Pete Rose

[JS19]

Whatever happened to him getting back in the game, or at least in the HOF? I remember last yr, or maybe it was 2 yrs ago, where he was the big story and Selig was close to letting him back. He seems to have fallen off the face of the earth since then.

[bulletsponge]

the HOF is without a doubt the biggest circle jerk non event in the history of sports. just my 2c

[bosshogg23]

IIRC he lied in his tell-all book and his HOF candidacy really hasn't come up again since then.

[Joe Canadian]

I never understood how betting on sports, even baseball, changed the fact that he has the most hits in MLB history. I can see someone getting banned from a HOF like they did with Alan Eagleson in the NHL, because he got inducted as a builder and the things he was convicted of doing hurt the "building" of the league.

Rose was a great player, he should be inducted in the HOF based on what he did as a player.

[DaddyTorgo]

the HOF is without a doubt the biggest circle jerk non event in the history of sports. just my 2c

ding ding...we have a winner.

and this whole emerging thing with McGwire (and Sosa and Bonds when they get there) and the steroids is going to really kill the credibility of the hall for me (and this from someone who's been there). Writers talking like "well we're not gonna vote McGwire in on the first ballot to punish him." WTF kinda joke is that. If you wanna punish the guy don't vote him in at all. All of a sudden now, not being a "first-ballot HOFer" is punishment? WTFever.

[Subby]

Betting on baseball games is serious enough to outweigh whatever random stats he hung around long enough to accumulate.

[Joe Canadian]

Betting on baseball games is serious enough to outweigh whatever random stats he hung around long enough to accumulate.

Betting on baseball doesn't take away from his play as a player. Now if they wanted to vote him in as a manager, then yes I'd agree with not letting him in... but that's not what we are talking about.

[sabotai]

Betting on baseball doesn't take away from his play as a player.

No, it doesn't take away what he did on the field. It does get him banned for life, though, and he knew that.

[JPhillips]

If he would have owned up to what he did instead of lying about it he'd be in the Hall by now. He got himself into this.

[Subby]

Betting on baseball doesn't take away from his play as a player. Now if they wanted to vote him in as a manager, then yes I'd agree with not letting him in... but that's not what we are talking about.
Well to be honest, I have a hard time believing he started betting on baseball only *after* he stopped playing.

And if you are going to do something serious enough to get you banned from baseball, then I think it should include all facets of the game. I think it sends a clear message.

[molson]

He voluntarily agreed to a ban in exchange for baseball ending their investigation against him. Why would he do such a thing? Because the truth is worse than what has been made public.

[headtrauma]

Betting on baseball games is serious enough to outweigh whatever random stats he hung around long enough to accumulate.

What he said. Rose shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Cooperstown. If you think betting on baseball is 'no big deal,' then read Eight Men Out by Eliot Asinof.

[Sun Tzu]

Yeah, we should all base our beliefs on a book...

[MikeVic]

what's going on here

[Logan]

I assume he's been on a major bender since Game 7 ended.

[Sun Tzu]

http://hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/bender-smoking.jpg

[Grover]

Yeah, we should all base our beliefs on a book...

I see what you did there.

[sterlingice]

what's going on here

I'm assuming that since it's been a day or so since the World Series (honestly, I've lost track because the playoffs really screwed with my internal calendar this year), any sports talk hosts that had a baseball segment to fill had to go to this ol' reliable story

SI

[stevew]

Reinstatement doesn't mean automatic enshrinement, right? Also I'm assuming the Veteran's Committee would have to handle him.

[Sun Tzu]

Actually, I got stuck in a youtube video-fest, and I eventually landed on Pete Rose. This thread is (apparently) from 8 years ago.

[PilotMan]

Reinstatement doesn't mean automatic enshrinement, right? Also I'm assuming the Veteran's Committee would have to handle him.

wat? reinstated?

[stevew]

*if he is reinstated

[PilotMan]

oh, itll never happen, it's just nver going ot happen.

[stevew]

oh, itll never happen, it's just nver going ot happen.

Hitting the pumpkin ale already?

[PilotMan]

Its over. I've seen my elsa's. My vodka and rum are in danger.

[Sun Tzu]

Bongo bongo doodle shmoodle.

[Easy Mac]

Well to be honest, I have a hard time believing he started betting on baseball only *after* he stopped playing.

It only took 9 years for Subby to be proven correct.

For 26 years, Pete Rose has kept to one story: He never bet on baseball while he was a player.

Yes, he admitted in 2004, after almost 15 years of denials, he had placed bets on baseball, but he insisted it was only as a manager.

But new documents obtained by Outside the Lines indicate Rose bet extensively on baseball -- and on the Cincinnati Reds -- as he racked up the last hits of a record-smashing career in 1986. The documents go beyond the evidence presented in the 1989 Dowd report that led to Rose's banishment and provide the first written record that Rose bet while he was still on the field.

Notebook obtained by Outside the Lines shows Pete Rose bet on baseball as player in 1986 (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986)

[Grover]

So long to those chances, Pete.

[Subby]

And to think I had softened my stance somewhat on Rose over the last nine years.

So now you have to wonder if he ever bet AGAINST his team.

[EagleFan]

I don't have as much of a problem if he only bet on his team as a player but there is a big unknown of "did he ever bet against them".

[Chief Rum]

I have less of an issue with him betting on his team (as in not against his team) than I do with the constant lying and deception over 30 years now.

[Chief Rum]

Or more to the point, I have more of an issue with the lying.

[CU Tiger]

The lying is the thing, I agree.


Honestly Id think betting on your team as a player is less damning than betting on them as a manager.

