Pete Rose admits betting on baseball

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>I realize the only thing pre-war about Pete Rose is his birthdate (unless we're talking about pre-Vietnam War!), but I can't believe I'm the only person on this board with an opinion about today's news that Pete admitted to betting on the Reds to win "every night" he managed. Personally, I say put him the Hall of Fame and never let him manage again. As far as I can tell, the guy wants to manage in the worst way. By the way, I believe both his cards — and those of Joe Jackson — are worth more with each player being banned from the HOF. Pete Rose cards are right up there with Willie Mays cards, and Joe Jackson cards blow away the prices of cards featuring Eddie Collins, Tris Speaker or Nap Lajoie, players who were at least his equal ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I say keep Rose out for now.<br /><br />I can't help but think the stress of the Rose controversy was somehow related to Bart Giamatti's untimely death.<br /><br />Its probably wrong of me to think that way.<br /><br />But since I do, I say Rose should not be given the satisfaction of entering the Hall while he is alive. After he passes - sure, why not.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>So he admitted it. Has he apologized yet?<br />JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Jim,<br /><br />I don't think Pete Rose has any idea of what the word "remorse" means. He's a veteran of insincere apologies. However, his 1963 high number rookie is historically significant to the baseball card hobby.<br /><br />It was one of the first modern day rookie cards to recieve a significant jolt as he approached Ty Cobb's hits record.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>William</b><p>Rose ends up admitting to what everyone has suspected of him..that is he gambled as manager. I will would willing to bet he gambled when he played as well. <br /><br />Over the past 10-15 years the only people who doubted Rose gambled were the true believers. I have met them and you could have film of Rose placing bets a phone, with a microphone attached it to at home plate at Riverfront stadium for all to hear and the true believers would still say he didn't do it.<br /><br />A talking head on ESPN or somewhere once mentioned that Leo Durocher was not elected to the Hall of Fame until after he died as result of his suspension in 1947. IF Rose ever gets into the Hall, it will be after his demise. He will never have the opportunity to give an induction speach in Cooperstown.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>This was a calculated move by Rose. If true (which I doubt) that means that he always bet the Reds to win every game and it shows that he did everything as a manager to put a winning team on the field and that he did everything he could to win games. <br /><br />I personally do not believe him. He should never get in the Hall of Fame. Period.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>Here is his written apology<br /><br /><a href="http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=702&lot=272" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=702&lot=272</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Even if he is telling the truth that he bet only on his team to win, that is still very bad. For starters, you can never believe anything he says. Also, to win a bet he could have left a starter in too long or put a reliever in too soon, or made any kind of substitution that he might not have made if he weren't gambling. And he knew darn well his team couldn't win every game, probably not even win 60% of the time. So do you think if his number five starter faced the other team's ace, he was still betting to win? Very dubious.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>If you would read about the origins of the National League, read about the gambling problems, read baseball's current rules about gambling, read Bill James' book The Politics of Glory, and then read Ginsburg's book The Fix is In, A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals.... then you'd have enough background and education to understand why Pete should NEVER be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The only way he should get in is if he buys a ticket and is visiting the place. <br /><br />And until you've read and understand how organized baseball shed itself of the gambling stigma, you can't understand why it makes perfect sense to keep Pete out of the Hall. Emotionally, some folks want him in... but that position cannot be rationally supported after you understand the gambling stigma. <br /><br />Pete is in the Gamblers' HOF, be content with that.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>John Dowd said that Rose probably bet against the Reds. Even a Rose loyalist would admit that Dowd's opinion is more reliable than what Rose says. Realize, Rose wrote a second autobiography just last year to correct the admitted lies of his first, and these most recent statements conflict with the second book. If history is a guide, this probably isn't the last of Rose's revisions.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark Evans</b><p>Having said that, I would likely admit Rose to the Hall of Fame as a player assuming there is no evidence he bet on baseball while playing. In addition, perhaps the Hall of Fame should establish an exhibit on gambling (assuming it doesn't already have one) featuring Rose and Jackson, maybe others, that educates visitors, especially kids, as to the harm gambling poses to the integrity of the game. Finally, I would continue to banish Rose from MLB as the man simply cannot be trusted to conduct himself in an ethical manner. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>It is true that the HOF and MLB are two different entities.<br /><br />In my opinion, if (and I said if) a player or manager bets on his team to lose, he should not be in Hall of Fame. People will argue endlessly about what makes an MVP, but someone trying to make his team lose is a negative MVP.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>you cannot help but to like the style in which he played, but...on the other hand, an idiot.<br /><br />I can never forget him belittling Bob Feller by sayin that the rarest card of Bob's is any unsigned one. BOOOOOOOOOOO !<br /><br />Wish the guy would just shut up and let nature take its course.