Pete Rose - Caught in a Lie... Again

[Nottso]

The problem with gambling so much is you will eventually lose, and when you do it is very easy to "influence" you to change the outcome of the game in exchange for debt forgiveness.

 

I used to be of the mindset that if you bet on yourself to win, I saw nothing wrong with it. My understanding is it is common in European soccer and no one blinks an eye.

 

But recently I read "Larceny Games" and the thing the author points out is that an athlete gambling can be indebted to a bookie (or dealer) leading to a compromised situation.

 

This. I was half watching something on TV yesterday that said Rose was $400,000 - $500,000 in debt to New York mobsters. Bad scenarios there are nearly endless. Games that Rose played in, or managed, may have had an impact on other teams (division races, etc).

 

And as has been stated so many times... gambling is THE cardinal sin in baseball.

[Baldkin]

I don't care that he gambled, or that he gambled on his own team... if it was to WIN. If it is ever proven that he bet on his own team to lose I can understand the ban. Then you are getting into the area where you can influence games, even if it is just cutting a couple runs in a game you still win. If you are betting on your own team to win how are you influencing games??? By trying hard?? That is the point of sports!

 

Gambling is a bad habit, but a personal choice. Until its proven that he bet against his own team I don't care what bad habits he had. I refuse to believe you can FIX games by betting to win. If you can TRY HARDER then you would not be an elite player to begin with.

 

If he didn't bet on his team every single game, then that is no different than betting against them in the games he didn't bet on them.

 

If you're managing and setting up your team to win the 25 games you bet on, instead of trying to manage and win the 90 games you need to make the playoffs....

[logan82]

Ban for life. Once he dies, put him in the HOF.

[1992casey]

The ban has to stand; he shouldn't be representing the sport or a team in either an official or unofficial capacity. But if the Hall wants to change its rules and allow banned players onto its ballots, I can live with that.

[Thurston Fluff]

I don't care if Rose lied or not. He gambled on baseball, and that's strike 1,2, and 3. The fact that he bet on his own team makes it worse, but that doesn't even matter to me. After the Black Sox scandal it has been clear ever since you simply can not gamble, it is cut and dried.

 

The PED users...that's up to the voters for the HOF.

 

Spot on. The bigger issue is if we let him in the next Pete Rose will be tempted to do it because he will know he will eventually get in anyway. Pete Rose should not get in ever. Not now, not when he is dead, not a 100 years after he is dead. To let him in ever would undo everything baseball did to overcome the Black Sox scandal. If you cannot be sure the game's outcome isn't predetermined you don't have a game. You have pro wrestling. Gambling on games is the fastest way to do that.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I don't care that he gambled, or that he gambled on his own team... if it was to WIN. If it is ever proven that he bet on his own team to lose I can understand the ban. Then you are getting into the area where you can influence games, even if it is just cutting a couple runs in a game you still win. If you are betting on your own team to win how are you influencing games??? By trying hard?? That is the point of sports!

 

Gambling is a bad habit, but a personal choice. Until its proven that he bet against his own team I don't care what bad habits he had. I refuse to believe you can FIX games by betting to win. If you can TRY HARDER then you would not be an elite player to begin with.

 

 

It's not hard to imagine how this scenario goes down a slippery slope. As Nottso said, he was rumored at one point to be 400K or more in the hole to bookies with mob ties. It's not hard to see a situation where these guys ask Rose to influence the outcome of a game the other way to relieve some of that debt.

[JohnBriggs12]

Paul Hornung got a year's suspension for betting on pro football while playing. He's now in the HOF.

 

Pete Rose was/is a compulsive gambler. Compulsive gambling is a sickness. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic, also a sickness. Both ruin lives. Only one keeps you out of the HOF. Pete's 75 years old. This "new" revelation occurred 30 years ago. There's still no evidence he threw games he played in or managed.

 

Let it go.

[FVBrewerFan]

Paul Hornung got a year's suspension for betting on pro football while playing. He's now in the HOF.

 

Pete Rose was/is a compulsive gambler. Compulsive gambling is a sickness. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic, also a sickness. Both ruin lives. Only one keeps you out of the HOF. Pete's 75 years old. This "new" revelation occurred 30 years ago. There's still no evidence he threw games he played in or managed.

 

Let it go.

 

Did I miss something? I don't remember Rose playing for the Bengals. What in the world does MLB's rules have to do with the NFL? Do you suggest the Brewers can go for an extra point after hitting a HR?

 

Secondly, unless you are currently treating Rose, how do you know he has a sickness as opposed to just enjoying gambling? But let's say you're right, he has a sickness. It's STILL against the rules. Just like today, with the new banned substance policy in MLB, a player can't keep failing tests and use the defense "I have a sickness."

