works the same as for anybody else, but if he bet that his team would lose then he can be accused of losing on purpose, if he bets on them to win, if the team loses, he loses too...
Posted on 03/16/2015 5:01:01 PM PDT by Beave Meister
A wise person once said to me "just because you're the best at what you do, that doesn't mean that you're good at life."
Pete Rose definitely falls into the category of "great at what he does" but being lousy at life. Thing is, Rose is hardly unique that way.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m against Pete getting out of the lifetime ban. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of MLB in general regarding the juiced players and hopped up baseballs to increase butts in the stands.
works the same as for anybody else, but if he bet that his team would lose then he can be accused of losing on purpose, if he bets on them to win, if the team loses, he loses too...
You did not answer the question.
Wrong. Gambling damn near killed baseball in 1920. Individuals looking for a marginal advantage at the plate with a corked bat or using roids is one thing. They should be punished.
A player, especially a manager, having a financial interest, perhaps even a overwhelming incentive, via gambling in the outcome of a game attacks the very integrity of the game.
Look up the Black Sox scandal if you don't understand the difference. It damn near killed baseball. Pete Rose knew about it but he being the arrogant narcissist he is, didn't give a damn.
At the outset of Spring training, it is the Manager's job to take the entire clubhouse thru the rule book. In particular, the manager is instructed to linger on the significance of Rule 21 (d).
That Pete would undertake such a responsibility, then disregard it is sign of a serious character defect. And an absolute unsuitability for The Hall.
I am one of Pete's #1 fans, but the ban must stay.
Filth in the game cannot be excused.
Ever.
Unless you want the game to die.
And, it's the greatest game ever invented by man.
Personally, I'd pick Bill Mazeroski, but he actually did it with no outs and no one on base in the bottom of the 9th. ;~))
if he bet on them to win no... or else i don't understand the question
He agreed to a lifetime ban and I assume he understood what “lifetime” meant. After he dies, his on field accomplishments may warrant induction into the hall but while he is alive, he should not be allowed in.
Roses understanding at the time was that at some point he could petition to get unbanned.
I remember going to see the Reds a few times when they came to Wrigley Field. There was one sign someone made that I always remembered “A Rose by any other name would still smell.”
The point being that if he is betting to win, he is managing to win. But, he didn’t bet every game. That’s the crux of the matter. How does managing to win affect the odds of winning the next game, when his bookies know he didn’t have a bet riding? Do you burn pitching when you know it is going to be needed in the next series when nothing is riding? Or use players when they should have the day off in consideration of finishing strong down the stretch?
If you were a bookie making odds, would you pay attention to what games Rose bet on and which games he didn’t? How about when he bet 1000 bucks as opposed to 100? So then what do you do to reward Pete Rose for using your book? Because he’s a pretty sweet client and he knows it.
FReegards
The team one bets on can lose and one still wins or win but you still lose.
It’s similar to a football point spread.
As a manager that provides a conflict of interest.
.
We know Bud Seleg is excrement.
Next!
.
What’s your point? Are you suggesting Ty Cobb was caught betting on baseball while he played or managed....on his own team none the less?
http://www.si.com/vault/1989/06/12/120042/the-cobb-gambling-scandal
“In 1926 retired pitcher Dutch Leonard told American League
president Ban Johnson that near the end of the 1919 season, Leonard
and Tiger teammate Cobb, along with Tris Speaker and Smokey Joe Wood
of the Indians, had met beneath the stands in Detroit and reached an
understanding that the Indians, who had clinched second place behind
the White Sox, would lose to the Tigers the next day so that Detroit
could finish third and claim a share of World Series money. Leonard
said that to profit on the arrangement Cobb planned to bet $2,000 on
the game, Leonard $1,500 and Speaker and Wood $1,000 each. In the
end, Cleveland did lose, 9-5, but Cobb didn’t get his money down in
time, and only a small portion of the others’ money was wagered.
Leonard was said to harbor grudges against both Cobb and Speaker
— Cobb, the Tigers’ player-manager, had released him in 1926, and
Speaker, the Indians’ player-manager, had refused to pick him up —
but he did possess two incriminating letters from Cobb and Wood. In
his letter Wood had written, ‘’If we ever have another chance like
this we will know enough to try to get ((our bets)) down early.’’
Cobb had written, ‘’Wood and myself are considerably disappointed in
our business proposition.’’
The public didn’t get wind of Leonard’s accusations until Cobb and
Speaker both retired unexpectedly after the ‘26 season. Johnson had
allowed them to resign rather than make the affair public. But he
gave Leonard’s letters to commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who
crossed Johnson by revealing them to the press.”
What’s amazing is that MLB had two guys called Dutch Leonard. One a right handed pitcher, the Tiger, who has the lowest modern ERA ever at .96 with 224 innings in 1914 and a right handed Knuckleball pitcher who pitched 20 years from 1933-1953.
Freegards
Wow, never heard about this one before. But whether Cobb bet on games we’ll never really know for sure. And if it can be proven that he did, he should be removed from the Hall. If this is true, I don’t know why Landis wouldn’t have banned Cobb for life too. Shoeless Joe Jackson was just as good a player and probably a little better hitter than Cobb was at the time he was banned for life in the 1919 Black Sox scandal. But one thing is for sure, we definitely know Rose bet on games he was involved in. As Rose once said “I bet on my team every night, not just four days a week, I bet on them every night. I was wrong”
The Dowd investigation determined that he only bet on 53 Reds games in 1987. Hard to imagine that it would be so wrong as to get 53 as opposed to all of them.
Freegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.