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>I'm not condoning Rose's behavior, but I hate to see players left out of Hall of Fame for strictly moral reasons. There is just too much inconsistency with truly bad apples like Cobb and Durocher in Cooperstown. There were widespread rumors that Cobb and Speaker fixed games (not unlike steroid rumors of today that will keep players like Sammy Sosa out of the HOF). Bill James says Cobb and a 19th pitcher I can't recall actually committed murders. Hack Wilson and Gabby Hartnett openly consorted with Chicago underworld figures. I still maintain the HOF has — perhaps to its own demise in credibility — set its own standards and now it has to live with them. Just like Pete Rose has to live with consequences of his actions. If the HOF has no identifiable criteria, such as a standard of a player's greatness and his moral attributes — than what gives it credibility as an institution. Were the old bad guys not quite as bad as the new bad guys? I don't think so ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Rose was not banned for moral reasons. He was not banned for breaking the law. He was banned for breaking rules. The rules against betting, and punishment, was clear to every MLB employee since before Rose was a rookie. They were literally posted in every lockerroom. <br /><br />Gambling was banned in part for practical reasons. MLB felt they couldn't run a successful and longterm profitable league if players and managers are allowed to bet on the game. In particular responding to a real case where players and mob-like people worked in collusion to throw World Series games, MLB felt it important to put their stance against betting in no uncertain terms. MLB has yet felt compelled to change the stance on gambling, and, if it weren't for Rose and his fans, likely few would be arguing against MLB's rule today. <br /><br />Though, as I already noted, MLB and the HOF are different things. It is not inherently hypocritical to argue that he should be excluded from one but included from the other, and make that argument ... I don't know why Rose says this stuff. It won't move MLB to lift the ban, being that it is, if anything, further evidence of his guilt. It doesn't impress Hall voters. The publication of his last autobiography offended many voters, and likely lowered his theoretical voting percentage.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Pcelli60</b><p>Was it ever proven he bet on Red games in his playing days? In his PRIME playing days? Did all this 'evidence' come out only during his latter years as a manager?<br>These are important questions since he would be going to the Hall based on his playing career, not his time in the dugout..<br>I know it wont change anything, betting is still what it is. But at this point can any distinctions be made?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>What David says is correct. Rose was banned not for being a lowlife but for breaking the most sacred of baseball rules. As for his apology, who can believe a word the guy says? Everything about him is calculated for a reason... In a sidenote, I'm man enough to admit that I paid $400 or so for an "I'm sorry" personally inscribed ball from him. After he refused to sign "Dear A. Bartlett" preceding the "I'm sorry I bet on baseball", he did sign "Dear Jesus."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>It was proven that he bit on games.<br /><br />There are major problems here.. 1) the clear rule that you don't gamble. 2) what are the bookies to think if sometimes you bet on your team, and sometimes you don't bet at all (it clues them in to favor the opposing team for that game) and 3) if you lose and lose and build up a gambling debt, then the debtor is either tempted or pressured into maybe doing something even worse to get out of debt...<br /><br /><br />Gambling is not like other moral matters in the baseball world. There's nothing posted on the locker room doors about whoring around... or doing cocaine. Go read the material I mentioned earlier, then you can understand why gambling is different, and Pete stays out of the Hall. He was a fiercely competitive player, a great hitter, he was always out to win. But he doesn't get into the Hall, ever.<br /><br />Pete can get in for the day, whenever he has a ticket, just like the rest of us.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>I agree with you, Pcelli60. I do believe it's significant that Rose bet on games after he was a player. Sure, you and I know he probably did bet on Reds games as a player, but it's never been proven, just like the rumors of Cobb and Speaker. As for breaking the law, gambling is legal in our society in many, many ways. Look at all the state lotteries. We live in a society that clearly condones gambling. I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe it's illegal for a private citizen to bet on baseball games. Why else does Las Vegas post odds? For what's it's worth, I don't gamble. I've never even bought a lottery ticket. Gambling, in many ways, is legal. And even if Rose did break the law regarding gambling, he joins a list of HOFers who broke the law at some point in their lives.<br /><br />Rose clearly broke baseball's rules. I simply believe baseball is full of hypocrites. Bud Selig, one of Rose's biggest detractors, was once caught borrowing money from the Twin's rich but cheap owner Carl Polhad. Baseball rules clearly prohibit this for the same reasons they prohibit gambling. What Selig did, in my opinion, is practically the same thing that Rose did. He used money in such a way that his intergrity and his commitment to his own's team's welfare (the Brewers) was clearly in question. He compounded the problem by endorsing a plan to kill the Minnesota Twins so Polhad could get an inflated price for his team in contraction and add another $100 million or so to his pile of cash. That's a conflict of interest the size of a mountain. For Selig to argue otherwise is like Pete saying he only bet on his team to win. It's still a conflict of interest that undermines the sport's integrity. And mark my words, one day someone will be lobbying to put Bud in the HOF.<br /><br />And what about Charlie Comiskey? Here's a guy who not only was reputed to incite violence by drunken spectators against opposing teams from his days in the American Association (they had to put barbed wire between the St. Louis fans and the players), but he arguably contributed to the Black Sox debacle by cheating many players, including Eddie Cicotte in particular, out of money. If what Comiskey did with Cicotte was legal (holding him out of the lineup so he couldn't win a bonus for winning 30 games) was legal, it was only because he had the best lawyers and a system tilted in his favor. I believe gambling became entrenched in baseball partly because of how crooked many of the owners were.