Pete Rose Bet on Baseball

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Thank's ShawnB, and from what I've read I believe he shouldn't be allowed. If his batting average is 3rd highest, then he should've thought of what he might loose if he does do, what he did.

He should face the consequences.

The worst thing that he (Shoeless Joe) did was to not rat out his teammates (well okay he also accepted the money). If you look at his stats from the 1919 World Series then you will find that he was playing to win while his teammates were playing to lose.

While I think that baseball was a little hard on Joe Jackson, I can see why he hasn't allowed to go to the hall of fame and I think that Pete Rose shouldn't go either.

The fact that he MAY have only bet on baseball for his team to win is no excuse. As a player/manager he had the opportunity to overwork a certainly pitcher or player just to win a particular game that he had $10,000 riding on. Rather than try to win every night, he could have altered his style to just win the games that he bet on while resting his best players on nights that he wasn't betting on.

It's fundamentally against the interests of baseball and team sports in general.

[threetonesun]

No, never. He would bet against his own team! No lover of baseball would do that, he derserves what he got.

[ynot]

His on field actions speak for themselves, but what he did off the field is not to be tolerated. If you think what he did was ok because he was a great player than any player should be allowed to do the same. And that will be the downfall of baseball.

[KenLin]

Did he actually bet against his own team? I don't see why it's such a big deal unless he bet against his own team. So the manager of the Reds puts $5K on the Royals beating the Pirates. So what?!?! If he bet on the Reds to win, so what. He should already be doing everything possible to win anyways.

[dougkinzinger]

#2 for me, folks. I'm sure it's the type of thing where "everybody does it" but just like Nixon was impeached for doing something "everybody does" so should P.R. not be in the hall of fame.

[briangw]

Didn't Rose say he only bet on baseball as a manager and not a player, or am I off?

[dougkinzinger]

i think he just said he never bet for/against his team

[aem4162]

Rose belongs back in baseball and he belongs in the HoF.

He should've admitted to it when everything happened so that we fans wouldn't have had to go through this poo for all of these years. But then we might not have had the chance to boo at Bart Giamatti at the 1989 HoF induction ceremony. That was priceless. Even the Red Sox fans booed.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Did he actually bet against his own team? I don't see why it's such a big deal unless he bet against his own team. So the manager of the Reds puts $5K on the Royals beating the Pirates. So what?!?! If he bet on the Reds to win, so what. He should already be doing everything possible to win anyways.

This is what I said earlier:

The fact that he MAY have only bet on baseball for his team to win is no excuse. As a player/manager he had the opportunity to overwork a certainly pitcher or player just to win a particular game that he had $10,000 riding on. Rather than try to win every night, he could have altered his style to just win the games that he bet on while resting his best players on nights that he wasn't betting on.

I don't believe that betting for your own team in fundamentally better than betting against it. They are both bad.

[Ficman]

Really does it matter, guy lied about it for HOW many years... Guy is a Looser

[my name is ben]

Absolutely not. He is already in the hall for his achievements (World Series and All Star Appearances, All-Time Hit Record). Giamatti did the right thing when he banned him. That set a much better example to the future generations about MLB and its stance on gambling.

so with that logic should baby ruth not be in the hall of fame because he was an alcoholic and a womanizer...we wouldn't want the mlb to "set an example" saying that those things are okay...

[ShawnB]

MLB is very clear on gambling in its rules. He knew it and he lied about it because he knew what the result of his actions would be. Now that he has admitted he bet on baseball, it should be clearer that he should remain out.

From the Dowd Report:

Any player umpire or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any suit 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.

There is an interesting premise to this rule hat since he only admitted to betting on other games, he should only have to server the 1yr suspension. Of course he denied doing even that for the last 13 years, so who knows what the real truth is.

we wouldn't want the mlb to "set an example" saying that those things are okay...

The example I was talking about was upholding the rule -- even if it means keeping the Hit Champ out of the HOF. That is a great example to any player or manager who thinks it is ok to bet on baseball.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

There are only two years left for the baseball writers to vote him into the hall of fame. After that he can only be admitted by the veterans and there is no chance of that happening. He is regarded by the veterans as a selfish me-first attention grabbing player. The timing of his book and revelations about betting on baseball was timed to coincide with this years' HOF admissions and it really made this years' entrants into back page news. What it was Paul Molitor and somebody else? I feel sorry for them they've had their happy days overshadowed by Pete Rose, again.

