rose admits bettings on reds

Frank:

Thanks for posting this news and the link.

I do appreciate that you post links to timely news stories, even the obscure ones. I'm sure that I would miss them if you didn't.

Saw the headlines this afternoon,.....

Rose also said during the interview that he's no longer concerned about whether he'll ever be reinstated or if he'll ever be admitted into the Hall of Fame.

"I quit worrying about it," Rose said.
--------------------

And his more flippant attitude: acknowledging that he was wrong when he said that he bet on games "four nights a week"; "I was wrong"...."I bet on them every night".
-------------------------------

I was your defender Pete.

No more.

Hopefully, no Hall of Fame for him...ever!!!!!

I know you need rules and you must have consequences for breaking the rules, but I'd be willing to bet there are more than a few in the Hall who have done things that are far worse than gambling.
I think he's been an outcast long enough,"he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.."

Give Pete another year or so - and he will be admitting to throwing games because of the long odds. LOL

He gets a Chuck Barris gong - and a banana.

Thats it.

1) Frankly, the point he bet on them every night is more re-assuring than just some games... because in the cases he didn't bet for the Reds he's actually betting against them in a sense.
2) He should be in the Hall... the day after he dies. He agreed to a lifetime ban because they had the goods on him for hundreds of bets.
3) You can't compare gambling on the games to say a Steve Howe who had all the drug problems... They simply cannot allow any players to bet on the games.

See ya Pete... the Hall of Fame doors are closed for your lifetime in my book...

08

The guy could still use a good shrink....

...or a Bookie!

Do you think he's betting on whether or not he'll make the HoF? What's the Over/Under?

it didn't help him get 4256 hit's. and i think it's still called the baseball hall of fame. not the morals hof, which he couldn't be the janitor in. but that's just my opinion and i'm pretty sure i'm out numbered.

Shoeless Joe first, then Rose.

It seems odd that so many of us had the opinion that Rose should in fact be inducted in spite the fact he was guilty of gambling.

Some even stated that he just needed to come clean, confess he did it and then be inducted.

Now that he has come clean (though I really doubt what he said was entirely true) everyone seems to want to hang him. Did anyone actually think he was innocent before?

You have to wonder if anything Pete says is really true. For example he bet on his team to win every game of the year? In my mind… not to excuse it… but that is better than if he picked his spots and bet both ways on his team. BTW, I think that is exactly what he was accused of before all this came out.

IMO… He still belongs in the HOF based on what he accomplished during his playing career. He also deserves to be banned from professional baseball because of what he did after his playing career. This stuff will only make him more famous/notorious in baseball history.

Whether someone likes him or hates him, he didn’t cheat to get more hits than anyone else whose ever played. Anyway, I don’t think he did!

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
It seems odd that so many of us had the opinion that Rose should in fact be inducted in spite the fact he was guilty of gambling.

Not if one really understands the history of the game.

A lot of people know that when baseball became so popular, one of the main reasons was, it provided such a great venue for gambling! Everybody from the players, to the little kiddies would place wagers on everything, not just the outcome of the games.

That fact isn’t lost on many people who do have a very deep knowledge of the game, and I suspect that’s where a lot of Pete’s support lies.

What I find odd, is that everybody gambles on just about everything! Right now the Vegas books are making billions, not to mention all of the office pools and smoke filled back rooms.

In football, when Hornung and Karas got caught gambling, they only had to sit a short period of time, and in the many point shaving scandals, seldom has a player been banned for life from everything having to do with the sport.

What’s most ironic to me is, baseball’s a sport where one of the main attitudes is: If ya ain’t cheatin’, ya aint tryin’, so cheating is higher on the moral list than gambling, but far fewer people cheat than gamble!

Its all very hypocritical.

20, PG, SK

Thank you, I was starting to think I was crazy.
I might be almost normal after all!

Now let's say, hypothetically of course, that Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, etc. are proven to have taken steroids (which would be a total shocker! ), a new debate will come up. "Should they be in the Hall of Fame?" I know my opinion, but I'm curious to see others...how does Rose's gambling on the game compare to the other players taking steroids? The floor is open...

The rule is very clear: If you bet on baseball, you're banned from the game.

If you're banned from baseball, you ought not be enshrined in its Hall of Fame.

The fact that there may be inductees who betted and got away with it is beside the point.

quote:

Originally posted by Prepster:
The rule is very clear: If you bet on baseball, you're banned from the game.
Can you or anyone tell me where on MLB.com I can find the “official” rule against gambling, or performance enhancing drugs so I can see how clear either one is?

