Hearing that ESPN's OTL has documents that show Rose (the "quintessential recidivist") bet on baseball while he was a player. OTL has a shaky track record lately so we'll see how this goes.
Peter Edward Rose, New Stuff Has Come To Light
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
Well, I mean yeah. We kind of already knew this just by the facts out there.
Pete retired in 1986.
Pete was always a heavily gambler (on other things) and the Dowd report has proof of this in 1985 and 1986.
Pete all of a sudden bet on over 50 games in 1987? Just out of the blue? No fucking way.
Doesn't take a lot of connecting the dots. If OTL has even halfway decent proof, I'd totally buy it.
Pete retired in 1986.
Pete was always a heavily gambler (on other things) and the Dowd report has proof of this in 1985 and 1986.
Pete all of a sudden bet on over 50 games in 1987? Just out of the blue? No fucking way.
Doesn't take a lot of connecting the dots. If OTL has even halfway decent proof, I'd totally buy it.
“@espn: A report by @OTLonESPN shows Pete Rose bet extensively on baseball (and the Reds) as a player: http://t.co/MUPErlufv7 http://t.co/2gFO6UGsRC”
I doubt many people care about this story other than old time baseball writers who enjoy Integrity Of The Game and The Golden Rule lectures.
Not a shock. And if the impact of this news wears off, we'll hear about Rose's involvement in trafficking PEDs in the 70s and 80s. After that loses traction, we'll hear more about the money laundering and tax evasion. Lather, rinse, repeat. (re-Pete?)
The point is that there's enough dirt on Rose (that will selectively leak over time) to guarantee that he's never getting into the Hall.
The point is that there's enough dirt on Rose (that will selectively leak over time) to guarantee that he's never getting into the Hall.
Average Reds said:
Or we can just let him in the Hall and all the investigative digging and bad Pete stories will stop. The all time hits leader gambled? I'm not outraged.
PaulinMyrBch said:
Not arguing against it. Just pointing out that the dirt is coming directly from those who have the votes to keep him out.
Agreed, with sports media so tied to link clicks and ratings of non-event shows, I'm just jaded to giving a crap about breaking stories.Average Reds said:
His lifetime ban was well justified even before this. Hopefully this dumb debate is finished now.
Nothing terribly new here. I watched the episode. He never bet against his team. So he didn't "throw" a game. However, it is what it is and he broke the most "sacred rule" in baseball. I'm not losing sleep over it. He should have some affiliation with baseball. We celebrate the cheaters of the "steroid era". The apples/oranges argument is debatable. Ethical discussion.
mauidano said:
In case it isn't already known by everyone, this isn't the point. The point is his bookies knew when he was betting on his team he'd go all out to win (play someone who might be dinged, bring a closer in a bit early and leave him in longer, etc), while on days he did NOT bet on his team, that was a good day for them to bet against.
Lose Remerswaal said:
Not to mention these are the only notebooks in possession. There is really no reason to believe he hadnt been doing it years earlier and even betting on his team to lose. The point also lost is giving in to the rules. You can't just give in and say fuck it, let him in. What does that mean for the game going forward and to those in the game that might be willing to tank a game. I understand the fans of Pete Rose who watched him his career and that they might want him in but I love baseball and i think it's a bad idea to give in to a cheat who violated a cardinal rule. I might feel a little sympathy for him if he had come clean but he spent too many years lying and denying.
The biggest point that has been brought up again and again is that Rose agreed to a lifetime ban.
Another point, throwing games that he bet on is not the entire concern of gambling, being in debt to people who may influence you is. So that he didn't bet himself on games that were thrown is meaningless. If he owed his bookie $50K and the bookie said "I'll forgive the debt if you can help the Reds lose on X date" that is a problem, whether or not he put money on the same game.
Another point, throwing games that he bet on is not the entire concern of gambling, being in debt to people who may influence you is. So that he didn't bet himself on games that were thrown is meaningless. If he owed his bookie $50K and the bookie said "I'll forgive the debt if you can help the Reds lose on X date" that is a problem, whether or not he put money on the same game.
I am glad this is re-energizing the story a bit because it had seemed like public opinion has been shifting the last decade to let Rose back into baseball and eventually into the HoF. I despise the guy. He is and has always been a lying sack of shit, and he bet on baseball. I personally think it is much worse than even steroids and I want this guy to have nothing to do with MLB. And, as this now shows, he has been lying the whole time as he has been shaping his "reformed person" story in an effort to get back into the game, which more probably than not is all about money anyways and not any desire to be any sort of ambassador for the game. Fuck him.
I would not let him in the HOF, simply to show that it´s an honor to be there and he did so many things the wrong way. Forgiving and all, but this is too much.
I don´t see a difference now, i don´t even think it´s bad to bet on your team winning. But (i´m not the MLB boss and) if that´s against the rules and more importantly if he lied about that multiple times, i don´t see any reason to get him into the HOF.
[What would he even gain from going into the Hall? Nothing. This is just US sports fanatism. Such stuff doesn´t exist in european football, nobody cares if you´re an honorary captain of the English Football Team or whatnot. If you won the FA cup 5 times and the Premier League twice, that´s what matters. I understand it´s a different sport and the HOF is a huge part of it, but Pete Rose would gain nothing from it. Just ban him from Baseball, exclude him from the HOF and that´s it for him.]
I don´t see a difference now, i don´t even think it´s bad to bet on your team winning. But (i´m not the MLB boss and) if that´s against the rules and more importantly if he lied about that multiple times, i don´t see any reason to get him into the HOF.
[What would he even gain from going into the Hall? Nothing. This is just US sports fanatism. Such stuff doesn´t exist in european football, nobody cares if you´re an honorary captain of the English Football Team or whatnot. If you won the FA cup 5 times and the Premier League twice, that´s what matters. I understand it´s a different sport and the HOF is a huge part of it, but Pete Rose would gain nothing from it. Just ban him from Baseball, exclude him from the HOF and that´s it for him.]