Rose admits betting on his Reds "every night"

[Nocahoma]

Same old arguments, again & again, and they are always shot down in the same fashion.

Look, DD is right -- it doesn't matter if it "didn't hurt anyone," because he broke the rules, and was punished by the sentence laid out in those rules. Still, let's assume that wasn't the case, and let's examine the claim on its merits:

- Rose never bet against his team, so it's OK. I'm sorry, but it's not OK. As someone pointed out, what about the games he didn't bet on the Reds? Would that not de-motivate his team just as easily as betting on them would motivate them? Would he manage the team in-game the same way? What happens if he has a lead in a fairly meaningless game (based on the standings), but he leaves his ace Pitcher in the game 2 innings longer than he normally would, just so he can better ensure a win? He risks the health of that Pitcher and the future performance of his team just to win one game.

Nope, it's the proverbial slippery slope with gambling. Once you allow it in any fashion, you fundamentally alter the game. That's why the rule exists, and that's why Rose had to be punished so severely.

Changing the subject slightly, I have 2 things to add:
1) Pete Rose was 'awarded' the "Just Shut Up!" prize on this morning's Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio.
2) Anyone truly interested in the Rose gambling story really ought to read Collision at Home Plate, by James Reston. It covers the Rose vs. Giamatti saga from both perspectives, and does an excellent job of outlining exactly what Rose did (and did not) do. It is most likely available at your favorite bookstore & online.

[RickJay]

Just how dumb do you have to be to believe Rose is telling the truth that he bet on the Reds every night?

John Dowd has already come out and said he almost certainly DIDN'T bet on the Reds every night. Rose is a proven liar; you can't trust a word he says. If Pete Rose said the sky was blue, I'd have to look for myself.

[Steve Avery]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Just how dumb do you have to be to believe Rose is telling the truth that he bet on the Reds every night?

John Dowd has already come out and said he almost certainly DIDN'T bet on the Reds every night. Rose is a proven liar; you can't trust a word he says. If Pete Rose said the sky was blue, I'd have to look for myself.

Rick,

While I agree with some of your points, let's not forget something - John Dowd (and for that matter Fay Vincent) hardly constitute the two most objective folks in the world. I heard John Dowd with my own two ears claim that if he had been allowed to continue his investigation, he would have proven Rose bet AGAINST the Reds.

Of course, Dowd also found out a couple of umpires were deep in their knickers to gamblers as well. And how do the bastions of integrity handle this? They 'secretly' put the umps on probation and we don't find out about it for nearly fifteen years (it came out in March 2002).

I dare say that an umpire in debt to gamblers is a FAR GREATER THREAT to the integrity of the game than a manager. A manager can put in a lousy line-up to throw a game, but he can't tell the guy to go strike out without risking exposure. An umpire can have the Eric Gregg strike zone in game five of the 1997 NLCS if he wants - and nobody can do anything about it.

[Nimajneb]

A manager can put in a lousy line-up to throw a game, but he can't tell the guy to go strike out without risking exposure.

All of a sudden I'm imagining something sinister in Mike Hargrove, rather than just stupid. ::sigh::

I dare say that an umpire in debt to gamblers is a FAR GREATER THREAT to the integrity of the game than a manager.

True, but we shouldn't give anyone much credit for being a less dangerous/effective cheat by virtue of their position.

[frenchman]

Noc

Look, DD is right -- it doesn't matter if it "didn't hurt anyone," because he broke the rules, and was punished by the sentence laid out in those rules.

...actually, you are incorrect. MLB never officially found Rose guilty of anything. Rose basically copped to a lessor plea and voluntarilly placed his name on the all time ineligible list. The crime he pleaded guilty to actually carries a 1 yr suspension.

Rose, I agree, should just shuy up...but I do believe he never would have volunteered to plead guilty if he and Giamatti did not have an arrangement to re-instate Rose at a pre-determined time. MLB had delt with other bettors in less severe manners.
Old A.Bart just did not live up to his end of the agreement when he died 9 days later.

Put the man in the Hall of Fame and move on

[Nocahoma]

That does ignore the one wrinkle in the issue, French -- the fact that MLB doesn't actually have a direct say in who is allowed into the Baseball HOF. As the HOF has it now, no one on the permanently ineligible list can be enshrined. They would have to remove him from that list.

The issue, at least to my way of thinking, should be taken up with the HOF Board.

[Steve Avery]

Originally Posted by Nimajneb

True, but we shouldn't give anyone much credit for being a less dangerous/effective cheat by virtue of their position.

But it DOES beg the question as to why the 'bastions of fairness' would HIDE the supsensions of one and celebrate that of another - don'tcha think?