<br /><br />I'm not condoning what Pete Rose did. But he was one hell of a player. He did things on a field — in terms of his effort, his passion and his sheer determination — that made me a young kid take notice of him over all other players (I've always been a Reds' fan). I still feel the effects on my body of all my head first slides in my younger days. As human being, it's hard to admire Pete. He clearly broke the law as a tax evader and, as a manager, he clearly broke baseball's rules. But as a ballplayer, I believe they should put him in Websters' Dictionary as an example of what a real one is suppose to look like ...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Chris- what are those two strange looking symbols in your last paragraph?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John H.</b><p>I can't believe that there are still Pete Rose sympathizers out there. The guy is an absolute embarrassment both to the game and himself. I'm sure that there would be several HOF enshrinees who would withdraw their membership if Rose was ever inducted. He's a disgrace.<br /><br />John

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Alan</b><p>Leon - I have a feeling this is going to be a long thread. Don't let it go over 300 posts <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Those strange symbols are long dashes (not hyphens). I need to remember to use commas on this forum. The dashes turn into hyroglyphics. As for locking the thread, isn't Pete Rose, and in particular, his relationship to the Hall of Fame, just as relevant to this board as 80s punk rock (which I like by the way ... X was my personal favorite!)? For the past five years I have regularly been asking questions about 30s cards with just a few responses for each post. So I thought I'd try a subject with just a little more juice (insert happy face here) ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>There was a pitcher in the Reds' starting rotation that used to drive Rose nuts when he managed and Rose would never ever bet on the Reds to win when he pitched. Can't remember the guy's name, anyone?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />It all goes back to what the Hall considers good moral character. My tendency is to judge Pete Rose's moral character against those that have already been inducted. If that is the standard then there is still a possibility that he could redeem himself in the future.<br /><br />However, ridiculous statements like he bet on the Reds to win while he managed isn't going to do the trick. In the same article he even said he was a good ambassador for the game. That is not genuine remorse. It would also be a good idea to stop going to Vegas to sign autographs.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Both John Dowd and Bud Selig have said that, if he had admitted his guilt early on, Rose likely would have been readmitted to after a few years. Rose chose not to and, in fact, made the repeated point to call Dowd a liar (and worse) and Dowd's findings to be lies. I'm sure Dowd, for one, gets a chuckle out of Rose's annual revisions. <br /><br />I also believe that Dowd would tell us that Rose's latest story isn't truthful, as Dowd's evidence is that Rose didn't bet on all Reds games and Dowd believed he bet against the Reds also. Dowd, and others, contend that Rose did not bet on Reds games when he didn't like the starting pitcher, and local gamblers knew this and would bet against the Reds. Many consider this type of not betting on your team the equivalent of betting against your team. Note, that it was Rose's specific point to say that he bet on all the Reds games, as he's aware of what an admission that he bet on some games but not others would mean.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>couldn't agree more!<br /><br />And you didn't even mention the fact that he is mentally ill ! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeremy</b><p>is it Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>It was Gullickson.<br /><br />And for the record Ty Cobb NEVER murdered anyone and there are no 19th century players in the Hall of Fame that I am aware of that have been accused of murder either.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Dan, it wasn't for lack of trying....<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken McMillan</b><p>I bet that he bet on the Reds a long time ago. Too bad Pet Rose welched on his bet with me...........<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Jeff, true that! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />We know that Pete Rose, has screwed up and continues to screw up, however, what would it take for him to redeem himself. I know that if he became a prewar card collector you would all forgive him. That's probably not going to happen. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />So what else can he do to get on the Hall of Fame ballot. Suggestions.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glen V</b><p>He should admit to using steroids. They would say he was a HOFer before he started using them and quickly forgive him. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>More homeruns, less singles. More stolen bases. Better slugging average. Oh, and self-immolation.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Your right gambling isn't really a moral issue with Baseball. A no gambling rule is a necessity in order to keep baseball economically strong and sound. People have to believe it is a competitive sport in order to remain interested.<br /><br />If they started believing that the players and the manager were on the take, they would lose interest quickly and the death knell for the sport. Also in a way it makes little sense, for ballplayers and managers to gamble. Your already making millions of dollars in the game, why would you destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Babe Ruth Admits to smoking cigars during games!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Peter,<br /><br />The way he gets onto the HOF ballot, would be for him to die off, get reincarnated as a ballplayer who played as well or better, without the gambling, violence, and foolishness, then that reincarnation might sneak in...