Rose finally cops to betting on baseball

people bitch and moan about "if he would just admit to betting on baseball we would let him in" and then the shit hits the fan and now the story is different. i say let him in, i said before this he should be in, confession or no.

personally i wish he would have took it to the grave with him and told vincent and all the other goons to blow him. damn pete, why'd ya get weak?

 

I thought you might show up here. Especially after the last time we went through this. But I never addressed the issue before now cause I was too busy yelling at you before.

The way I feel about Steve Howe and others that use chemicals is that in those specific instances, the player is not manipulating the situation to gain an advantage that benefits him financially - like you can in gambling. I mean that's the entire purpose.

One, gambling, is compromising the game's integrity for individual cash gain. The others are compromising the game's integrity through the individual being a sorry ass. Sure it may be planned - the player did CHOOSE to do the things you mention - but what does the player GAIN from the situations you mention? How does the drunk or druggie specifically benefit from compromising the game's integrity through their impaired performance that day? Drunk (or at least hungover) players have been around since the 1800's - I just don't remember any instance in which this is supposedly beneficial. I'm pretty sure we'd all agree it's detrimental to the team though. David Wells I'm guessing is the exception. I know there are players who have admitted to being all kinds of liquored up throughout sports history, but I have to wonder if they went out 10 minutes before the game and got smashed to help them play. Most were just feeling the night before.

Now, if you can show me that beating a wife or getting stoned or drunk has a known tangible benefit that benefits the player at the expense of the game's integrity - like the possibility of fixing a game does, and that's where the gambling thing always ends up - then I'll jump right in line with you in equating the druggies and wife beaters you mention with dirtbags like Pete. Til then, Pete's on a plane all by himself.

BTW, you are probably right about Jordan and if you could've caught him I'd be all for kicking his ass to the curb too. He was tossing a shitload of money around on illegal bets.

 

so Howe or Strawberry being into their dealer for a wad of cash doesn't have the possibility of influencing a game? bullshit. Say the dealer tells them he'll knock off some of what they owe or supply them at no cost in exchange for blowing a game because he has some money riding on it and they do it. Tell me just how this is any different from what you are trying to hold over Rose's head at the moment? My point wasn't as much about Rose as it was about those clinging to their "integrety of the game" argument while excusing other behaviors that could ultimately have the same effect. Rose is right when he says his addiction is looked upon differently, if he'd have been a drunk or a druggie he'd have had 30-60 days off with pay and no one would have thought the less of him.

 

It is different because no one threw a world series to drug dealers. That is why. To go with your theory, point shaving is no different than a DUI and that is crap. I am sure that people have gone back and looked at the games we know Rose bet on and looked at his behavior on those days, and seen that it was different. Because of the way that you bet on baseball, it is especially susceptible to manipulation by the manager.

 

Is there any, I repeat any, evidence of Rose having bet against the Reds? Guess what? That's the only way to prove he had an effect on his team. MLB hasn't even said he did that. So in your world, Rose is satan for having bet on his team to win and others to either win or lose is different than a player purposely blowing a game to score a free 8 ball of coke?

 

I'm bolding that passage for a reason T. It ALWAYS has to come back to gambling. If Straw and Howe owe a few hundred thou, how do you think the slate gets wiped clean? They would have to enter into a conspiracy with the drug dealer that would involve - you guessed it - gambling. Someone STILL has to profit from their throwing the game along the way. Those dealers ain't gonna wipe the slate clean without something in return. That something is tossing a game. And to use your line about blowing a game for an 8-Ball? I'd be all over them for that.

So it's not the same effect simply because they are druggies. It's the same effect IF their drug habit leads to debt which leads to a gambling conspiracy. But the key and common thing in both cases is the gambling. Someone has to gamble to make the profit.

As far as the other part about addiction being looked on differently? I agree with you that he is right. But it's still moral relativism to equate the two. Steve Howe catching a break because baseball (or any sport) refusing (or being too stupid) to place a morals clause into a contract doesn't mean that Rose gets a pass on the gambling. It means baseball or other sports should start whacking the folks who beat their wives a little harder.

 

No, there is no evidence that he bet against the Reds, but I think - not sure though - that he did bet on them to win. So let's go with that. He has ruined the integretiy of the game by placing more importance on that outcome than on the next day, or the next, or whenever his dumb ass decided to bet on the Reds again.

 

Didn't Pete have the option of just being suspended for 2 years (?) but at the last minute, took the lifetime ban (the commissioner or his lawyer were getting on an elevator at MLB HQ's and Pete's lawyer just got there before the doors closed). He looks stupid now for saying over the last 14 years 'I didn't do it!!!' during all of those interviews he had with ESPN/ABC/and other media outlets . . .


THE BOTTOM LINE: Reinstate him so he can get into the HALL OF FAME (which he and most baseball fans want) but prevent him still from having any official capacity with a MLB team (i.e. front office or managers job). I've heard this is what he really wants, but until he shows he really is sorry for betting on baseball (i.e. speak about it to players, gambling groups, etc.) I wouldn't let him back into the game!!!

 

VP and others with the same stance. While I can still understand your points about Rose, I just in no way can say that what he did is any worse than what a lot of these other players do/did yesterday and today. Other players bet and thats fact. I can also tell you one thing, that any of these junkies that play the game as many as there are, you can bet (hehe) your last dollar that a lot of them have tanked a game to lower their debt or get more drugs.

Ok, say take your point that this part doesn't really ever happen with the druggies and others. I sit here and think, which would I rather watch play the game or represent my team that I am a fan of, a gambler or dope addict, sexual offender, or one that commits murder.

Hmm, that one is really tough, but I gotta go with the gambler. I don't have a problem with holding Rose accountable and if that means him not going to the Hall or managing again that is fine by me and I may even prefer that, but I will be damned if that is going to be any worse than all the shit these other players, coaches and managers do.

Hold all of the accountable by the same standard as you do the other. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

 

Gary McClain was high on coke when he helped Villanova upset Georgetown in the NCAA's, Mickey Mantle sometimes came in so hungover he could barely walk and then would go out an hit and go 2-3 with a homer. There are countless examples - and they all share one thing. The people involved were all trying to win, to the best of their ability - EVERY day.

By definition, if Rose was only betting on the Reds sometimes, then he was managing differently in THOSE games. Now, if he had bet the same amount on the Reds EVERY game then i might be more inclined to argue that he did not influence the integrity of the game because he could not make one game more important than the other.

Here is the defining question. Would Vegas have continued to take bets on Reds games if they knew that Pete was betting only on some of them? The answer is NO. Why? Because if he did, then they could not accurately set lines for all the games. Why not? Because those bets affected the integity of the game.