Even if TMD is banned, should you really make a call out thread?

 

I regret nothing.

---

I am surprised that people still argue for Pete Rose, you think they would simply let it go.

---

I am surprised that people still argue for Pete Rose, you think they would simply let it go.

 

If and when the steroid users start getting voted in the argument for Rose will erupt again.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Yes, he lied about the gambling, but how did he cheat?  How were any other players were "tarnished" by his actions?  I personally feel the image of the game was far more damaged by steroids, than anything Rose did.  How can one guy's off-the-field actions even begin to compare to league-wide use of PED's, which helped players gain a competitive advantage?

 

For the record, I would not allow him into the Hall of Fame, but his accomplishments do belong in the record book.

I'll tell you how he tarnished other players, and fans, and his owners. As the manager he can insert a left handed pitcher against a heavily right handed lineup and bet against his team. He can leave a pitcher in long after it's obvious he's done, permitting the other team to score more runs. He can hit and run with two outs and down by 3 runs late in the game. He can call for a steal by a runner with no speed. He can bring in a relief pitcher when the game is on the line who is historically beat by this particular batter. He can call for the defense to play deep giving the other team a more likely chance to beat out a ground ball or hit a blooper for a single. He can order the 3rd base coach to send the runner on 2nd home no matter how short of an outfielder fielding a hit. He could instruct a power hitter to bunt with a man on 2nd.

 

I could go on and on. Every decision he makes affects the outcome of the game, perhaps the career of players, and the success of the team.

 

Regards....................the Chiefjag

---

The history of baseball weighs heavily against Rose. The 1919 Black Sox scandal was a watershed moment for baseball and they dealt with it quickly and harshly. To this day, I understand that there are still signs from MLB posted in each clubhouse warning against gambling.

 

It is THE hot button with the baseball hierarchy as they fully understand that the integrity of the game is paramount...and it has been for almost 100 years.

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

There's an interesting book on the Black Sox scandal I read last year which put into perspective the actions of Joe Jackson, and Buck Weaver and Swede Risberg and the others. Basically it all boiled down to the cheapness of Charles Comiskey. He was notorious for paying his players less than the other teams, making them sign two year contracts where if they didn't resign for the second year they couldn't play anywhere, making them pay for their laundry, etc. If Comiskey had treated them fairly they probably wouldn't have thrown the series.

 

Regards....................the Chiefjag

---

I'll tell you how he tarnished other players, and fans, and his owners. As the manager he can insert a left handed pitcher against a heavily right handed lineup and bet against his team. He can leave a pitcher in long after it's obvious he's done, permitting the other team to score more runs. He can hit and run with two outs and down by 3 runs late in the game. He can call for a steal by a runner with no speed. He can bring in a relief pitcher when the game is on the line who is historically beat by this particular batter. He can call for the defense to play deep giving the other team a more likely chance to beat out a ground ball or hit a blooper for a single. He can order the 3rd base coach to send the runner on 2nd home no matter how short of an outfielder fielding a hit. He could instruct a power hitter to bunt with a man on 2nd.

 

I could go on and on. Every decision he makes affects the outcome of the game, perhaps the career of players, and the success of the team.

 

Regards....................the Chiefjag

 

Thanks for the rambling oratory, but I'm well aware of the numerous coaching decisions that can affect the outcome of a typical game.  I was watching baseball back when Pete was playing.  Now let's get back to the original question, "...how did he cheat?"

 

Has any evidence ever been put forth to prove Rose bet on his team as either a player or a coach?

 

If he did and bet to lose, then yes, that would tarnish the game (But nowhere near as much as steroids in my personal opinion).

If he did and bet to win every time, what harm was done?

 

 

PS  I wasn't trying to throw the game when I called in the lefty against the right-handed batter.   I was just trying to keep Ricky Henderson on first.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Thanks for the rambling oratory, but I'm well aware of the numerous coaching decisions that can affect the outcome of a typical game.  I was watching baseball back when Pete was playing.  Now let's get back to the original question, "...how did he cheat?"

