Rose admits betting on his Reds "every night"

JoseA · March 14th, 2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

CINCINNATI, United States (AFP) - Pete Rose, banned from baseball for life for gambling, admitted to ESPN on Wednesday that he bet on the Cincinnati Reds "every night" while manager of the Major League Baseball club.

Rose accepted a life ban from the sport in 1989 but denied betting on the sport for 15 years until admitting in a 2004 autobiography that he made wagers while guiding the Cincinnati Reds.

Rose, Major League Baseball's all-time hit leader, said his confidence in his team was so great that he was willing to put his money on them every night, a violation of major league rules for fears it would lead to game fixing.

Article

First Rose said he didn't bet on baseball at all, spent years denying, came out admitting he bet on some games he didn't manage, and now he saids he bet on all the games he managed.

Doesn't really suprise me, Pete is known as one of the biggest liars. What is he going to say next? Say he bet against his team lol! This whole story keeps getting stranger and stranger....

Nocahoma · March 15th, 2007, 10:11 AM

A-HA!!!!

Sorry, but Schadenfreude really kicks in for me when talking about that S.O.B.

That's unusual for him to make statements like that without it being part of a promotion for a book or some product he's pimping. What's the bet that a book or movie deal is coming down the pipe?

Besides, we knew this already from the betting slips:

Nat · March 15th, 2007, 10:19 AM

Yep, confirms what we (the smart people) knew all along...

Nocahoma · March 15th, 2007, 10:33 AM

Yeah, but he was a "Gamer" who played the game the way it was meant to be played.

Goose · March 15th, 2007, 02:41 PM

Meh, let me know when he says he betted against the Reds, then I'll care.

Nocahoma · March 15th, 2007, 05:55 PM

Why? Betting on them to win can affect the game almost as easily.

I believe that he didn't bet against the Reds, mostly because there is no evidence to suggest that, but that's just Rose's own rationalization for why what he did didn't violate the rules, which is of course horsepoop.

RickJay · March 15th, 2007, 06:48 PM

Of course, only a damned fool would believe that he bet on the Reds to win every night. The reason he specified "every night" is because it's an automatic answer to the very common accusation that even if he only bet on the Reds to win, it would affect his judgment by causing him to manage differently when his money was on the line as opposed to when it wasn't.

It's just the safe and prudent thing to assume he's lying. It makes it especially comical to think now that Rose himself was probably the source for the Prospectus's big 2004 scoop about how there was a signed deal to have Rose back into the game. As simplistic as it is, I guess some people have to be reminded: You can't trust liars.

The person I feel sorry for is Mike Schmidt, a decent and honorable man that for years believed Rose's claims of innocence because he wanted to stand by an old friend, and all along Rose was using him.

God, what a scumbag Rose is. What an utter disgrace to baseball. Why would anyone want him to enjoy induction into the Hall of Fame? If he ever does get in I hope they wait until after he's dead.

bedir than average · March 15th, 2007, 07:08 PM

Thing is that if he bet a lesser amount one night one could think he was trying less hard to win.

The man has proven himself a liar and though he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame for what he did as a player I hope he remains banned from official baseball functions. Heck, if he's alive when inducted they shouldn't allow him to speak.

all4phillysportsfan · March 16th, 2007, 05:26 AM

Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame, even though he's in the Hall of Shame already. I agree with bedir, put him in the Hall of Fame, but also keep him banned from all baseball functions.

Nocahoma · March 16th, 2007, 04:29 PM

He belongs there, yes, but it's his own freakin' fault he's not there.

Actually, though, he IS in the Hall. There is Rose memoribilia and mention all over that place. He just hasn't been elected as a member.

The only way he gets in is if the foundation that runs the HOF changes their bylaws to allow banned players to be inducted. It's a private foundation, so it's their call. Please keep in mind that MLB is not directly controlling his fate as it regards the HOF.

As for Schmidt, I do think he is an honorable man. I don't know about "decent," however.

Ah, I'm kidding. I think he gets a bum rap as an arse because he is very terse in the way that he speaks. He just sounds like he's being mean, even though he may not mean it as such.

Personally, I have always like Johnny Bench's response to the Rose issue. When asked when he thought Rose should be elected to the HOF, Bench simply replied, "When he's innocent."