 

Finally, again, there doesn't need to be proof he threw or tried to throw any games. That is not the bar. He gambled on baseball, case closed. It's near impossible to PROVE someone is actively trying to throw a game, which is why gambling is prohibited period. There have been times college basketball players threw games, it was proven later and they admitted it. But at the time, nobody had a clue. That's why all this banter about did Rose throw games, did he bet on the Red or just other teams, did he bet only to win....doesn't matter. It is binary. Did he gamble on baseball? Yes or no? Yes = You're out of baseball. Something he knew perfectly well.

[Thurston Fluff]

Paul Hornung got a year's suspension for betting on pro football while playing. He's now in the HOF.

 

Pete Rose was/is a compulsive gambler. Compulsive gambling is a sickness. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic, also a sickness. Both ruin lives. Only one keeps you out of the HOF. Pete's 75 years old. This "new" revelation occurred 30 years ago. There's still no evidence he threw games he played in or managed.

 

Let it go.

 

Baseball had a team throw a World Series game for gamblers, the NFL did not. Baseball then put in a rule that clearly stated what their policy response was to that. In all the years of collective bargaining that ban was never negotiated away. My guess is because the union agreed with the importance of that rule to the integrity of the game. Which is saying something considering how hard they fought against PEDS. AS far as gambling being a sickness so what? Alcoholics choose to drink and drive or stay home and drink. Those who choose to put others in harms way pay the penalty. Why should his gambling addiction negate the well known penalty for betting on baseball when there are literally thousands of other things he could have bet on?

[3and2Fastball]

Did I miss something? I don't remember Rose playing for the Bengals. What in the world does MLB's rules have to do with the NFL? Do you suggest the Brewers can go for an extra point after hitting a HR?

 

I'd be totally cool with that if it involved Carlos Gomez

[jerichoholicninja]

If you're going to use the "gambling is against the rules and it doesn't matter if it's a disease" argument, then Josh Hamilton should have banned for life a few times already.

[Pugger]

It really hasn't been that big of a deal to me, but I've been more in the 'let Rose in' category for a while, but this really puts me into the other camp. He'll never get in the hall now, and I don't think many will argue otherwise. Betting on games you play in is really dicey business. Lying about it repeatedly more so.

 

Just really sad. Rose was a special player. Too bad he ended up as such a train wreck of a person.

 

 

I think we, as Brewers fans, can appreciate this. Brauny getting snagged for roids wasn't the big deal. His bold faced claiming that "the truth" would come out is why he's such a villain now.

 

And why he gets booed in almost every stadium we visit and why he probably will not make the HOF in the end.

[tmwiese55]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that he agreed to the lifetime ban in order to avoid criminal prosecution. Whenever someone has argued that he should be in that was always my take. At least that's the way I understand, if an old timer knows better just correct me. This was negotiated and agreed to, and then he spent the next 30 years lying about it. Then 'came clean' a few years ago and now it turns out he was still lying when he did that. The guy is a joke and should never be allowed in the HOF or to be honored in anyway.

[1992casey]

When the ban was issued, part of it was that Rose could apply for reinstatement every year. I believe he's done that four times.

 

Jayson Stark had an interesting take. He feels that Rose should be inducted due to his historical significance and that his gambling history should be noted on his plaque.

 

My feeling that he belongs in the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with forgiveness.

 

Nope, this is about history. This is about having a Hall of Fame that tells the true story of what has happened in baseball through the years: the good, the bad, the ugly, the beautiful, the inspiring. the embarrassing. All of it.

 

That's what history museums do, right? They tell the story of a period of time. And they tell all of it. They don't pretend certain stuff never happened just because it's inconvenient.

What he isn't pointing out is that the Hall can do all of that without enshrining him. My understanding is that Rose is already very well covered in the museum, just as other non-enshrined players might be if they've done something historically significant (either positive or negative).

 

But as I've said, the MLB ban and Hall eligibility are two separate things. I think the MLB ban has to stand. But if the Hall wants to change its stance on banned players and let voters decide on enshrinement, I'm open to that discussion.

[logan82]

When the ban was issued, part of it was that Rose could apply for reinstatement every year. I believe he's done that four times.

 

Jayson Stark had an interesting take. He feels that Rose should be inducted due to his historical significance and that his gambling history should be noted on his plaque.

 

My feeling that he belongs in the Hall of Fame has nothing to do with forgiveness.

 

Nope, this is about history. This is about having a Hall of Fame that tells the true story of what has happened in baseball through the years: the good, the bad, the ugly, the beautiful, the inspiring. the embarrassing. All of it.

 

That's what history museums do, right? They tell the story of a period of time. And they tell all of it. They don't pretend certain stuff never happened just because it's inconvenient.