 

Has any evidence ever been put forth to prove Rose bet on his team as either a player or a coach?

 

If he did and bet to lose, then yes, that would tarnish the game (But nowhere near as much as steroids in my personal opinion).

If he did and bet to win every time, what harm was done?

 

 

PS  I wasn't trying to throw the game when I called in the lefty against the right-handed batter.   I was just trying to keep Ricky Henderson on first.

 

Once Rose admitted to betting on baseball, the damage was already done. It doesn't matter if he only bet on his team to win because the perception that he may have bet to lose is there. And that perception, while admittedly may or may not be reality, is the key factor here.

 

As has been stated before, Professional Sports Leagues can withstand a lot of dirt and most any kind of scandal. Joe Fan will put up with spousal abuse, drug abuse, pouty attitudes, and most anything else. What he won't put up with is if he thinks that the games are not being played fairly. Once that happens, he loses interest because he believes that the outcome of games is set in advance and the true drama of the competition is gone.

 

Like PF* stated above, MLB was adamant about Organization Staff betting on baseball; YOU DON'T DO IT. Period. End of discussion. Because if you do, then fans will stop fanning and when they stop doing that, they stop buying tickets.

 

Rose snubbed his nose at Baseball's most holy rule and thought that his play could overcome it. For the future of MLB, they can't let him go unpunished.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

I too was watching Rose when he played. And I suppose you didn't follow the story as closely as I. If you had, you might have known his bookie admitted he bet on the Reds. But old Pete denied it until he didn't. Now it's in the history books and he tarnished the game and you can admit he cheated.

 

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498

---

I too was watching Rose when he played. And I suppose you didn't follow the story as closely as I. If you had, you might have known his bookie admitted he bet on the Reds. But old Pete denied it until he didn't. Now it's in the history books and he tarnished the game and you can admit he cheated.

 

 

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498'>http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498</a>

 

Did the bookie claim he bet against the Reds?  If he bet on every single game, but always to win, how did he cheat?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Did the bookie claim he bet against the Reds?  If he bet on every single game, but always to win, how did he cheat?

I give up! You obviously have not thought this out. You ask:

 

"Has any evidence ever been put forth to prove Rose bet on his team as either a player or a coach?"

 

I answered that question with a direct quote from old Pete himself. Then you come back with another qualifier:

 

"If he bet on every single game, but always to win, how did he cheat?"

 

If you want to believe he only bet to win, and if you believe betting to win is permissible, and if you believe betting on your own team is acceptable, then peace be with you. But in the beginning Pete's claim was he only bet on horses, upon further investigation then he bet on horses and football, upon further investigation then he bet on horses, football, and baseball but not the Reds, upon further investigation he bet on horses, football, baseball and the Reds. Most of the baseball people who admire the purity of the sport, and who manage the integrity of the game, know damn well Pete's a scum bag liar. But some don't want to see what's obvious.

 

Additionally, I don't understand how his supporters cannot support baseball's steadfast rule: "Under MLB Rule 21, "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." It doesn't say only if they bet against their team.

 

Regards....................the Chiefjag

---

http://forums.rotoworld.com/index.php?sh...&p=6366945

 

lol

---

Baseball is for old men that enjoy being bored out of their minds for a handful of hours thinking about meaningless stats and numbers. Rose is never getting in because its such an old man game and old people never forgive.

---

Even if Pete Rose only bet on his team to win,  this shouldn't be acceptable.   Rose could have left his pitchers in too long,  putting them at risk for injury.   He also could have used a player with an injury who shouldn't have been playing.

---

Baseball is for old men that enjoy being bored out of their minds for a handful of hours thinking about meaningless stats and numbers. Rose is never getting in because its such an old man game and old people never forgive.

Brilliant.

---

I give up! You obviously have not thought this out. You ask:

 

"Has any evidence ever been put forth to prove Rose bet on his team as either a player or a coach?"

 

I answered that question with a direct quote from old Pete himself. Then you come back with another qualifier:

 

"If he bet on every single game, but always to win, how did he cheat?"