Nat · March 16th, 2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocahoma

Yeah, but he was a "Gamer" who played the game the way it was meant to be played.

The Fosse incident really cemented the love/hate relationship people had with him. I view it as a telling personal flaw....others say it showed exactly what you said above, and was within the rules of the game anyway. Then he broke the rules, and the justifications of his fans got more & more lame. But for me the 1970 ASG was the first sign of everything that was to come..proving everything Rick said to be correct.

bedir than average · March 17th, 2007, 11:56 AM

Noc, considering that players banned by baseball weren't formally banned until after Rose's banning by baseball one could say that the rule is ispo facto (however that phrase is spelled). Now they had informally done this for decades though so the effect is minior.

Nocahoma · March 19th, 2007, 02:01 PM

I think that the fact that someone like Joe Jackson was excluded without a set-in-stone rule points to an agreement by the BBWAA to abide by MLB's ruling. Having a rule laid down for Rose indicates to me that the HOF thought the BBWAA would elect him anyway, although doing so would likely result in the HOF removing the BBWAA from the voting process.

77smbg9177 · March 20th, 2007, 09:15 AM

ok i no i will have a lot of people arguing and telling me am wroung but about this but so what.

If what Pete Rose said is true about him betting EVERY night on HIS TEAM then i say who really cares. If he was betting against his team that another thing but he wasn't so its not like he was throwing the games away or losing on purpose. All this mainly did was help motivate him and his team (if they knew about this) to win even more so it was really like a motivation for them so he shoudn't be banned forever mabye for a little bit because i do know that baseball doesn't support gambaling.

DiamondDave · March 20th, 2007, 10:07 AM

Well... this serial killer was only murdering people who had a year or less to live anyway..... so who really cares???

About the same argument...

Rose knew betting on baseball was against the rules of the game.... he violated those rules... whether he bet on them or whatever is of no consequence... and at this point, who knows what truth is coming out of Rose's mouth anymore???

All he did?? All he did was not just motivating his team....

Do I think he should be banned forever from the HoF for his efforts on the field?? nope... do I think he should never be let into the game of baseball in any way, shape, or form ever again??? YEP

March 15th, 2007, 02:41 PM	#5 (permalink)
Goose Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Aberdeen,Wa Posts: 1,190	Meh, let me know when he says he betted against the Reds, then I'll care. __________________ http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/843...idensigfd9.png

March 15th, 2007, 07:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
bedir than average Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Starbucks Posts: 8,258	Thing is that if he bet a lesser amount one night one could think he was trying less hard to win. The man has proven himself a liar and though he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame for what he did as a player I hope he remains banned from official baseball functions. Heck, if he's alive when inducted they shouldn't allow him to speak. __________________ I'm sorry I left for a while. I needed a vaction, and then work changed substantially. I'm over 50 hour weeks, plus two hours a day of commuting time. A few weeks ago I launched my own blog about Seattle Sounders FC and Life in Puget Sound. I won't be by these parts often as my focus has changed. Sorry about the unannounced retirement.

March 16th, 2007, 05:26 AM	#9 (permalink)
all4phillysportsfan Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,630	Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame, even though he's in the Hall of Shame already. I agree with bedir, put him in the Hall of Fame, but also keep him banned from all baseball functions. __________________ Philly Sports: The worst drought in America.

March 17th, 2007, 11:56 AM	#12 (permalink)
bedir than average Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Starbucks Posts: 8,258	Noc, considering that players banned by baseball weren't formally banned until after Rose's banning by baseball one could say that the rule is ispo facto (however that phrase is spelled). Now they had informally done this for decades though so the effect is minior. __________________ I'm sorry I left for a while. I needed a vaction, and then work changed substantially. I'm over 50 hour weeks, plus two hours a day of commuting time. A few weeks ago I launched my own blog about Seattle Sounders FC and Life in Puget Sound. I won't be by these parts often as my focus has changed. Sorry about the unannounced retirement.

