Pete Rose finally admits to betting on baseball

[Dynasty]

According to the Philadelphia Enquirer, Pete Rose will admit on Thursday, when his new book is published, that he did indeed gamble on baseball. espn.com story (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1699418) Rose, has denied ever gambling on baseball since he was banned from the game for life in 1989.

The admission would come just two days after this years Baseball Hall of Fame class is announced and may be part of Rose's last ditch effort to get elected into the Hall of Fame. Rose has only until December, 2005 to be elected to the Hall by the baseball writers. After that, he can only get in via the Veteran's Committee.

[Terry]

Looks like he's just admitting that he bet, not that he bet on his own team to lose.

[Clarkmeister]

AFAIK no one has ever alleged that he bet against his own team.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
.....Rose has only until December, 2005 to be elected to the Hall by the baseball writers. After that, he can only get in via the Veteran's Committee.


[/ QUOTE ]

Check this out from the BBHOF website Does this change the status of Pete Rose and Joe Jackson? (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/veterans_questions.htm)

It appears that, from the information on this website, that Pete or Joe cannot be elected to the Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee.

So if Pete doesn't get in by the Dec 2005 deadline, he "never" gets in.

Let the debate surge on!

-Zeno

[Dynasty]

If you are referring to this...

[ QUOTE ]
Does this change the status of Pete Rose and Joe Jackson?

No. Anyone on Major League Baseball's ineligible list is not an eligible candidate

[/ QUOTE ]

...I think all that it means is that the Veteran's Committee can put Rose in the HOF while he's still banned from baseball. If the ban is lifted, the Committee will be able to put him in starting in 2006.

[Zeno]

Thanks for the clarification.


-Zeno

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif. peter j. hustle..the best baseball player ever has finally been broken...he knows if he now lies and sez he had an illness, which took treatment to cure, and sez; although it is a frigging lie; that he bet on baseball; well then he will get in..(hof)..

shame on america..baseballl; and the hof...

the hof without the best player ever???

lol

jmho

gl /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Terry]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1212/1475769.html

I was dealing Craps in Vegas at the time this stuff took place. Some of our biggest players were big time out of town bookies. Now, maybe they lied to me, but it strikes me as odd that they told me those lies before this stuff hit the fan. Whatever...

[Ray Zee]

i played poker with a bookie of his and he told me that rose did gamble on baseball. but i wont say in public whether it was on or against his own team. but i dont like the guy based on what i heard. plus if he does admit it. it shows all these years he was nothing but a liar about it and shouldnt get any recognition at all.

[Terry]

Sounds like we may have a source in common.

I’ve never felt any compulsion to keep this story secret since it was not told to me “in confidence”, but in a public setting in an open discussion with several other people at the table taking part. I kind of thought it was “common knowledge”, at least among some Vegas insiders, since I heard the story several times over the years, in several different casino settings.

[M.B.E.]

Terry,

Are you saying that the "big time out of town bookies" claimed that Pete Rose placed bets against his own team? If so, it makes no sense. Why would a bookie knowingly accept a bet from Rose against his own team.

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
plus if he does admit it. it shows all these years he was nothing but a liar about it and shouldnt get any recognition at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ray, I respectfully disagree with your statement here. Pete Rose would be recognized for his actions ON the field, not for his character. The guy may be a jerk, a liar, and an idiot, but I can think of many players playing baseball now who are all of those things and more and will be praised the day they get into the hall. Betting on baseball while managing is inexcusable, but I think it would be a crime not to acknowledge what the man did on the field.

Joe

[andyfox]

Of course he bet on baseball, and of course he bet on his own team. He wanted to win, what did he know more about than baseball?

The HOF is a joke. What difference does it make if Rose gets in or not? I'd vote for him to get in if it would mean we'd never have to hear from him again.

[Terry]

>> Why would a bookie knowingly accept a bet from Rose against his own team.

That’s a good question. I don’t recall if it came up during the conversation I mentioned.

It appears that the investigation showed he was making bets through several different “fronts.” Pure speculation, but maybe the bookies refused his action when they discovered what was up? I really don’t know any more about this than what I have already stated.

[adios]

Which is a worse taint on the Baseball Hall of Fame, a guy who bet on baseball or a guy who uses performance enhancing drugs like steroids? And if we're denying someone on moral behavior there's a few that shouldn't be there that are. I mean why is gambling more vile than domestic abuse, murder or what have you?

[andyfox]

"During the times I gambled as a manager, I never took an unfair advantage," Rose wrote. "I never bet more or less based on injuries or inside information. I never allowed my wagers to influence my baseball decisions. So in my mind, I wasn't corrupt."

So why didn't he bet on his team every day? If he had a bet on his team, would he keep his ace pitcher in the game longer than might be healthy for his arm so as to try to assure the win no matter what the consequences for the pitcher? How about throwing at an opposing batter who was a good hitter in order to try to knock him out of the game?

