OT: Shoeless Joe HOF decision?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Nope. He refused to admit what he did until it was undeniable. At any time, if he did in fact never bet against his own team, he could have admitted as such. So after all those lies he told when faced with the truth, you really believe him and believe he has enough integrity to be telling the truth this one time?

Given how fiercely competitive he was, I doubt he bet against his own team.

[packs]

He's a compulsive gambler though. When are compulsive gamblers moral crusaders? If it meant winning the money he was chasing, why wouldn't he do it? Clearly he didn't respect the game enough to not bet on it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Has anyone claimed he did, or suggested specific games where his playing or managing was questionable? They may have I just was not aware of it.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Given how fiercely competitive he was, I doubt he bet against his own team.

So what? Not betting on his team to win is essentially the same as a bet against.

Fact is, he bet as a player and as a manager. As a manager,he had the power to influence multiple games through his actions in one. Blow out the bullpen to win a bet and sacrifice the rest of a series, for example.

The idea that there's some "loophole" for Pete if he didn't specifically bet to lose just baffles me. It's not like there's a gray area in the rule he knew and broke anyway.

[packs]

There is not a compulsive gambler on the planet who wouldn't play the bet that most favored them. It is crazy to me to think that Pete Rose, who admits to betting on his own team, didn't bet against his team when the odds favored the bet.