March 20th, 2007, 09:15 AM	#14 (permalink)
77smbg9177 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: NEW YORK Posts: 670	ok i no i will have a lot of people arguing and telling me am wroung but about this but so what. If what Pete Rose said is true about him betting EVERY night on HIS TEAM then i say who really cares. If he was betting against his team that another thing but he wasn't so its not like he was throwing the games away or losing on purpose. All this mainly did was help motivate him and his team (if they knew about this) to win even more so it was really like a motivation for them so he shoudn't be banned forever mabye for a little bit because i do know that baseball doesn't support gambaling. __________________ METS 07 WS CHAMPS i like how that just rolls of the tongue cant wait until that comes true

March 15th, 2007, 10:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	A-HA!!!! Sorry, but Schadenfreude really kicks in for me when talking about that S.O.B. That's unusual for him to make statements like that without it being part of a promotion for a book or some product he's pimping. What's the bet that a book or movie deal is coming down the pipe? Besides, we knew this already from the betting slips:

March 15th, 2007, 10:19 AM	#3 (permalink)
Nat Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,313	Yep, confirms what we (the smart people) knew all along...

March 15th, 2007, 10:33 AM	#4 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	Yeah, but he was a "Gamer" who played the game the way it was meant to be played.

March 15th, 2007, 05:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	Why? Betting on them to win can affect the game almost as easily. I believe that he didn't bet against the Reds, mostly because there is no evidence to suggest that, but that's just Rose's own rationalization for why what he did didn't violate the rules, which is of course horsepoop.

March 15th, 2007, 06:48 PM	#7 (permalink)
RickJay Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 50	Of course, only a damned fool would believe that he bet on the Reds to win every night. The reason he specified "every night" is because it's an automatic answer to the very common accusation that even if he only bet on the Reds to win, it would affect his judgment by causing him to manage differently when his money was on the line as opposed to when it wasn't. It's just the safe and prudent thing to assume he's lying. It makes it especially comical to think now that Rose himself was probably the source for the Prospectus's big 2004 scoop about how there was a signed deal to have Rose back into the game. As simplistic as it is, I guess some people have to be reminded: You can't trust liars. The person I feel sorry for is Mike Schmidt, a decent and honorable man that for years believed Rose's claims of innocence because he wanted to stand by an old friend, and all along Rose was using him. God, what a scumbag Rose is. What an utter disgrace to baseball. Why would anyone want him to enjoy induction into the Hall of Fame? If he ever does get in I hope they wait until after he's dead.

March 16th, 2007, 04:29 PM	#10 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	He belongs there, yes, but it's his own freakin' fault he's not there. Actually, though, he IS in the Hall. There is Rose memoribilia and mention all over that place. He just hasn't been elected as a member. The only way he gets in is if the foundation that runs the HOF changes their bylaws to allow banned players to be inducted. It's a private foundation, so it's their call. Please keep in mind that MLB is not directly controlling his fate as it regards the HOF. As for Schmidt, I do think he is an honorable man. I don't know about "decent," however. Ah, I'm kidding. I think he gets a bum rap as an arse because he is very terse in the way that he speaks. He just sounds like he's being mean, even though he may not mean it as such. Personally, I have always like Johnny Bench's response to the Rose issue. When asked when he thought Rose should be elected to the HOF, Bench simply replied, "When he's innocent."

March 19th, 2007, 02:01 PM	#13 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	I think that the fact that someone like Joe Jackson was excluded without a set-in-stone rule points to an agreement by the BBWAA to abide by MLB's ruling. Having a rule laid down for Rose indicates to me that the HOF thought the BBWAA would elect him anyway, although doing so would likely result in the HOF removing the BBWAA from the voting process.

March 20th, 2007, 10:07 AM	#15 (permalink)
DiamondDave Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: MD, on the Potomac River Posts: 5,390	Well... this serial killer was only murdering people who had a year or less to live anyway..... so who really cares??? About the same argument... Rose knew betting on baseball was against the rules of the game.... he violated those rules... whether he bet on them or whatever is of no consequence... and at this point, who knows what truth is coming out of Rose's mouth anymore??? All he did?? All he did was not just motivating his team.... Do I think he should be banned forever from the HoF for his efforts on the field?? nope... do I think he should never be let into the game of baseball in any way, shape, or form ever again??? YEP __________________ Reagan in 08... Even though he's dead, he's the better choice! Superdelegates - Because even the Democratic party knows it's base is too stupid to make really important decisions.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.fanhome.com/forums/major-league-baseball/5222-rose-admits-betting-his-reds-every-night.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Digg - Rose admits betting on his Reds "every night"	This thread	Refback	March 22nd, 2007 05:41 PM