Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player?

Moderator: TyCobb

User avatar
anatomicbomb
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,298
And1: 542
Joined: Jun 13, 2013

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#21 » by anatomicbomb » Tue Jan 8, 2019 1:36 am

danfantastk32 wrote:From Yahoosports: "Another controversy has found Pete Rose, baseball’s embattled hit king. According to a sworn statement filed in a Pennsylvania court Monday by an unidentified woman, Rose maintained a sexual relationship with her in the 1970s when she says she was under the age of 16.
They both lived in Ohio at the time, where 16 is the age of consent. If true — Rose admits the relationship but says she was older than 16 — Rose wouldn’t face criminal charges for statutory rape because the statute of limitations has expired."

Nice. I certainly hope this guy never makes the HoF. He gambled....and there was a penalty involved.

He was a married man in his mid-30's with kids cheating outside baseball as well. Sounds like a pattern to me. I guess you can believe him, and not her (he's been so f-ing honest to date) that she was over 16....that's your choice.

Giant, bloated, cheating, creep-oid. Too funny that anyone wants to see this cheater in the HoF.


This is the first I heard about the statutory rape allegations. The serial ones sound like they could be a bit unreliable, but the fact that there are stories from multiple sources and one of those statements is a signed statement issued in court, then it starts to paint a picture that's very unsettling.

Honouring him sounds like a poor idea, but hiring him for FOX is a natural move. Next lawsuit in 3...
Image

Spoiler:
Everything is practice.
User avatar
jason bourne
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,605
And1: 1,243
Joined: Dec 23, 2013
   

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#22 » by jason bourne » Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:55 pm

More dirt on Rose.

Pete Rose lied for 15, count 'em, years that he never bet on baseball. He also lied under oath. He also went to prison for five months and fined $50,000 for tax evasion.

It doesn't stop there, Rose was involved with drugs and selling fake autographs in the collector's market. He should be banned for life.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/peter-rose-200109
Image

“The most contrarian thing of all is not to oppose the crowd but to think for yourself.”
User avatar
Laimbeer
RealGM
Posts: 32,651
And1: 9,548
Joined: Aug 12, 2009
Location: Cabin Creek

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#23 » by Laimbeer » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:49 am

Dr Positivity wrote:I think way to defend it would be to have sympathy for an addict. If he was betting nearly every game and always for his team, it's not like he was searching out opportunities for profit.

On downside a manager betting on games puts the health of players at risk. I wonder if there were games where he left the pitcher in extra long to try to secure his bet. He also could have hurt the Reds by not using his best relievers in games he wasn't betting in to save them for the ones he was


I agree that betting isn't okay just because you bet on your own team. But the addict defense is interesting. It's pretty apparent the guy had an issue.

The Astros scandal made me think of Rose - how is what they did any less a problem for the integrity of the game?
Kilroy
Forum Mod - Lakers
Forum Mod - Lakers
Posts: 18,041
And1: 8,238
Joined: Jul 10, 2006
Location: The Motel 9 in Vegas
       

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#24 » by Kilroy » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:39 pm

If he had shut up about it after the fact, I'd be inclined to forgive him and let him in on the strength of his stats alone.

But he's been whining about his if not innocence, his 'I'm not as bad as that guy' nonsense for 30 years... You just can't let him in now. It'd be an embarrassment and not one that MLB did anything to deserve.

His best bet (pun intended) now is getting in posthumously. Which I'd probably be in favor of, again, just due to his stats, which no one has ever challenged.
Impeach Governor Newsense!
kobe_vs_jordan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,877
And1: 2,290
Joined: Jan 07, 2012
Location: Atl
   

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#25 » by kobe_vs_jordan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:50 pm

I understand punishing banning betting from sports preserves the integrity of the game. But there should be some common sense in punishment, they are treating him like he was betting against his teams and throwing games for profit.

While guys blatantly cheating from stealing signs, PEDs, and using corked bats get relative slap on the wrists. I can view Rose as no harm intended if he really only betted on his team. A guy who blatantly cheats, who to say he isn't throwing games for profit too.
Kilroy
Forum Mod - Lakers
Forum Mod - Lakers
Posts: 18,041
And1: 8,238
Joined: Jul 10, 2006
Location: The Motel 9 in Vegas
       

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#26 » by Kilroy » Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:56 pm

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:I understand punishing banning betting from sports preserves the integrity of the game. But there should be some common sense in punishment, they are treating him like he was betting against his teams and throwing games for profit.

While guys blatantly cheating from stealing signs, PEDs, and using corked bats get relative slap on the wrists. I can view Rose as no harm intended if he really only betted on his team. A guy who blatantly cheats, who to say he isn't throwing games for profit too.


