Pete Rose's Reckless Gamble

Pete Rose's Reckless Gamble - by Ryan Rodenberg/ Entertainment/ TheAtlantic.com

"A quarter-century after his ban from baseball, it's easy to forget just how deeply the Cincinnati Reds' manager compromised the integrity of the game.

I have taught a variety of sports law courses in the past seven years. Every semester, when my lecture turns to sports gambling, I get some form of this question:

“But what about Pete Rose? He only bet on his team to win. What’s wrong with that?”

The gist of my response: A lot is wrong with that..."


Neil Lauron/Reuters

Richard

I personally believe that if they are letting other folks who have cheated just as bad on HOF ballots, at least let pete rose be on one.

cant obviously control who votes for him, but I think its absurd to have him banned from baseball for life. He could have killed someone and likely been out of prison for it now 25 years later =)

I believe that "ban for life" is correct. He was such a BIG persona in NLB - records that might take another 50 years to be broken ... the * after his name or the records are forever gone. Yes, even after his death ... he should NOT be reinstated ... permanent is FOREVER.

He 'played' the betting world to get more MONEY. He managed a team not to win for the fans or to better the game of baseball, but to enlarge his bank account. And then for YEARS after, he denied he did anything wrong. He should have been happy with his honest millions - but he chose to do otherwise. He knew he was doing wrong - he schemed to NOT get caught - he denied it when he was caught - he persisted for YEARS his innocence. Now, he knows his loss but still wants his glory as he ages for ALL TIME Acknowledgement.

Baseball is America's Past Time - Pete Rose was a big player - He choose poorly. He alone repeatedly made BAD CHOICES - all for the MONEY, never for the GAME.

I have never understood the animus against Pete Rose. I do not understand the lifetime ban either. Okay he broke the rules, but damn. Folks act like he destroyed the sport. The article raise good technical counter points as to how even betting on one's own team can be very problematic. But that is not tantamount to an unforgivable and grotesque immorality, the likes of which calls for a lifetime ban. I do not get the anti-Pete Rose cult. It actually makes me angry.

but what he did made no impact on the players playing...nor did he bet on games while he was a player.

there are a good number of players that did (in my mind) far worse things AS PLAYERS that dont get lifetime bans.

none of this changes the fact that he should be in the hall of fame for what he did on the field as a player.

Wikipedia list of professional sports people convicted of crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sportspeople_convicted_of_crimes


It's a loooong list, folks. Betting on baseball is a lifetime ban?

I watched him while I was growing up, he was not called Charlie Hustle for nothing. I don't get to watch baseball much anymore, but I have not seen a player today that could touch Pete Rose. I think his accomplishments as a player should not be denied a spot in the Hall of Fame.

JPD said:

I watched him while I was growing up, he was not called Charlie Hustle for nothing. I don't get to watch baseball much anymore, but I have not seen a player today that could touch Pete Rose. I think his accomplishments as a player should not be denied a spot in the Hall of Fame.

Click to expand...

Back when baseball was a family pastime (meaning, a one paycheck family of 4 could actually AFFORD to go), my dad took us to watch the "Big Red Machine" 3-4 times a year.

Some of my favorite memories.

TUGBrian said:

but what he did made no impact on the players playing...nor did he bet on games while he was a player.

there are a good number of players that did (in my mind) far worse things AS PLAYERS that dont get lifetime bans.

none of this changes the fact that he should be in the hall of fame for what he did on the field as a player.

Click to expand...

I agree Brian with you.

Those steroid drug players that play baseball and are playing today affected the out come of every baseball game that they play and are playing right now. Pete Rose gamble that his baseball players were the best in playing the game; without the aide of steroid drugs.

Pete Rose life time ban sure be lifted and that is my opinion only.

So, a pitcher intentionally throwing at a batter with a hard ball traveling in excess of 90 MPH doesn't potentially hurt the intergrity of the game? A pitcher who uses a substance to alter the path of the pitch doesn't affect the integrity of the game? PED's don't affect the integrity of the game?

Sure he may deserve the lifetime ban but, can we say his punishment fits his crime if we compare that to others? We can go back throughout the history of the game and see those who have compromised the games intergrity who haven't received the punishment Pete Rose has been handed.

It's not that I believe the punishment is excessive, just that MLB's punishment is arbitrary and unevenly distributed.

Of course, we're still debating about "Shoeless" Joe Jackson's ban. I suspect we'll be debating Pete Rose's ban just as long.

Pete Rose is now 73 years old. It is time to forgive and let the man smell a living rose of forgiveness by the MLB . Let this man be voted into the Hall of Fame alive.

