OT- Pete Rose lies again
It looks like yet again Pete Rose has been caught in another lie, and this time it might be the last straw.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986
His accomplishments as a player are truly significant and worthy of being an inductee into the HOF, but when these things keep coming up it's hard to find any way for him to get in under any circumstances.
The fact that he lied about, accepted the lifetime ban and now this coming out seals it.
He's a fucking meathead.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Allstar game is in Cincy. Rose applied for reinstatement. ESPN rehashes/mildly amends old info for clicks.
Moving on.
Pete became my favorite baseball player and still is. It's a strange conflict because I know he broke the cardinal rule and I'd probably be a hardliner if it was one of his contemporaries like say, Steve Carlton or Carl Yastrzemski. "Ban him forever!"
But Pete was that classic guy you love on your team and hate if he's in the other uniform. It's hard to condemn him as I tell myself that he just bet on his own team to win. I don't for a second think that he ever tried any less than 100% to win. That is, unless evidence comes out to the contrary. Then I give up.
Finally, I don't really buy the argument that you know something about the outcome of a game based on whether he bet on his team on Friday and not Saturday. The fact is: Pete was a shitty gambler and lost way more than he won. He didn't profit from gambling on the Reds, so I don't think anybody made any money following Pete's betting pattern. To this day, he's still living from card show to card show in Vegas and gambling away all that cash, too. He's a pathetic figure, but I still believe he was a great competitor.
Signed,
Irrational fan
relate to. Cheers.
Pete can be inducted there. Passersby can throw rocks at a jamarāt. Pete was in bed with very bad people, and character matters. He certainly doesn't deserve to be a Hall of Famer.
Nick Saban should have his own wing.
If so many MLBers could not get in.
The moral outrage over the Cincy Gamblin' Man strikes me as grossly inconsistent considering that worse men than he(Ty Cobb) are in the hall.
A person with poor morals is a person with no integrity. I appreciate the "integrity of the game" angle, but maybe it's time we stop rewarding scumbags with honors like entrance into Hall of Fames.
Professional sports needs to start aiming higher.
Ty Cobb wouldn't get in today. He is a crappy argument for the HOF letting in Pete Rose.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Ty Cobb would not stand a chance of getting in by today's standards. An avowed racist is not getting the necessary votes from the 2015 Baseball Writers Association.
For example, if John Rocker had continued to post great numbers, and had continued to spew his characteristic racist, homophobic, and xenophobic screed, he'd have no chance under the "integrity" and "character" legs of admissions standards. What baseball writer would endorse him?
They can take him out. It's sports. The mere fact that the MLB Hall of Fame has racists in it makes a mockery of the "integrity of the game" argument. Human integrity means more--or at least it should.
I think this says a lot about the selective integrity of human beings. No moral being could tolerate honoring a Ty Cobb.
Evict Cobb.
Cobb was admitted under his days' standards. Back then, it was not as unfashionable to be a racist, and it was not viewed as germane to the discussion. We've evolved since then, thank goodness. And it is unfortunate that Ty Cobb is in the HoF, given what we know about him.
But do you really stand by an argument that it's wrong to protest Rose's admittance because there are other miscreants in the Hall? That we must continue to ignore character issues because we've ignored them in the past? I think that it's reasonable to block a person with Rose's track record even if others got in under looser standards.
Consider this. There's a lot of anti-Muslim vitriole out there, and I suspect that a few potential HoFers have spewed it. If in future generations that anti-Muslim vitriole becomes less fashionable in 20 years (and I hope it does well before then), should the hypothetical 2015 HoF inductee be removed because society no longer tolerates that vitriole? (I would not want to see this person admitted in 2015, FTR.)
Your rolling-admission HoF will - sincerely - be an interesting place.
was racist until 1947.
MLB itself banned the participation of black players during Cobb's day. Hard to punish Cobb for directly mirroring the attitudes of his employer.
It obviously wasn't right, and seems appalling to us today, but at the time, there were people that would have thought letting black guys play was appalling.
While I personally believe that thinking is disgusting, that was a prevailing sentiment of the day. Singling out Cobb for those thoughts is disingenuous. He was just one of many people who had those kinds of thoughts in the early 1900's. It doesn't make him right, or any nicer of a guy, but I also don't think it is fair to make it seem like he was somehow the chief racist of MLB or something. He was probably just the most talented one.
A juicy story for #HotTakes in the NFL off-season? From ESPN? I'm shocked.
All incentive laden contracts are bets. You really don't have to think very hard to realize it.
In his book he even said he bet on baseball in 1986. 1986 was his last year playing. Doing some simple math, looks like he put this info briefly in there. Being from Cincinnati, there is a great Reds blog down here and one of the editors tweeted this out.
the last known proven bet in 1986 and he's still done way more than enough to get into the Hall of Fame. I know most don't agree with this but 2 things stsnd out to me. 1) No proof of him betting baseball when he accomplished what made him Pete Rose. That would be like if someone said there's proof of Isiah Thomas being involved in gambling on NBA games when he was coaching but nothing when he was playing at elite levels and winning championships years earlier than it wouldn't tarnish his accomplishments on the court as a player in my eyes. Same goes with Rose here.