The argument I always herd as "If a manager bets on his team, what dos it say about the games he doesn't bet on them? Does it mean he doesn't manage to win THOSE games."

As a player he had less control on the team as a whole, only on himself. Wasn't like he could pull the pitcher from 1b.

Now that I think of it, wasn't he a player/manager at some point? Was that 86?

[Easy Mac]

The argument would be that by betting on his team to win on certain days, it could be a kind of code to his bookies to bet that game a certain way for them to make a bigger winning with their own bets/others' bets. It could be used as a way for his debt to be forgiven without him actually having to outlay any money.

[Chief Rum]

The argument would be that by betting on his team to win on certain days, it could be a kind of code to his bookies to bet that game a certain way for them to make a bigger winning with their own bets/others' bets. It could be used as a way for his debt to be forgiven without him actually having to outlay any money.

That's a tremendous leap, IMO.

[BillJasper]

I can't see MLB letting him back in now.

[Solecismic]

I think we forget the damage done by the 1919 White Sox.

Ever since, any professional in any sport understands that if people think the games are fixed, the sport itself is damaged. This isn't one person cheating for a personal advantage. This is one person conspiring with gamblers to alter outcomes.

Rose likes to soften people up by saying he never bet against the Reds. Or that he never bet as a player. He has admitted he bet on the Reds while he was a manager.

How did that affect betting? Well, his betting patterns were worth something to gamblers. Apparently, he knew one of his prime starters was pitching injured, so he never bet on the Reds when that starter was pitching.

Also, if he bet heavily one day, he'd tire out his bullpen. So if you knew when Rose might be inclined to use an already-tired reliever, you could bet against the Reds the next day.

Or you could bet against the Reds, long-term. He wore out his top relievers as no manager ever has before or since. Would he have managed that way if money weren't on the line every day?

Rose lied until he couldn't lie any more about betting as a manager. Do we trust his other statements?

I'd rather see 100 McGwires and Sosas in before Rose. We haven't had a betting scandal in a major professional sport of any substance in almost 100 years. Keeping Rose out helps remind younger players not to go down that path.

[stevew]

That's a tremendous leap, IMO.

Not really. As a manager/player he was providing an edge to illegal gambling interests. By only betting on his own team, and only on certain days, the non betting days were a de facto bet against his team.

[Chief Rum]

Not really. As a manager/player he was providing an edge to illegal gambling interests. By only betting on his own team, and only on certain days, the non betting days were a de facto bet against his team.

That's not what Easy Mac said. Your way here makes more sense for why that would be wrong.

[molson]

Also, if you're gambling illegally you risk running up debts to shady characters that could be paid back through either inside information, or by improving bookies' odds through altering in-game decisions and performance.

And I've always believed he bet against his team. I feel the same way I did 9 years ago, why accept a lifetime ban if you didn't have more to hide?

[BillJasper]

I think we forget the damage done by the 1919 White Sox.

Ever since, any professional in any sport understands that if people think the games are fixed, the sport itself is damaged. This isn't one person cheating for a personal advantage. This is one person conspiring with gamblers to alter outcomes.

Rose likes to soften people up by saying he never bet against the Reds. Or that he never bet as a player. He has admitted he bet on the Reds while he was a manager.

How did that affect betting? Well, his betting patterns were worth something to gamblers. Apparently, he knew one of his prime starters was pitching injured, so he never bet on the Reds when that starter was pitching.

Also, if he bet heavily one day, he'd tire out his bullpen. So if you knew when Rose might be inclined to use an already-tired reliever, you could bet against the Reds the next day.

Or you could bet against the Reds, long-term. He wore out his top relievers as no manager ever has before or since. Would he have managed that way if money weren't on the line every day?

Rose lied until he couldn't lie any more about betting as a manager. Do we trust his other statements?

I'd rather see 100 McGwires and Sosas in before Rose. We haven't had a betting scandal in a major professional sport of any substance in almost 100 years. Keeping Rose out helps remind younger players not to go down that path.

+1

[Grammaticus]

As baseball slips into obscurity. Who cares about the Hall of Fame. Letting Pete Rose in would generate more interest for baseball than anything in the last 15 years. Athletes using steroids and getting silly suspensions takes away any concerned that lying or being honest even matters.

[JPhillips]

Also, if you're gambling illegally you risk running up debts to shady characters that could be paid back through either inside information, or by improving bookies' odds through altering in-game decisions and performance.

And I've always believed he bet against his team. I feel the same way I did 9 years ago, why accept a lifetime ban if you didn't have more to hide?

I think he made his own bed, so I have no interest in arguing for his reinstatement.

That said, he accepted a lifetime ban because at that point he didn't admit to ever betting on baseball and there was no released evidence to prove he did. He kept that charade up for years.

[BillJasper]

As baseball slips into obscurity. Who cares about the Hall of Fame. Letting Pete Rose in would generate more interest for baseball than anything in the last 15 years. Athletes using steroids and getting silly suspensions takes away any concerned that lying or being honest even matters.

I don't think it's slipping into obscurity, just becoming a sport that drives more interest on the local level as opposed to the national level.

[lighthousekeeper]

Interesting perspective (albeit 6 years old) that I hadn't heard regarding Pete.

Pete Rose Killed Mario Soto's Career | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/242626-pete-rose-killed-mario-soto)

[Tekneek]

It does not really matter that much to me that Pete Rose bet on baseball when he was playing and managing. He isn't playing or managing anymore and I don't think any of the gambling helped him get all of those hits. I just cannot imagine carrying a grudge against the guy for so long. He made mistakes. We're not perfect.