TR Forums

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... layer-1986

We all suspected it, but today the documentary evidence people have been looking for for 20+ years finally surfaced. Pete bet on baseball while a player, despite his profuse and adamant protestations otherwise.

Pete, I hope you can get comfortable with the Black Sox, as those are the only bits of baseball you'll be allowed to associate with, forever.

I realize this is the sports forum and anyone posting here should probably know this already, but why is this a big deal for him?

He currently has a lifetime ban from baseball. No hall of fame (despite being the all time leader in hits) and no official affiliation (no broadcasting jobs, his jersey is not sold). He makes money signing autographs (usually in Vegas).

Despite all that, in the last few years there have been calls from a number of sources to have him reinstated, which would also open hall of fame candadacy. If this is true (and it sure seems that way) that effort would most likely die.

auxy wrote:

I realize this is the sports forum and anyone posting here should probably know this already, but why is this a big deal for him?

Betting on the sport that you actively play is a very bad thing, as it can lead to 'throwing'* the game if you were to bet on the other team. Rose had always claimed he NEVER bet while he played, meaning he has been lying for decades. His credibility takes a HUGE hit when it is proven he lied to try and gain entrance into the Hall of Fame. Even though he claims to have only bet when not an active player (ie: manger at the time) and only bet FOR the Reds to win when he was their manager, it surely sours any trust that basefall fans may have had in the man when he would never admit to his full culpability.



*throwing in this instance means making an error/strikeout in play that can cause your team to lose the game.

Even if he did pick the Reds to win when he bet their games, there's always a stigma of "what about the days he didn't bet on them". He was in debt to mafia-connected bookies. Who's to say he didn't have fore-knowledge of lineups, player availability, or whatever that he was passing along? I don't think it matters who he bet on. He was an employee of a major league franchise betting on his sport. He's gotten caught in lie after lie in the 25 years since his ban, so I see no reason to believe his insistence that he never bet against his club, even.

FWIW Pete Rose was done before this. Rob Man Fred said he'd give his case a fresh look, but I don't think for a minute there was something that was overlooked that would exonerate him or change the commissioner's mind.

auxy wrote:

I realize this is the sports forum and anyone posting here should probably know this already, but why is this a big deal for him?

He was banned from baseball in 1991 (meaning no Hall of Fame, which would be incongruous for the all-time hits leader in MLB). He's talked about reinstatement ever since and formally asked for reinstatement once the new MLB commissioner came into power. His story has always been that his baseball betting was as a manager, not a player. It's here that he's trying to set himself apart from the 1919 Black Sox (actually, Chicago White Sox) who took money from NYC mob gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series that, based on stats, they should have won in a walkover. They took the gambling money because Charles Comiskey, owner of the White Sox, was a notorious tight-ass when it came to paying players.

You're young. You don't remember the times when players were irrevocably bound to their teams by contract (Google "Reserve Clause") until released or traded. No player had the ability to put his services up for offer on the open market until 1975 after Curt Flood won the Reserve Clause case at SCOTUS. These players were essentially in a state of indentured servitude. Someone dangled money in front of their noses and they, as rational men would, took it.

The aftermath of the Black Sox scandal gave us the first Commissioner of Baseball, Kennesaw Mountain Landis. A god-fearin' Kentuckian, there was to be no gambling on his watch. The slighest sniff would get you banned. Walking into a casino (ask MIckey Mantle) was cause for a full-on investigation.

The upshot is that Pete Rose did essentially the same thing the 1919 Black Sox did (at least in the eyes of MLB). Since baseball can't hang people, they just pretend they never existed.

EDIT: Oops. Banning came in 1989. Reserve clause tossed by aribitrator in 1975, not SCOTUS, and not for Curt Flood.

Thanks for the history lesson, Captain Ned! (*´ω｀*)

I have not ever watched even one second of a baseball game (or any sport really) in my entire life, but not knowing about the history there made punishing a player for a little gambling seem awfully harsh! (´・ω・`)

auxy wrote:

I have not ever watched even one second of a baseball game (or any sport really) in my entire life...

You must have taken exceptional steps in order to accomplish that, such as running away screaming whenever anyone turns on a TV (especially during the olympics). Either way, no morbid curiosity? For something that's so talked about, I can't imagine at least wanting to see what it's about.

When I was a kid, I had no idea how football worked and I had no desire to find out. And it was easy to not watch it - I had a VIC20 and later an NES/Genesis that I would fool with instead. I think I might have seen a few seconds of Super Bown XXIV, but I'm not sure that's what game it was, and I couldn't figure out why that guy was kicking footballs into the crowd (extra point attempts). So if that was possible in the 1980s-1990s, with all the other distractions today that is not difficult to imagine (although the "not one second" thing is probably slight hyperbole, not taking time to understand the game and an unfamiliarity with its history most likely is not).

Captain Ned wrote:

The upshot is that Pete Rose did essentially the same thing the 1919 Black Sox did (at least in the eyes of MLB). Since baseball can't hang people, they just pretend they never existed.

As a Cincinnatian, I am hoping he does not get reinstated. And I really wish the subject would stop coming up ever few years.