Rose is a slippery SOB though, so there's no way to really be sure he never bet against his team. He feels nothing about what he did one way or the other. So I think it's kind of silly to assume he ONLY bet for his team.

I think at the time, the punishment fit the crime... Maybe it doesn't today, but that doesn't mean you can whipe out a just punishment from decades ago just to suit the times. Especially since he's been such a bitch about it.
Impeach Governor Newsense!
kobe_vs_jordan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,877
And1: 2,290
Joined: Jan 07, 2012
Location: Atl
   

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#27 » by kobe_vs_jordan » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:14 pm

Kilroy wrote:
kobe_vs_jordan wrote:I understand punishing banning betting from sports preserves the integrity of the game. But there should be some common sense in punishment, they are treating him like he was betting against his teams and throwing games for profit.

While guys blatantly cheating from stealing signs, PEDs, and using corked bats get relative slap on the wrists. I can view Rose as no harm intended if he really only betted on his team. A guy who blatantly cheats, who to say he isn't throwing games for profit too.


Rose is a slippery SOB though, so there's no way to really be sure he never bet against his team. He feels nothing about what he did one way or the other. So I think it's kind of silly to assume he ONLY bet for his team.

I think at the time, the punishment fit the crime... Maybe it doesn't today, but that doesn't mean you can whipe out a just punishment from decades ago just to suit the times. Especially since he's been such a bitch about it.

I'm not acknowledgeable enough to know what is the evidence that he only betted on his team? Is it his word why people think this or bookie books?

Being fair and objective should punishment wise should leave his personality traits out. Nobody likes a liar but he did eventually admit to it. I can understand a lighter punishment for an honest person.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 47,936
And1: 11,384
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#28 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:13 pm

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:I understand punishing banning betting from sports preserves the integrity of the game. But there should be some common sense in punishment, they are treating him like he was betting against his teams and throwing games for profit.

While guys blatantly cheating from stealing signs, PEDs, and using corked bats get relative slap on the wrists. I can view Rose as no harm intended if he really only betted on his team. A guy who blatantly cheats, who to say he isn't throwing games for profit too.


Some ways that betting on your team could be have negative consequences

- Say Rose has money on a game and leaves a starter in for in inordinate amount of pitches to squeeze out the game. Rose’s gambling debts therefore put the pitcher at greater risk of blowing out this arm.

- If he wasn’t betting on a game but was planning to the next night, he may save the best relief pitchers for the second one and hurting his team’s chances to win the first game. This could also be connected to the first point, if he didn’t want to use his best relievers he may force a starter in too long the previous game to the point of health concerns

- Playing time decisions, and influence on roster moves. If the Reds are out of the playoff race they may want to develop a young player, but Rose wants to win his bet so he benches the young player in favor of the veteran. Also while not the GM, as manager and all time franchise legend he may have some influence over whether to keep or call some of those young players instead of veterans. Later on in their career these prospects who never made it end up feeling like they were one big league shot away if not for the crooked manager
I would rather be on the side of the Truth rather than Bully Those Who Tell Truths That Hurt Our Feelings

I believe in a world where people are judged by their character not their skin colour
Black Watch
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,336
And1: 753
Joined: Apr 23, 2014
Contact:
   

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#29 » by Black Watch » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:50 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:
kobe_vs_jordan wrote:I understand punishing banning betting from sports preserves the integrity of the game. But there should be some common sense in punishment, they are treating him like he was betting against his teams and throwing games for profit.

While guys blatantly cheating from stealing signs, PEDs, and using corked bats get relative slap on the wrists. I can view Rose as no harm intended if he really only betted on his team. A guy who blatantly cheats, who to say he isn't throwing games for profit too.


Some ways that betting on your team could be have negative consequences

- Say Rose has money on a game and leaves a starter in for in inordinate amount of pitches to squeeze out the game. Rose’s gambling debts therefore put the pitcher at greater risk of blowing out this arm.

- If he wasn’t betting on a game but was planning to the next night, he may save the best relief pitchers for the second one and hurting his team’s chances to win the first game. This could also be connected to the first point, if he didn’t want to use his best relievers he may force a starter in too long the previous game to the point of health concerns

- Playing time decisions, and influence on roster moves. If the Reds are out of the playoff race they may want to develop a young player, but Rose wants to win his bet so he benches the young player in favor of the veteran. Also while not the GM, as manager and all time franchise legend he may have some influence over whether to keep or call some of those young players instead of veterans. Later on in their career these prospects who never made it end up feeling like they were one big league shot away if not for the crooked manager

And there are more ways even.

It absolutely matters.

And the rule against betting had been in place for half a century, since the Black Sox Scandal. He knew. He did it anyway.