A manager who admits betting on his own team with bookies ought to be banned from anything to do with baseball forever. We'll see what the used car salesman decides.

[HDPM]

I agree. To me it is clear that his actions merit a complete lifetime ban. It isn't like players and managers don't know the rule. Betting on baseball=lifetime ban. Rose admitting it does nothing for me. Just proves he should be banned. He was a great player though and I enjoyed watching him play. Too bad he merits a lifetime ban.

[HDPM]

Were I a HOF voter I would not vote for a guy who did steroids. the problem is there is no testing.

Your post brings up an interesting point and is the basis for why I think Rose should never be reinstated. Baseball markets itself as something special, something a little different. It markets all the George Will sentimental BS and continuity of statistics stuff. The history of baseball is a major attraction. for the history to matter, the game has to be somewhat pure. Gambling on games by players and managers destroys that integrity. Baseball could have been destroyed by the Black Sox scandal, but it took steps to clean itself up and was lucky enough to have Babe Ruth come along. Without that historical, sentimental, emotional feel baseball markets, it is just another business that produces any other entertainment product, a product fewer and fewer find entertaining really. So things that undermine that integrity of the game are different from various immoral acts committed by players. A HOFer committing murder doesn't really detract from the game itself, but gambling and steroids do. So what if Ty Cobb or Denny McClain are scumbags? But it matters a lot if somebody was gambling w/ bookies on the outcome of MLB games.

I am only holding baseball to its own standard. They have a bogus antitrust exemption based on "national pasttime" sentimentality. They make money off of that kind of thing. So keep the integrity of the sport there.

[J.R.]

Baseball is a dying sport losing market share to baskeball, football and even hockey (this is especially so with younger generations). The irony here is Rose's reinstatement is, in the short-run, probably a shot in the arm for a sport in need of all the heros it can get. But will Rose' re-instatement help reverse this trend in the long run or exacerbate the public's disregard for a slow paced, sentimental game that seems out of place in today's rapid moving society.

[Phat Mack]

The irony here is Rose's reinstatement is, in the short-run, probably a shot in the arm for a sport in need of all the heros it can get.

It might be good for baseball, but it would be terrible for sports betting. Having a manager betting the game is a real action killer. How much money gets down on the World Wrestling Federation? The other sports might learn from this. If sports betting died tomorrow, the NFL wouldn't last another season.

[andyfox]

The Rose debate may well pump some life into the game. In a world where Grand Theft Auto satiates so many people, one can't expect the thoughtful game of baseball to compete with the brutish and nasty sports of football, hockey, and pro basketball. Only by being more brutish itself, by juicing up either its big sluggers or their bats (or both) and by winking at such spectacles as the Pedro/Zimmer altercation, can baseball hope to keep finding new fans among the younger generation.

[adios]

"In a world where Grand Theft Auto satiates so many people, one can't expect the thoughtful game of baseball to compete with the brutish and nasty sports of football, hockey, and pro basketball."

First of all I wonder if baseball would be interesting to more if there were less games. Part of the appeal of football is that so much rides on one particular game. To say that baseball is more "thoughtful" than football or basketball (I know you only mentioned pro basketball) is open to debate and in my mind just isn't true.

[andyfox]

I will admist to a preternaturally determined prejudice in favor of baseball, as my first, deepest, and longest lasting love, as opposed to all other sports. Try explaining a baseball game to someone there for the first time, then do it at a football, hockey, or basketball game. It's much more difficult to do so at a baseball game, because the game is more complicated and subtle.

Maybe that's one reason it's losing popularity. Hockey and pro basketball are fast paced, speed oriented games with lotws of potential for contact/collision. Football is a war in the trenches (as George Carlin's brilliant bit comparing the terminology used in baseball with that of football points out). There's simply more action in basketball, hockey and football. I think a generation that can more readily identify the characters in Grand Theft Auto than those in a Moazrt opera is going to prefer the simpler pleasures of football to the more esoteric ones of baseball.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
...a slow paced, sentimental game that seems out of place in today's rapid moving society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I submit that in a rapid moving society a slow paced game is all the more needed - To ease the tensions and relax the mind. Besides, there are an immense amount of interstices about the game that can keep admirers enthralled. But then, I am an old fashion sort of guy that enjoys Baseball and Guns. Very American.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rose-faq.html

http://dowdreport.com/

[Noo Yawk]

Since @ 1921 there has been one major no-no in baseball. Don't bet on baseball. PERIOD. Drink,do drugs, disobey your manager, show disrespect to the fans and press, whatever. You can get away with anything a few times depending on how big a draw you are. But DON"T BET ON BASEBALL. This man really believed he was bigger than the game, and apparently still does.
Frankly, all proffesional athletes need to have some much tougher rules and penalties imposed on them. Letting Pete Rose back into Baseball would be yet another mockery of the rules, and thus the integrity of the game. It should be apparent that the punnishment fit the crime perfectly as he has been agonizing over this situation for 14 years. Sends quite a good message if you ask me.