If you're banned from baseball, you ought not be enshrined in its Hall of Fame.
That’s your opinion, and that’s fine. It just doesn’t match my opinion.

What if a bunch of really far right whackos got control of the game and instituted a rule that said committing adultery is reason for being banned from the game. The HOF would likely be emptied overnight. How would you feel about that?

The fact that there may be inductees who betted and got away with it is beside the point.
All true. But the rules are pretty clear abut a whole lot of things that get ignored or have exceptions made for them, why is this rule sacrosanct?

scorekeeper

Your thought process gets scarier and scarier with every new post

I think your scorebooks might need to be audited!!!

Prepster,

He has been banned from the game! Not sure anyone has an issue with that. The question should be only about enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

I know many will disagree, but I consider the HOF a place of history. A place where fans can come and find out more about the games best players and others who have done a lot for the game. They do seperate those two groups (players/managers/others)

As a player... Pete Rose is part (big part) of baseball history. His plaque should talk about his accomplishments as a player and further read that he was banned from the game of baseball for life because of gambling on baseball as a manager.

That way he is both honored as a player and degraded for breaking one of baseball's cardinal rules!

JMO, I can see both sides of the debate!

Personally I rather they voted in Ron Santo!

Scorekeeper

That rule is posted in just about every professional clubhouse in baseball. It's impossible to be involved in professional baseball without knowing the rule.

The sad part is we have men with drug charges, drunkards, suspected criminals et al in the HOF--I am with PG ---the HOF is for what they did on the field not off it and Rose was one of the best on the field


By the way PG congrats on the ESPN situation

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
That rule is posted in just about every professional clubhouse in baseball. It's impossible to be involved in professional baseball without knowing the rule.

I know that’s what’s said, but is it really posted?

But all kidding aside, I know there’s a rule that says no gambling, and what the consequences are, but I honestly have never read it. Have you? I’m sure there’s more to it than “No Gambling”.

It isn’t on the MLB site that I can find, and it isn’t in the OBR, so I have to assume its in some kind of language like bylaws, articles of incorporation, contracts, or something. I’d just really like to read it. I know its there, but I don’t where to find it.

All these years I’ve heard about it, and just taken it on faith that its there, but now I’d like to actually read it.

quote:

Originally posted by Scorekeeper:

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
That rule is posted in just about every professional clubhouse in baseball. It's impossible to be involved in professional baseball without knowing the rule.

I know that’s what’s said, but is it really posted?

But all kidding aside, I know there’s a rule that says no gambling, and what the consequences are, but I honestly have never read it. Have you? I’m sure there’s more to it than “No Gambling”.

It isn’t on the MLB site that I can find, and it isn’t in the OBR, so I have to assume its in some kind of language like bylaws, articles of incorporation, contracts, or something. I’d just really like to read it. I know its there, but I don’t where to find it.

All these years I’ve heard about it, and just taken it on faith that its there, but now I’d like to actually read it.

Read it.



RULE 21(d)
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.


Pretty simple eh?

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Read it.

RULE 21(d)
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Pretty simple eh?

I could have done with the admonition to Read it. This isn’t a mine’s bigger than you’re thing. All I wanted to know is what the rule was.

You posted it, and I thank you. Now don’t get all angry, but rule 21(d) of what? Maybe I’m a nut, but I like to read laws and rules. I find that very often there’s a lot of knowledge in them that is beneficial.

I’m guessin’ you’re really gonna get PO’d at this because you think I’m just jerkin’ your chain, but I’m honestly not. I’m just trying to understand the extent that MLB is willing to take this thing.

I’ve gotta parse it, sorry.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee,

I’m assuming they’re talking about people working for MLB or any team, in any capacity.

who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform,

Perform as in Pete was a manager, it could be a player, or it could be an executive in a team’s front office. But, it could also be a janitor or a secretary who somehow got hold of confidential or otherwise “privileged” information.

Taken to an extreme, it might just be that a groundskeeper knew he was gonna soak down the base paths, screw around with the mound, or something else that might possibly have an effect on a game.

shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Permanently ineligible for what?

So theoretically, anyone anywhere who was working for either the Cards or the Tigers during the last WS who picked 5 squares at 5 bucks a square in the office pool, could potentially be declared permanently ineligible.

Yeah yeah, I know that’s a reach, but that’s what you quoted.

Read it again.

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Scorekeeper:

I’m guessin’ you’re really gonna get PO’d at this because you think I’m just jerkin’ your chain, but I’m honestly not. I’m just trying to understand the extent that MLB is willing to take this thing.