I get the theory people have of Rose focusing on any getting a win more on games he bet the Reds than games he passed on them but I don't believe he would have let a $2,000 bet effect his judement oer trying to win a baseball game especially being as competitve as he was. Sure it could be the case but I would believe it played no
the last known proven bet in 1986 and he's still done way more than enough to get into the Hall of Fame. I know most don't agree with this but 2 things stsnd out to me. 1) No proof of him betting baseball when he accomplished what made him Pete Rose. That would be like if someone said there's proof of Isiah Thomas being involved in gambling on NBA games when he was coaching but nothing when he was playing at elite levels and winning championships years earlier than it wouldn't tarnish his accomplishments on the court as a player in my eyes. Same goes with Rose here.
I get the theory people have of Rose focusing on any getting a win more on games he bet the Reds than games he passed on them but I don't believe he would have let a $2,000 bet effect his judement oer trying to win a baseball game especially being as competitve as he was. Sure it could be the case but I would believe it played no
Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens should be in the HofF
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
A tiger doesn't change his stripes.
Magnus, an American expert in sport, is revealed to be none other than Elin Nordegren, a former Swedish nanny and golf groupie. We suspected.
disturbing how many people don't see the problem with a professional athlete betting on his own sport and what that opens up potentially.
betting on baseball to be far worse than juicing.
Look, both are awful, just in different ways. The PED user is competing but not fairly. The gambler is not competing, at least not all of the time. Both affect the integrity of the sport.
me using 'roids to pump myself up? Clearly the steroid use is worse. But I'm not a pro athlete. The problem with gambling is it calls into question whether players/coaches etc are actually trying to win. You might be able to make some slippery slope argument connecting roids to greenies to coke to horse medications, but no one suggests Bonds or Ruth weren't trying to win. It's easy to suggest Rose was putting his own interest above his team's and may have either thrown games or managed them differently based on bets he placed.
No major sport can tolerate even the appearance of even the slightest possible connection with professional gamblers. Sports are the original reality TV - unscripted drama created live. If there were even a general suspicion that outcomes might be rigged, fan support would eventually wither. Kenesaw Mountain Landis understood that back in the day, and acted accordingly.
It does not matter whether Rose bet against his own team - every player, every manager, every coach, etc must know that they can't come within a zillion mile radius of anyone or anything that even smells like it might be connected with gambling. Violators will be banished, no exceptions, so let all be warned...
For those saying it's no big deal because he never bet for the Reds to lose, why in the world should anyone assume he's telling the truth about that when it has been proven that he has repeatedly lied and has continued to lie for decades about his betting?
against his own team. The bookie would immediately know that he was throwing the game and would place big bets of his own. Word would have quickly spread. It's an impossible scenario. If Rose bet against his own team, he used a third party to place them.
In my book he should be a HOFer. The fact that he is less than a perfect person just makes his story that much more compelling.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
If they would've forgave and let him in, since its obvious a guy nicknamed "charlie hustle" didn't taint the on field product like the black sox did, he would just be some old baseball player who wasn't perfect.
Instead when we see Pete, we are constantly reminded how tainted all pro sports are and, since the MLB still thinks it's pulling the wool over our eyes, we have to hear this sanctimonious nonsense so they can project in an effort to distance themselves from what they are.
Laughable Man!
Wow! Project much?
This is a guy who 1) bet on games involving his own team both as a player and manager, 2) signed a document banning himself from baseball for life and 3) even after signing that document, has been lying about his actions for 26 years. Let's not make him out to be some victim here.
My criticism was with the professional league for judging and not forgiving because they suck and their product sucks because its based on greed which makes them hypocrites since gambling is obviously a perversion of the greed gene (I digress tho), as far as fans go they're welcome to hate the guy for his faults if that's their thing.
Again I recommend hating the guys making all the money off pro sports that couldn't even make their high school team :-)
But to pretend Rose doesn't deserve to be on the MLB pantheon based on what he did BETWEEN THE LINES seems to lack integrity. Unless you can show his gambling addiction affected his on field performance, he's just a guy with a gambling problem kinda like Babe Ruth was a guy with a drinking problem. (tho he said "what's the problem")
Let me ask: What's the deal? Does it just make you feel better about yourself to dismiss a man's rare accomplishments and judge him so assuredly because of a character flaw?
I guess those that can't do, teach and those who can't teach, judge.
I'm not at all a fan of Pete Rose but I'd like to point out that the same thing could be said about an awful lot of baseball players / professional athletes.
Some other slime balls are in.
I also really don't care.
The whole obsession with Pete Rose seems incredibly tedious. If half this ammount of energy went in to actually researching fixed games, point shaving, prop bet fixing etc you'd find a lot more interesting material then rehashing this every couple years.