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.
As long as he didnt bet on himself to lose I still don't see the problem. Sports would be far more interesting if every player had to bet on his own team.
Watch the tape on Pete Rose and all you see is a guy who looks like he bet his house on every single game. IMO more people should play with that type of enthusiam.
Agreed, his enthusiam is almost on par with Harbaugh.
Since he didn't bet on every game it is plausible that when he did bet on a game he played in or managed, it sent a signal to somebody else to lay money one way or the other. By the same token, not making a bet could have sent another signal. There's just no way of knowing what else transpired and there is no way any reasonable person will ever believe another word coming out of Rose's mouth.
Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball and I don't see how this latest revelation would do anything but reinforce that reality.
If this was the only thing he had lied about then I agree that it wouldn't be a big deal, in fact it's quite insignificant in general. But this is the same person who lied for years saying he didn't bet on baseball while managing, then he comes clean 20ish years later saying he only did it as a manager and not as a player, well here we are again catching him in another lie. At what point do we know when he's even telling the truth?
Its not like he bet on the Reds to win every day. As such a prolific gambler, the mere act of him not betting on his team to win on a given day would be just as bad.
Exactly. If I'm betting on my team to win Saturday, but not Friday, think I'll play the same lineup both days?
The integrity of the game is called into question when this happens. If I as a fan am paying to attend that Friday game, I have a right to believe that the team I'm paying to see is giving its best effort at winning.
...could significantly reduce its real estate footprint if it simply excluded everyone whose actions had threatened the integrity of baseball.
We are at a point now with so many ethically compromised individuals in CooperstownI think it would make more sense for the Hall of Fame to reframe itself - instead of giving out endorsements of greatness, it really ought to just be a historian of the game that recognizes individuals that are significant to its history, not just the good guys.
I'm sure there were other guys who bet on baseball and got away with it, but I don't think that excuses Rose. They have to make an example of someone who's caught betting on his own team's games if they want to preserve their credibility with the public.
Gambling is unique in that it calls into question whether a team or player is actually trying to win. This is the difference between pro sports and pro wrestling.
The plaques that commemorate the inductees are a relatively small part of it.
Consider this scenario.
Pete bets on the Reds to win Saturday's game. On Friday, he's in a close game in the late innings. Rather than put in his setup man and closer he decides to save them for Saturday. He stretches his starter and they lose on Friday.
His Saturday bet could impact how he calls his Friday game. That could happen in many ways. He could certainly structure his lineup to win a particular game to the detriment of other games.
Great minds think alike...
IDK. I get the logic and sentiment you're going with here, but as a former sports gambler, RARELY if ever would i bet a game a day or more in advance. You want to wait at least until the day of to get all the most up to date information before your $ takes a side.
Either way, he shouldn't have bet on baseball and is a pathalogical liar, who also happens to be one of the best hitters of all time.
But even if he waited until the day of the game to bet, there is still the problem of him trying extra hard to win certain games and not others. If he throws the kitchen sink at that Saturday game to win the bet, he may rest a bunch of guys on Sunday.
Even if he waits until the day of, in that Friday/Saturday game example, he could still employ the same logic. If this is a team he felt they should have beaten on Friday, but are down, he could be influenced by how to set up his team for the next day so he can make a bet for his team to win. Again, you could end up with stretching starters and saving your closer or strongest arms in the pen and conceding the Friday loss so your bet the next day is more likely to pan out.
And, of course, you get better odds on Saturday if you lose to that team the day before...
He could also know that player X isn't playing tonight or someone else has the flu, etc. Its not hard to picture that scenario.
innings of a strong start and wears out his guy for later in the year. Why? He was doing everything possible to win that night's bet.
Don't mean to make this oneupsmanship. I agree with you completely.
Prior to steroids, the brightest red letter issue to MLB was gambling. Full stop. They lost a Series to it and it has been a focus ever since. How a player can violate the greatest cardinal sin in the sport and expect anything less than a lifetime ban is difficult to understand.
This just seems so overdone at this point, nothing he did hurt competition or padded his own stats, unlike the steroid boys. Yawn.
If silly arguments by assertion are the best you can do, take a nap. He was trying to pad his wallet, not his stats, and he certainly gives the impression that he hurt competitive play; he slectively chose games in which he had an additional foinancial interest to win.