Banned for life is a just punishment here. His jersey and batting helmet and stuff like that are all in the Hall of Fame, but he'll never have a plaque.
Black Watch and Hamyltowne, my former usernames, are tartan patterns. Nothing to do with any race or any city.
boston_fan_ct
Sophomore
Posts: 140
And1: 12
Joined: Jul 13, 2010

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#30 » by boston_fan_ct » Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:49 pm

Rose made himself more important than baseball. if all he cares about is that one game, is that helpful to the team? what if he keeps a player in too long pitching and that guy gets hurt because he doesn't care about the welfare of that player? it taints his judgment. i don't think i need to continue do I?
hege53190
Head Coach
Posts: 6,554
And1: 1,832
Joined: Nov 29, 2001
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#31 » by hege53190 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:55 am

Betting on baseball as a manager is a really bad idea and the guy should be banned.

Say you bet on the game and you are down 4 runs in the 7th inning. Are you still going all out and pitching your best guys or are you throwing the end of the bullpen to get you through and onto the next game Like a normal manager? There are so many decisions that a normal manager would make differently that if the manager has big money on the game.

Now where it gets really bad. What if Rose started losing and owing the bookie favors? Maybe he doesn't bet against him but he needs to take a dive to get out of a hole with the bookie.

As for HGH and steroids in baseball. Nobody cared. Absolutely nobody cared.

http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1881350-2,00.html

Here is the basis of the article

1998

Baseball was awash in goodwill, national attention and money like it had not seen in many years. The Los Angeles Dodgers garishly flaunted such largesse after that season by giving Kevin Brown, a pitcher soon to turn 34 years old, an age when players traditionally had neared retirement as their bodies gave out, a seven-year contract worth $105 million, sweetening the deal with private jet service back and forth from his Georgia home.

That same winter, with the party raging at full throttle, one man rose up and basically announced the whole damn thing was a fraud. Rick Helling, a 27-year-old righthanded pitcher and the players' representative for the Texas Rangers, stood up at the winter meeting of the Executive Board of the Major League Baseball Players Association and made an announcement. He told his fellow union leaders that steroid use by ballplayers had grown rampant and was corrupting the game.

"There is this problem with steroids," Helling told them. "It's happening. It's real. And it's so prevalent that guys who aren't doing it are feeling pressure to do it because they're falling behind. It's not a level playing field. We've got to figure out a way to address it.

"It's a bigger deal than people think. It's noticeable enough that it's creating an uneven playing field. What really bothers me is that it's gotten so out of hand that guys are feeling pressure to do it. It's one thing to be a cheater, to be somebody who doesn't care whether it's right or wrong. But it's another thing when other guys feel like they have to do it just to keep up. And that's what's happening. And I don't feel like this is the right way to go."

What Helling had just done was the equivalent of turning up all the lights, clicking off the music and announcing the party was over. "He was the first guy," David Cone said, "who had the guts to stand up at a union meeting and say that in front of everybody and put pressure on it."

There was only one way for baseball to react to this kind of whistleblowing: Crank the music back up and keep the party rolling.

The union was having too much fun and making too much money to pay much attention to Helling's warning. It was far easier and financially prudent to ignore the issue, to assume that Helling was an alarmist prone to exaggerating, and to make sure everyone involved knew as little as possible about players injecting hard-core steroids into their asses. Don't ask, don't tell and don't care was the unwritten code of the day.

"What really bothered me was there were plenty of good guys, good people, who were feeling the pressure to cheat because it had become so prevalent," Helling said. "I firmly believed at the time that it was an unlevel playing field. I was trying to find a way to do something about it. Make it as fair of a game as possible. Play it the right way.


Everybody points to Bonds as the face of the steroid era but he did not even use them until after Rick Helling stood up at a winter meeting executive board and stated that Steroids are out of control and they need to be stopped. To which the executive board brushed him aside and told him to shut up.

Bonds seeing everyone else use steroids and knowing he is the the better player basically looked at all the chumps using steroids and said "hold my beer and watch this" .

I think it is outrageous that the media and ownership that profited from the players doing steroids and promoted them even as McGwire had them noticeably in his locker during interviews are now keeping those same players that brought the game back and made them so much money out of the Hall of Fame.

If you don't want players doing steroids and going to ruin the players legacy do it in real time. Not 15 years after the fact when the biggest dick head in the game demolishes every record you hold dear.
blazza18 wrote:Bucks aren't making the finals with this team. Jeez.It's nothing against Midds, Brogdon, or Bledsoe but that core isn't one you settle on as a finished product around Giannis. We're clearly not an elite team or one who'll contend for a title.
BallUpnSlowMo
Ballboy
Posts: 14
And1: 1
Joined: Apr 05, 2020
Location: Coast to coast
     

Re: Does it really matter if Pete Rose betted as a player? 

Post#32 » by BallUpnSlowMo » Mon Apr 6, 2020 12:38 am

Yes!

Return to The General MLB Board