What he isn't pointing out is that the Hall can do all of that without enshrining him. My understanding is that Rose is already very well covered in the museum, just as other non-enshrined players might be if they've done something historically significant (either positive or negative).

 

But as I've said, the MLB ban and Hall eligibility are two separate things. I think the MLB ban has to stand. But if the Hall wants to change its stance on banned players and let voters decide on enshrinement, I'm open to that discussion.

That seems a good rationale for letting in all the steroid users also.

[StearnsFTW]

Overrated player anyway, doesn't belong in the HOF either way. Probably the most glorified singles hitter in the history of MLB.

 

 

And I thought I was a Rose hater.

[1992casey]

That seems a good rationale for letting in all the steroid users also.

Well, nobody's currently banned for drugs, so that's not really an issue as far as Hall of Fame eligibility is concerned. The two players who've been banned for drugs (Ferguson Jenkins and Steve Howe) were both reinstated, and voters elected Jenkins to the Hall.

[davego]

I loved Rose as a kid. I had tears when he passed Cobb. He is one of the greatest players in the history of the game. Then, he bet on a game that he played in. Then, he bet on a game that he managed. He should never, ever be enshrined into the Hall. Baseball rule #1. He knew this better than anyone. I loved Pete. I saw him in Vegas about 10 years ago hawking his autograph and picture...I walked the other way.

[dlk9s]

I saw him in Vegas about 10 years ago hawking is autograph and picture...I walked the other way.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I covered the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas in both 2005 and 2006. Don't remember which year it was, but I was perusing an art exhibition and saw a sign advertising Pete Rose and Joe Montana autograph sessions. $100 a pop. Nothing I could do but roll my eyes.

[Invader3K]

Who would seriously pay $100 for a Pete Rose autograph? He has probably been one of the most prolific signers out there. There's no way that is a good value...oh well.

[RightFieldCoder]

There is a sign in every major league clubhouse for the last 90 years that says you will be banned from baseball for betting on the game or associating with gamblers. AFAIK, there is not a single sign in any clubhouse that says you will be banned from baseball for taking drugs.

 

Rose vs steroid user is an apples to oranges comparison. Rose knew the consequence of his actions could lead to this punishment. Roids takers in the late 90s did not have that luxury. I feel no sympathy for Rose not being enshrined (he's still mentioned in the HoF) and hope he never is.

[JohnBriggs12]

Listen I don't care either way. If baseball thinks it's cleaner than the NFL because of it's lifetime ban rule then good for them. I don't equate throwing a World Series as the Black Sox did with betting on your own team to win or betting on game you aren't playing in. I understand having a rule against it, but the punishment is still way out of proportion to the crime. That Rose undoubtedly knew of the consequences but still gambled is further proof that he was a compulsive gambler and his compulsion outweighed logic. Anyone who knows someone with OCD knows that compulsive people cannot be reasoned with logically.

[FVBrewerFan]

John, you're really reaching and you're not normally like that. Baseball never claimed it's "cleaner than football." They simply have had a very clear rule in place for decades due the Black Sox scandal. Nobody has said what Rose did was on the scale as the Black Sox scandal, we were explaining why the rule exists in the first place. It's a case where you can't be "a little bit pregnant." Maybe he didn't throw games, he probably didn't. But the danger is always there when you get into debt with sharks. There are all sorts of consequences that come from gambling.

 

Finally, again, who knows if he had a compulsive habit he couldn't control. Maybe he did it for fun, we don't know. But assuming it was/is a compulsive disorder that is a separate issue. That's something he should have, or still should get help for. It's not a reason for letting him off the hook for doing something he know to be against the rules, and also knew the consequences.

[Thurston Fluff]

That Rose undoubtedly knew of the consequences but still gambled is further proof that he was a compulsive gambler and his compulsion outweighed logic. Anyone who knows someone with OCD knows that compulsive people cannot be reasoned with logically.

 

Once again you cannot use it as an excuse to get out of a punishment. A drunk driver cannot use "I am an alcoholic," to get out of the punishment for an OWI Especially when it was his second or third one. Similarly, using the gambling addict card does not negate the need to enforce the well known punishment for gambling on baseball. Indeed it does the exact opposite. As anyone with an addiction will tell you the first thing you have to do is accept the consequences of your actions. If he really is trying to address a gambling addiction he should simply accept the punishment and move on with his recovery. I would wish him well and hope he keeps his life together. If he isn't trying to deal with it then he certainly doesn't deserve to get out of the penalty for his actions.

[tmwiese55]

regarding comments on him betting on his team to win: can you really believe this? The guy has lied about everything the entire time, if he know his SP had a dead arm or a cold I'm pretty sure he'd bet against. And at least he wouldn't bet on them, which in itself is a bet against. Guy is a dirtball, good riddance.