Not to mentioj that fact that he was owned by the mob; who knows what he had to do to keep his kneecaps? I doubt that it was anything that enhanced competition.
Which is fine, but I made a point that you haven't argued against. I believe his offense is way less than steroid users--do you agree, or do you just dislike my casual and flippant yawn comment? Sorry but this news is not really a revelation.
While PEDs may assist a player to perform better on the field of play, or recover from injury so that he can continue to play, they aren't used to fix games.
If gambling is allowed by the players and those that control action on the field, sports such as baseball, football, and basketball will have no more credibility than professional "Wrestling."
Gambling can and will fundementally corrupt and alter sports in ways that PEDs never can.
do you?
I just don't buy them. Athough I do respect them, I disagree. I don't happen to think the revelation that he bet while playing is really a revelation--do you? Didn't you think all along that he lied about that? This is why I yawn.
While I agree that baseball should have rules against players gambling, until there is evidence that Rose bet against his team, this crime is way less of a threat to baseball than what Bonds and others did, because records in baseball are sacred, and baseball was altered by PED's--and continuity of records are treasured in baseball.
He broke the rules--do you think he has paid enough of a price? I do, it's been 30 years. Enough for this transgression. Into the Hall he should go
at least there is no suggestion that Bonds, Palmeiro et el weren't doing their best to win. With Rose it's a serious question. Did he misuse his bullpen to win one night's bet at the expense of the next day's game? Highly likely. Did gamblers bet heavy against the Reds the days Rose didn't bet for them? Hightly likely. Did Rose ever throw just one to get out of his massive debts? no evidence, but certainly possible. Why are these even questions? The same reason he should be out of the Hall.
If you bet a lot of money on today's game for the team you manage. You might be pulling all stops to win TODAY at the expense of 161 other games or even player health. Thinking of winning a battle that costs you the war.
He gives everything to win today's game (that he bet on). At the expense of the next week's games where he will have no bullpen. That's not managing a baseball team. It's managing a gambling addiction.
you might have questioned how he played every time he got thrown out trying to take an extra base, etc.
if you bet that your team would win or on a random game in which your team isn't playing.
Fart
I agree for the most part, but I could also make the case that betting on your team to win by 3 runs could alter your tactics if you're only winning by 2.
There are only two problems:
(1) All baseball players see the sign in every dressing room which tells them not to gamble on sports; and
(2) much more importantly, Pete Rose himself agreed to the lifetime ban.
But as a baseline proposition, if you're betting that your team would win, you could be in a position that you would bet your team would not win, to cover your losses if you bet on your team winning and it didn't happen. The moment you even consider doing that, professional sports turns into the WWE.
And as for the second issue (random game in which your team isn't playing), shamone. Pete Rose calls up the manager of a team in that game, tells him to tank it and offers to split the winnings with him. You have no problem with that?
The problem with betting your team to win is what if you didn't bet your team to win the next day? If you're the manager, and have money riding on the tuesday game but not the wednesday game, you're incentivized to play players/use relievers/use your bench differently, to maximize today's chance at winning without regard to tomorrows'. I used to be squarely in the "if you bet to win, who cares?" camp, but upon further contemplation, I see why even betting in favor of your team can cause problems.
You can really only get out of the conflict of interest in one of two ways, by my estimation: either don't bet on your team at all, or bet on your team to win every single game.
Jesus-fucking-Christ
with what Rose did.
First of all, he knew he was breaking MLB's biggest rule. He absolutely knew that if he got caught there would be major consequences. That left him vulnerable to blackmail. Vulnerable to the wrong kind of people. People who would be interested in having him fix games and know how to apply pressure.
There was also the issue of being a problem gambler and falling into debt with dangerous people. That might lead him to do something he might not do otherwise.
Finally, this was all against the law, not just against baseball's rules. You or I may not care much about that particular law, but that doesn't mean others have to feel the same way. It also adds to the potential problems above.
He's lied every step of the way. That's part of the problem. I would never assume we know everything. His funneling bets against his team through a third party would not surprise me.
Every Rose has its thorn.
Just like every night has its dawn.
every cowboy sings a sad, sad song.
Every rose has its thorn.