Oh yeah - a cyber chain jerking . Its maddening. LOL

Get back into reality SK. Parse it - and then jump in. LOL

BTW - You can find Rule 21D in Julia Child's last published cookbook.

Pete belongs in the HOF just like PG and TR said. Any person who thinks he don't is an idiot.

Keep him out of baseball but don't keep him from the place he deserves to be. There are a lot worse people in the HOF than Pete Rose.

Shoeless Joe, then Rose. They both deserve to be in the HoF based on their on field performance. But rules are rules. If they break the rules they suffer the consequeces.

Shoeless Joe's circumstance can be debated, in the 1919 WS he hit .375, had 6 RBI's, and a perfect 1.000 fielding percentage. That doesn't sound like someone who was trying to throw the WS

Heck the NFL has a double murderer in it's Hall......ahem.... I mean, ALLEGED double murderer!

This is one of those, "you'll never convince me otherwise topics". Everyone has their opinion, let's leave it at that before this turns nasty.

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Oh yeah - a cyber chain jerking . Its maddening. LOL

Get back into reality SK. Parse it - and then jump in. LOL

BTW - You can find Rule 21D in Julia Child's last published cookbook.

What is it with you?

Evidently you don’t have the capacity to understand that some people want to read things for themselves and try to understand them, rather than take someone’s word for something.

Man up and just try to answer a legitimate question! Rule 21D of what?

i think it's either the major league agreement or the major league rules. but i know the signing scout points this out when they sign. maybe not back then?

quote:

Originally posted by 20dad:
i think it's either the major league agreement or the major league rules. but i know the signing scout points this out when they sign. maybe not back then?

20dad, YOU DA MAN!!!!!

Evidently its in the MLA, but now all I gotta do is find a way to get it! I went to http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf to download a copy, but I kept getting an I/O error. So I went to another machine and tried there, but got the same thing.

Evidently, there’s some kind of problem on mlb.com’s server. If someone has an electronic copy and would send it to me, I’d sure appreciate it.

I did find what’s supposedly the 1st MLA done in 1921, and I see this one expired in ’06.

Trhit

Was he off the field when he was mamaging the Reds. Just because he bet on the Reds to win as he claims does that make it ok. How you manage a game is a lot differnt when you bet a couple grand on it than if you did not. What he did compromised the game. Just because he was not a player he was the manager. Who makes decisions on strategy and pitching changes? Remember a pitching change today influences what your options are tomorrow.

With Pete's ever changing stories he just keeps burying himself deeper and deeper. First he did not bet on baseball, then his story was he bet on mlb games other than the Reds, then it was certain Reds games, now every Reds games.

there is no possible way that his betting did not affect how he managed, which destroys the integrity of the game.

Like it or not, the numero uno rule in professional baseball is no betting. Posted in every clubhouse everywhere. Pretty black and white and not up for much debate. It's baseball's rule. Ignore that rule, let it slide and

Also need to keep in mind that Pete's accomlishments are in the hall of fame. They are not ignored and there and have been items of his, mention of records, etc. in the hof. Just Pete, himself, is not so honored as a member. There is a discernable difference in these various notions and concepts.

What other members of the hof may or may not have done off the field is certainly open to debate, but unfortunately doesn't change Pete's situation and what he did as a direct part of the game (not off the field) and what he admits to having done in the Reds dugout/clubhouse, as a direct part of the game-again, NOT off the field.

I think they have quite a number of rules that are broken on a daily basis, I seriously doubt that every player actually knows ALL the rules. Has anyone here ever done anything that was against the law? Maybe I should ask, has anyone here NEVER done anything against the law?
The mlb has laws against steroids, rec drugs, spit balls, corked bats, unsportsman like conduct and who knows what else. There is not a human alive that doesn't struggle with some sort of weakness, problem or addiction. Some handle temptations much better than others, but everyone is flawed in some way. Many have flaws or addictions that are never found out, and sometimes the guiltiest are the hardest on those found out and made public.

Well I guess the philosophical under pinnings to this could be discussed with Bart Giammati, but the trouble is he is dead and he is singularly the person who decided to ban Rose from professional baseball. Being so banned Pete cannot be considered for the hof, any and every other consideration aside.

this is also not about all of the rules, understanding of all the rules, etc. It is about one very simple black and white rule that is posted in every single club house - No betting. Pete broke the rule, he knows he broke the rule, he now admits he broke the rule (as central a rule as there is to the conduct of the game).

