getting exactly what he deserves.  Last time I was in Vegas, I ran into him signing autographs in a bar.  There was no queue at all, so I walked up to see what was going on.  The conversation went "Want an autograph, buddy?  $150".  a:  F___ No!
If everyone who visits Vegas would do the same, he continues to get what he deserves.

[Benny B]

While I completely agree that betting against your team is far worse than betting for your team, I think baseball still has a legitimate gripe against a player betting on his team to win.  If a player bets money on a game, even if it is on his own team to win, this player now has an added incentive to play harder, run faster, etc.  Now this alone may not be that bad, but it would give this player an advantage over the other players who actually followed the rules.

Betting on your team provides a monetary incentive for a baseball player to achieve.

The MLBPA has forbidden teams from offering a contract with achievement-based incentives for as long as I can remember.

So is this an MLB issue, or an MLBPA issue?  Because it sure as hell isn't a rule that has the best interests of the fans or individual players at the forefront.

[brandx]

One player (even a pitcher) or a manager can't throw a game. The gamblers in 1919 needed 8 guys just to make sure the Sox lost 5 of 9.

But don't get me wrong - I agree that baseball wants to avoid even the appearance of any gambling related hanky panky.

Not in absolute terms, but relatively, of course they can.

If Kershaw wants to throw a game and thus gives up 6 runs in 3 innings, his team will lose at least 90& of the time.

A manager obviously makes decisions that improve or hurt his teams chances of winning, but I would guess he only could only move the needle a few percentage points with his decisions.