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!