Betting on yourself to lose is a big thing. Betting on yourself to win--not so much. I'm not making excuses for Mr. Rose, but it doesn't look like he was throwing games--he was just an insatiable gambler.

auxy wrote:

but not knowing about the history there made punishing a player for a little gambling seem awfully harsh! (´・ω・`)

It is harsh, but it is a rule he knew about (both as a player and as a manager). The rule exists for several reasons, but the primary one is if you have money on games you are directly involved in, you can affect the outcome. It does not have to be a straight win/loss proposition either. Betting in sports frequently deals with lines. These exist to make things "even" (but really exist to drive betting in one direction or the other). So even if a player causes a team to lose by less or win by more that can affect who wins and loses money. This is also known as point shaving.

The other issue is that those taking the bets (the bookies) knew it was Pete Rose (a player/manager) and could potentially adjust things based on how he bet (for instance, even though all the evidence currently says he only bet on his team to win, and there is some evidence he never placed a bet on his team if certain pitchers were starting).

So it is a complicated issue. But it is also simple. He knew the rules, he broke them. And, in the face of overwhelming evidence, he denied it for years until he wrote a book which he profited from. But he still denied betting when he was a player, he has stated (even earlier this year) that he only did it as a manager. This now seems to be confirmed as untrue (which has been suspected the whole time). So his actions (gambling while playing and managing) and his lies after the fact are his own fault. He deserves what he gets (in my opinion).

flip-mode wrote:

And I really wish the subject would stop coming up ever few years.

Methinks the latest revelations will finally stake this vampire.

cjcerny wrote:

Betting on yourself to lose is a big thing. Betting on yourself to win--not so much. I'm not making excuses for Mr. Rose, but it doesn't look like he was throwing games--he was just an insatiable gambler.

I would be more impressed with MLB's strong moral stance if they didn't habitually turn a blind eye to stuff like domestic violence, DWI, drug abuse, and such.

cphite wrote:

I would be more impressed with MLB's strong moral stance if they didn't habitually turn a blind eye to stuff like domestic violence, DWI, drug abuse, and such.

Show me any professional sport anywhere that cared about these in 1919 (Black Sox) or 1989 (Pete Rose).

Just to play Devil's Advocate, gambling is something that can affect the game. The issues with DWI, domestic abuse, and drug use have to be handled by law enforcement first. Leagues only take notice when those off-field infractions create PR nightmares.

mattshwink wrote:

... So his actions (gambling while playing and managing) and his lies after the fact are his own fault. He deserves what he gets (in my opinion).

Bingo. I couldn't agree more.

superjawes wrote:

Just to play Devil's Advocate, gambling is something that can affect the game. The issues with DWI, domestic abuse, and drug use have to be handled by law enforcement first. Leagues only take notice when those off-field infractions create PR nightmares.

How many players have been shown to have used performance enhancing drugs? How many pitchers have been found to have altered the balls during games? Both of those things can affect the outcome of a game, arguably more so than someone betting on themselves winning a ballgame. Where are all the lifetime bans for those activities?

Not saying he wasn't wrong... but logically, betting on his own team to win does nothing more than create a financial incentive to win. In that regard, it's no different than offering a player a monetary bonus based on personal performance or team wins.

cphite wrote:

How many players have been shown to have used performance enhancing drugs? How many pitchers have been found to have altered the balls during games? Both of those things can affect the outcome of a game, arguably more so than someone betting on themselves winning a ballgame. Where are all the lifetime bans for those activities?

Not saying he wasn't wrong... but logically, betting on his own team to win does nothing more than create a financial incentive to win. In that regard, it's no different than offering a player a monetary bonus based on personal performance or team wins.

I do believe that players have received bans, suspensions, and marks on their records for PEDs and altered balls (in the NFL, the Super Bowl MVP currently has a 4-game suspension).

But I was really trying to point out that DWIs, domestic abuse, and (recreational) drug use aren't entirely in the jurisdiction of a league, so how they get dealt with must be different from how a league deals with matters directly related to their game. Trying to compare a league's response to rulebreaking versus a response to criminal matters is difficult at best.

And to the ppoint about which way he gambled, it doesn't really matter. Gambling on a sport you are participating in creates a conflict of interest regardless of who you bet on, and the MLB had rules against it. You break da rules, you get punished.

Yes, keep him banned from the game, no way can he come back to baseball.

However, I don't understand why a ban from baseball should automatically mean a ban from the Hall of Fame. Same goes for Shoeless Joe Jackson. Put them in, put the story on their plaque, and move on. Same with Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, etc.

Or, do what my buddy says: he got a lifetime ban. As soon as he's dead, reinstate him and put him in the HoF then. But then Shoeless Joe should be there now.

idchafee wrote:

Or, do what my buddy says: he got a lifetime ban. As soon as he's dead, reinstate him and put him in the HoF then. But then Shoeless Joe should be there now.

I agree with this. The one hope that Pete Rose has (for posthumous reinstatement) is that there seems to be no real evidence that he ever threw a game (and particularly not the World Series).