 

If you want to believe he only bet to win, and if you believe betting to win is permissible, and if you believe betting on your own team is acceptable, then peace be with you. But in the beginning Pete's claim was he only bet on horses, upon further investigation then he bet on horses and football, upon further investigation then he bet on horses, football, and baseball but not the Reds, upon further investigation he bet on horses, football, baseball and the Reds. Most of the baseball people who admire the purity of the sport, and who manage the integrity of the game, know damn well Pete's a scum bag liar. But some don't want to see what's obvious.

 

Additionally, I don't understand how his supporters cannot support baseball's steadfast rule: "Under MLB Rule 21, "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." It doesn't say only if they bet against their team.

 

Regards....................the Chiefjag

 

You're getting a little intense Chief, how much money did you lose betting on the Reds?

 

I notice you never answered the question, "how did he cheat?"  The simple and indisputable fact is that he didn't.  Now before you break your keyboard banging out a furious reply, think it through.  What's the worst possible scenario, that he bet on the Reds to lose and affected the game in some way to make that happen?  That still isn't cheating on baseball, it's cheating on gambling. 

 

Yes, he had a serious gambling problem/addiction.  Yes, he lied about his gambling on multiple occasions.  Yes, he broke baseball's most sacred rule.  Let's assume he frequently bet on his team as a player and/or manager.  Did he bet to win or lose, who knows?  When he says he never bet against his team, I'm inclined to believe it.  Not because he has any credibility, but because he was so competitive on the field.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see him throwing a game.  

 

You think he's a scumbag, fine that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it.  I personally think beating up his wife/girlfriend qualifies a player for the scumbag title quicker than gambling does.

 

For the record, I am not a supporter of Pete Rose.  I believe his records belong in the books, but I would never admit him into Cooperstown and I agree completely with the lifetime ban.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

...

 

I notice you never answered the question, "how did he cheat?"
  The simple and indisputable fact is that he didn't.  Now before you break your keyboard banging out a furious reply, think it through.  What's the worst possible scenario, that he bet on the Reds to lose and affected the game in some way to make that happen?  That still isn't cheating on baseball, it's cheating on gambling. 

 

Yes, he had a serious gambling problem/addiction.  Yes, he lied about his gambling on multiple occasions.  Yes, he broke baseball's most sacred rule.
 Let's assume he frequently bet on his team as a player and/or manager.  Did he bet to win or lose, who knows?  When he says he never bet against his team, I'm inclined to believe it.  Not because he has any credibility, but because he was so competitive on the field.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see him throwing a game.  

 

...

 

Isn't cheating kinda defined as breaking the rules?

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Isn't cheating kinda defined as breaking the rules?

 

Actually, is kinda defined as breaking the rules to obtain an advantage.  Spitball, corked bat, underinflated football, etc.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Actually, is kinda defined as breaking the rules to obtain an advantage.  Spitball, corked bat, underinflated football, etc.

So you're saying someone that you, yourself, describe as a gambling addict isn't going to utilise every advantage possible? Then you also further describe him as a competitor. Isn't he also 'competing' at gambling?


You're dreaming if you don't think he would do everything he could to gain an advantage.


And now you're trying to delineate between breaking the rules and cheating?


Unreal.

---

So you're saying someone that you, yourself, describe as a gambling addict isn't going to utilise every advantage possible? Then you also further describe him as a competitor. Isn't he also 'competing' at gambling?


You're dreaming if you don't think he would do everything he could to gain an advantage.


And now you're trying to delineate between breaking the rules and cheating?


Unreal.

 

If you're trying to throw a game why would you even want to utilize an advantage if such existed?  You would do exactly the opposite.

 

Breaking the rules = cheating in your mind.  Interesting theory, let's put it to the test.  Justin Blackmon is banned from football because he broke the rules.  There's probably a hundred pages on the subject out here somewhere, yet I've never heard him referred to as a "cheater". Please explain to me how he cheated. 

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.