When anyone goes on trial as Pete has in a sense, there is never a discussion of what this one did or that one did, etc. It is what YOU did. Even the "defendant's" own other courses of conduct are irrelevant in most cases and usually then only in the sentencing phase of a given case.

On the most personal level I've met Pete Rose, coached one of his kids in Little League and think he's a great guy but his present "status" is understandable, all things considered and in his heart of hearts I think even he understands it, he's just trying to figure ever way he can around it.

Well.

I finally got the MLPA, and there was no rule 21 in it! However, after a bit of searching, it looks like there are something called the Major League Rules, but it also looks like they aren’t easily available to the general public.

But I’m still interested in reading the document this rule 21 is in, so if someone comes across it and would care to share it, I’d be grateful.

Isn’t it funny how something that raises all this “dickens” is so hard to get one’s hands on? Kinda makes me wonder just how many people who express their opinion about either how evil or misunderstood Pete is, have actually read the rule in the context of the whole document.

The way it looks, unless someone who insists on commenting one way or the other has actually looked at the document and given it a little bit of study, they’re either ignorant, or a blowhard.

I claim iggerince!

sk
it's a rule of employment,and as with many jobs it isn't easy to get these employee rules.but we have many poster's here who have either played ,or son's who are playing mlb. so if it's quoted by ITG i'd beieve him.
most people have opinions of rose either based on his playing hard or breaking the rules. that doesn't make them a blowhard or ignorant imho. the hof isn't owned by mlb, so in my very biased opinion he belongs enshrined in the hof, as does shoeless joe. but again just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by 20dad:
it's a rule of employment,and as with many jobs it isn't easy to get these employee rules.but we have many poster's here who have either played ,or son's who are playing mlb. so if it's quoted by ITG i'd beieve him.
most people have opinions of rose either based on his playing hard or breaking the rules. that doesn't make them a blowhard or ignorant imho. the hof isn't owned by mlb, so in my very biased opinion he belongs enshrined in the hof, as does shoeless joe. but again just my opinion.

Methinks you misunderstood the way I intended what I said to be taken. May bad, It wasn’t said well.

I never doubted IITG’s quote was accurate at all! I was trying to say that I just wanted to see the document it was in so I could read it, as well as the other rules for myself.

If people are giving their opinions without actually knowing exactly what those rules are saying, they are ignorant. That doesn’t mean they’re stupid, but they really don’t know what they’re talking about. And if they’re doing that knowingly, IMHO, that makes them a blowhard.

Of course there are a lot of folks, like me, who have no idea that there’s this huge document out there floating around. That makes us ignorant. All I’m trying to do is gain more knowledge, not trying to change anyone’s mind, even my own.

About 20 years ago I moved into a home owner’s association. If you know much about them, they’re often bogged down in rules, and often have old bluehairs who have nothing better to do than run around turnin’ in everyone for everything they THINK is a rule violation.

I got tired of that BS, actually got my hands the rules, and quickly found out that what most people believed the rules were, was far from the truth. Over the years, people got too lazy to actually look something up, so whenever someone pointed a finger at them and said there was a rule against it, they believed them. After 10-15 years, rather than facts, a lot of what was believed was nothing more than unprovable and untrue dogma.

With all that said, I understand that not everyone wants to know for sure what the truth is because they really don’t have that kind of interest, and that’s ok. But that isn’t me.

FWIW, I happen to agree that he and Jackson both belong in the HOF. Its called the Hall of Fame, not Hall of Virtue. Good thing too, because if it was the Hall of Virtue, it’s be empty!

There are many rules involving a professional baseball player that are not neccessarily public knowledge. I'm not sure if there's an actual number attached to the rule, but everyone involved in professional baseball is fully aware of the rule and its penalty.

I just don't understand why he can't be banned from participation and still be in the HOF. Truth is "Shoeless Joe" was the one who really got screwed. All he did was fail to rat on his teammates.

Read what Hank Aaron said... Check the statement in bold.

By The Associated Press

ATLANTA - Hank Aaron is adamant: Pete Rose has no place in the Hall of Fame, or anywhere in baseball.
The all-time home run leader harshly criticized the career hit king for an insincere confession, saying Rose should not be reinstated after admitting he bet on the game.

Aaron, a vice president with the Atlanta Braves, said Rose should be treated like anyone else who gambles on games.

"I just think it's hogwash to say that he should be put back into the game just because the public wants it," Aaron said. "A rule is a rule, and the rule is on every clubhouse door that you can't bet on baseball. It doesn't say that you're excluded if you have 4,000 hits or 700 home runs."