That is mine opinion only.

I also believe it's ridiculous to keep Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame. It's okay to get chance after chance when you beat your wife/girlfriend, use drugs or banned substances or get arrested for drunk driving but gambling on sports games is unforgivable? Oh yeah, most of those who used drug enhancements lied under oath too but their punishments were nil compared to what Pete got.

pedro47 said:

Pete Rose gamble that his baseball players were the best in playing the game; without the aide of steroid drugs.

Click to expand...

That's what Pete says! Who knows if that's the truth and I honestly doubt it is. Pete lied and lied about this for years and when he finally admitted it he put in that qualifier! Pete's a gambling addict where the only thing he cares about is winning the bet. That's a very dangerous person to have in the game as a manager which he was at the time.

Pete is a very shady person in real life! How do I know that? I know that because my uncle is also a very shady person in real life and he's actually had business dealings with Pete in the past. My uncle was the best greyhound dog handicapper in Florida (his nickname was Howie the hunch) and he used to own a baseball trading card store. He's hired Pete on multiple occasions and he's told me that Pete is even more of a degenerate then he is! My uncle also knows most of the bookies that dealt with Pete and he's pretty sure Pete bet both for and against his teams!

That being said, I do think Pete should be on the HOF ballot and if I were a voter I would vote him to be in the HOF. I would separate that out from all other baseball activities and I would keep the lifetime ban in place for everything else.

This all harkens back to the Blacksox 1919 scandal where they threw the World Series. That got very close to completely destroying the game!

TUGBrian said:

but what he did made no impact on the players playing...nor did he bet on games while he was a player.

Click to expand...

That's what Pete says which is his angle to drum up sympathy for him!

He was the manager of the Reds at the time, so he actually he had a huge impact on the players playing. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he knew his starter for that day wasn't doing too well or feeling too well which caused him to call his bookie and lay a bet against his team. Then as the game played out if the Reds were doing better then he thought he could do a variety of things to secretly sabotage them.

even baseballs own report that had all the facts surrounding the investigation stated no evidence was found he bet against the reds.

I dont think a lifetime ban from the HOF is warranted for a bunch of "maybes" and "might haves"


I dont think pete rose cares much about the lifetime ban from baseball itself, but for his performance on the field that TOWERS over many other players already in and who will eventually be selected into the HOF...its absurd to omit him from baseball history for something he did after he was no longer a player.

TUGBrian said:

even baseballs own report that had all the facts surrounding the investigation stated no evidence was found he bet against the reds.

I dont think a lifetime ban from the HOF is warranted for a bunch of "maybes" and "might haves"


I dont think pete rose cares much about the lifetime ban from baseball itself, but for his performance on the field that TOWERS over many other players already in and who will eventually be selected into the HOF...its absurd to omit him from baseball history for something he did after he was no longer a player.

Click to expand...

I kind of agree with you on this. When Pete signed the agreement accepting the lifetime ban from baseball, I actually believe him (one of the few times) when he states he didn't realize that included the HOF. Again, I do think he should be on the HOF ballot, but I also think that he should be banned from holding any sort of job or position in baseball for life.

When it comes to the Dowd report on Pete, they state in the beginning of the report that due to the shady nature of the business that there's little to no physical evidence that exists regarding what actual bets were made. What they did did show was that Pete did have associations with known bookies for which he made payments to including a cancelled check. They also got the phone records which showed Pete made a bunch of short phone calls to known bookies while he was the manager of the Reds. They were able to locate only a scant few betting sheets that did show him betting on baseball including the a Reds. On those few betting sheets they found, it did show him betting for the Reds to win.

For the longest time Pete swore over and over again that he never bet on baseball. When he finally admitted it, he now attaches the qualifier that he never bet against the Reds which the scant physical evidence does show. However, he's been a serial liar throughout the whole process so I'm personally inclined not to believe him on that.

When John Dowd was asked in a 2002 interview on ESPN whether he believed Pete bet against the Reds although he found no hard evidence that he did, he said that he believed Pete did bet against the Reds on occasion.

vacationhopeful said:

Baseball is America's Past Time - Pete Rose was a big player - He choose poorly. He alone repeatedly made BAD CHOICES - all for the MONEY, never for the GAME.

Click to expand...

Professional sports are not for the fans. They are money making enterprises hiding under the lie that "They are for the fans." They are for the owners. If the owners could pay minimum wage they would. Why else would a beer be $8 and a hot dog $4. Rich people buy sports teams for the profits and tax breaks, not the love of the game.