[.Neil]

He knew the rules and knew what would happen if he did it....and still went ahead and bet....then lied for 14 years....no thanks, Pete

[BMac]

First of all he bet when he was a manager. Secondly he never bet against his team so wtf is wrong. He had no bearing on whether his team won. If he bet against them then maybe he could have thrown the game by putting in crappy players but he never did. Finally the HOF is suppose to be about what he did on the field. He would not go in as a manager but as a player that has quite a legacy. I say if they want to footnote his plaque saying he bet on his team as a manager fine but don't rob the future fan base of the league by not continuing his legacy.

To put this in perspective. I watched a Canadian sports talk show (OTR, Off the Record) today a they pointed this hypothetical situation out. It is a well known fact that Micheal Jordan enjoys gambling. He's seen in Vegas all the time. If he even bet on his team during his career should he not be in the HOF despite the fact he is the best player ever? It's the same thing as Rose. If you feel that no matter what Jordan should be in then so should Rose.

[-=SD=-]

First of all he bet when he was a manager. Secondly he never bet against his team so wtf is wrong. He had no bearing on whether his team won. If he bet against them then maybe he could have thrown the game by putting in crappy players but he never did. Finally the HOF is suppose to be about what he did on the field. He would not go in as a manager but as a player that has quite a legacy. I say if they want to footnote his plaque saying he bet on his team as a manager fine but don't rob the future fan base of the league by not continuing his legacy.

Nothing else to say, Rose should be in :)

[threetonesun]

First of all he bet when he was a manager. Secondly he never bet against his team so wtf is wrong. He had no bearing on whether his team won. If he bet against them then maybe he could have thrown the game by putting in crappy players but he never did. Finally the HOF is suppose to be about what he did on the field. He would not go in as a manager but as a player that has quite a legacy. I say if they want to footnote his plaque saying he bet on his team as a manager fine but don't rob the future fan base of the league by not continuing his legacy.

Rose will never admit to betting against his team, but his bookies have.

[BMac]

Rose will never admit to betting against his team, but his bookies have.

I bet the bookies just wanted some attention. Why not when you could go down as the person to keep Rose out of the HOF. I however doubt this because with Pete's new book coming out I think if he did now would be the time to let it all out. I can see your point of view though. Pete's lied for 15 years his credibility is gone. I just think in my opinion that if he did his book would be the place to say so.

[.Neil]

Oh, Rose "says" he never bet against his team? Same guy who said he wasnt betting for 14 years? Boy his credibility is strong...give me a break.

[BMac]

Oh, Rose "says" he never bet against his team? Same guy who said he wasnt betting for 14 years? Boy his credibility is strong...give me a break.

That's what I said dude. Read my post before you bash me. :p

[ShawnB]

This story certainly has legs: Pete Rose's ex-bookie says bets were made from clubhouse AND involved the Reds

Discuss.

[briangw]

nm, read the article. my bad.

[quigley0]

Yes. Let him in. Who cares if he bet on baseball?? Other players do drugs, etc. No one is perfect. They made an example out of him. It is time to let him in. He admited it. The other things They want him to do are ridiculous. Like, "does he feel bad about what he did", etc, are silly. LET HIM IN.

[....]

Interesting interview this morning with Bob Costas on the Today show. Costas doesn't buy the Rose 'admission' saying it's only a ploy to get in the HoF. It makes sense, too. Rose officially has only 2 more years before his chance to get in the hall of fame lies with the Veterans committee, which he says will be much more difficult to get in because the old timers want the hall to remain pure. The writers, may not vote him in the first year (if he's allowed to come back) just as a 'we're taking a stand' sort of thing.

Interestingly enough, Costa sure didn't come across as a Pete Rose supporter. Glad someone is speaking the truth, cause I still don't think Rose is telling all.

[....]

Very interesting article by Peter Gammons on all the recent developments.

I have always maintained that if Bud Selig decreed Pete Rose eligible for the Hall of Fame pending the vote of the Baseball Writers Association, I would vote for him as a player. Now I hear Bud is going to issue a two-year probation and make Rose eligible only by the vote of the veterans' committee. Fine. Because these last two days have made me rethink my initial decision to vote for him.

Here's the story: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1701992