|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Which brings us back to the question of whether or not he actually bet against his team. Or had someone else do that for him. There is no evidence that this occurred. |
No opinion on Rose, but Bonds and Clemens no way. I'm a former steroid user for 8+ years and actually monitored my results for strength, endurance, and recovery, testing the change in my abilities playing baseball, soccer, running, and weightlifting. The difference of being on-cycle and off was phenomenal and if I was a professional athlete, I could never expect someone to vote me into any Hall of Fame with good conscience knowingly having used steroids. All of this testing and experimentation was done outside of the US as I have resided overseas for 25+ years and only nowadays make trips back for baseball season.
For baseball, strength and the ability to connect hitting a baseball was vastly improved, in soccer my strength was incredible, shots on goal harder and the ability to kick the ball up field farther, for running my endurance was through the roof and for weightlifting, my strength and especially my recovery was absolutely incredible. In most exercises my strength more than doubled and in most cases was 3 times or more then when off cycle. Also, I could weight lift 6 days a week on-cycle and only 2-3 off-cycle without being incredibly sore. As I dont think many on this board have first hand experience with this, there is an incredible difference when on a cycle. I tried most steroids and each cycle was slightly different in length. My favorite was always Test E with Deca (felt like a million bucks everyday) and the most difficult was when I went on a Tren A cycle. Had to stop that one early. I have been off cycle now for about 3.5 years and have completed wellness checks every year. Nothing is out of the ordinary such as BP, cholesterol, heart rate, etc etc. When I was on cycle my diet was top notch as I paid someone to cook my meals 5 days a week. Of all the countries I have been too (which is over 130 at this moment), I find the subject of steroids to be the most taboo in the US. However, for older men, they can be a miracle for people who are thinking of TRT, etc. My cycles were never at the dosages that professional bodybuilders take, at those levels there can and are serious side effects, but taking them for performance enhancement at lower dosages they are miracle drugs. Having done cycles myself, if I was even able to vote for the MLB HOF, in good faith I could never vote for known users. |
Quote:
You can only place bets after the betting lines are posted. In baseball, sports books / bookies do not post opening lines for games until the day before that game is to be played. So, if it were Monday, Pete couldn't place a bet on say Friday's game and then make roster decisions today that would affect that game. Betting lines for tomorrow's games are not posted until today's games have ended. This is so that the market cannot take advantage of injuries that might happen in real time. Also, the betting lines are dependent on who the starting pitchers are for any given game. If a pitcher gets scratched, all bets are off and the bettors are refunded. The line is heavily dependent upon who those SP are. So Pete could not take advantage of that by changing out his SP. The lines are also affected by who is available from the bullpen. If Joe Blow just pitched in relief for the last 3 nights, that can have an effect on the betting line. So, while it is true that any roster moves Pete might make today could have an effect on their likelihood of winning tomorrow, it ultimately does not matter, because those same roster moves will also have an effect on tomorrow's betting lines once they eventually get posted (after today's games are over). So, Pete's roster moves today, also move the betting lines for tomorrow, which won't be posted until after Pete already makes those moves. He cannot gain an advantage, either today or tomorrow, by trying to win today. The only way he could gain an advantage is by betting *against* his team and making real-time decisions to try to throw those games. But again, there is no evidence of him ever having done that. And no bookie on the planet is going to accept that bet from him. |
If the statutory rape allegations are true, and it sounds like they are, then I say put his ass behind bars. Again, f* the "rules" (statute of limitations is BS). But I don't know if that has anything to do with whether or not he deserves to be in the baseball HOF.
|
Quote:
On a side note I bet you might get a couple of PMs on here since some of us collectors are over 50 ;) |
Quote:
Does this mean that it’s a theoretical impossibility for Petey to change his management approach to benefit the games he bets on in a fashion that might negatively impact other games? |
Quote:
If the Reds were -170 and Rose bet smaller than his normal wager? Or not at all? Or bet larger at +130? Or not at all? My Uncle taught me a trick at the thoroughbreds: He would watch the jockey or trainer bet. If specific jockeys didn't bet on his 2/1 or 5/2 favorite mount, my uncle would discount the pick. If he still liked the horse, he might throw it in to an exacta wheel, but never to win. His choice didn't win all the time, but he said the other horse NEVER did. He made a lot of money at the track. |
Quote:
Thanks for sharing your story. I think everyone can agree that steroids made a difference and gave those players an edge for sure. |
Quote:
Perhaps ironically though, in the wake of this conversation, is that a horse's owner is allowed to bet on their own horse, but only to win. They are not allowed to bet on their horse to lose, for obvious reasons. |
Quote:
But I think what you're intending to ask, and if not, I'll propose the question as many have alluded to this above, is whether Pete changing his management approach to win today might create an opportunity for betting on tomorrow's game to be exploited by his actions today. And the answer to that is 'no', he cannot. Whatever actions he takes today will get baked in to tomorrow's betting lines. The only way he could cheat is by throwing a game and betting against his team. But even in the example above, where Pete throws tomorrow's SP in the 8th to win a game, it would only gain him an advantage a few times at most. Because the betting lines would be set under the assumption that he wouldn't do something as stupid as this, but once he shows that he very well might do that in future games, the market betting lines will adjust. He could not gain an advantage even in this situation over the course of a season. |
(This is off the top of my head) In 1998, Barry Bonds became the first player with 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Bonds' appearance hadn't yet changed. He got little recognition as the media obsessed about the exploits of McGwire and Sosa. Finally, a reporter wrote of seeing tubes of the clear in McGwire's locker. The resulting hullabaloo led by Tony LaRusa focused on the ethics of the reporter and whether or not he should be banned from the locker room for violating McGwire's privacy. The business of baseball marched on. Bonds was all but shamed into using. Most people would follow his path. Take away his HR record if you have to, but put him in the hall.
Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk |
Quote:
No gambler bets on himself to win every bet they make. Therefore, Rose had to have bet on himself to lose games too. There is no way around that truth. |
Don't know about horse racing
Quote:
|
This idea that Rose only bet on himself to win games is absurd. First of all, as pointed out, it's always going to be hard to influence a game you want to win. If you could just do things to magically win the game, then you'd win every game.
Let's be realistic. It's much easier to lose on purpose and no gambler is going to bet on his team to win every time they place a bet on them. The whole purpose to betting is to win money. You're not laying down a losing bet because you're too proud to win it. |
As I step aside from this expensive so-called "hobby", and with all the gambling today, I say, get the F over Pete Rose and put him in. The man has more hits than anyone, even the beloved Ty Cobb. If you're going to truly call it an HOF, and if it is going to have any relevance in society today, then put him in and get over it. About a dozen others also.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
With this thread, there's been a lot of members in favor of allowing the major successful cheaters to actually be enshrined in the BBHOF. For shame. Yes, they may have had hall of fame careers going when they began using steroids, but so had Joe Jackson when he was caught up in the fixing of the 1919 World Series. Just as Canada's "Big Ben" Johnson was stripped of his Olympic Gold Medal for testing positive to steroids after winning the 1988 Olympic Mens 100 meter dash finals, and was sent home in disgrace, the baseball players who greatly enhanced their numbers on the playing field should be disgraced every time a Baseball Hall of Fame election ballot comes up. For what it's worth, the cheaters were not stripped of their exorbitant salaries they were paid during those years, but you better believe they should be stripped of any chance to be enshrined. --- Brian Powell |
I sometimes wonder if people have mirrors in their homes. And if they do, do they see themselves true to who they really are? Or are they so self righteous, they fail to see and admit the negatives and flaws in themselves, while they negatively judge others.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Eventually, even if after everyone in this forum currently is dead - I think all will get in.
Bonds and Clemens are clearly less than innocent the way things stand today, but eventually with the lens of history, I think that people will view the game at the time as a whole and the fact of other highly suspected cheaters already being in as reason to give them the nudge over 75%. As others have pointed out, Selig is in - and it's kind of ironically humorous to me that he apparently literally doesn't understand why people think he is also culpable in the whole mess that is steroid era. Whatever. Note it on their plaques, and let them in. I have no issues whatsoever if this doesn't actually occur until long after I'm dead. Rose? I mean clearly at the time, he broke the cardinal rule. He stepped on the third rail. Whether you believe the penalty for gambling in baseball is just or totally ridiculous, there was an understanding rooted in history and what came out of the Black Sox that gambling in the game is automatically simply the worst thing you can do if you are employed by baseball in any way, shape, or form. It was posted in every clubhouse. Today however, I think the lines are more than a bit blurry, especially now with Manfred's MLB and even individual teams getting cozy with sports books, and other online outfits that outright offer the opportunity to gamble. Pete personally has paid the price now I believe, nearly 35 years on - yes. But he's his own worst enemy. When you look at all the opportunities that man has had, all the ways over the decades to come clean and play nice with baseball - and he simply hasn't done it. Pete's gonna Pete at all costs, and in that regard - he has no one to blame but himself for his continual banishment. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, his betting record was seized by the FBI. His bookie kept notebooks with records of all of his bets. Every single Reds bet that was found was of him betting on the Reds to win. He also bet on other games and sports that he was not involved in, but every single bet he ever made on the Reds, for which we have records, was for them to win. There's even a stretch in there where he bet on something like 50 straights Reds games. All to win. |
What makes it nonsense? He was a compulsive gambler. If he wanted to bet on any given day then he was going to bet. He's played the game his entire life. When did he ever win every game?
|
Quote:
Where does this information come from? I didn't know there was a complete record. |
Quote:
Sorry to derail this further . . . |
Quote:
This is probably the first time I’ve someone called not a gambling addict in a derogatory way lol. If one needs to be in tune with gambling addicts to get the justification of the action, perhaps that’s a clue that the action might not be a good one. I definitely don’t turn to drug addicts for advice on whether using drugs is good. |
No on Rose. He gambled. Every clubhouse has a sign concerning no gambling. Anyone who reads any history knows about the Black Sox scandal. Rose accepted the lifetime ban.
The others? Sure. Just make sure they go into the new wing of the hall named The Scoundrels, with plaques describing their behavior. Also, add the other enshrined scoundrels like the racist Anson, the enabler Selig, and any others. This may end up the largest wing of the hall lol. |
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ca...bet-on-racing/ |
Someone mentioned his name already, but Schilling is interesting because he does not fall in Rose's category or the PED category, he falls in the foot-in-the-mouth/big mouth/politics category...kept out on account of the morality clause because of what came out of his mouth, but just like with the PEDers, you have gents in the Hall who were flat out unabashedly racist, among other unsavory characteristics, some openly against integration of the game...
I do think that Schilling will get in before Bonds and Clemens, certainly before rose. He may have been doled out the purgatory stint for optics, but I do think that he will be in within the next decade off the veterans committee. |
How many minds were changed by Ryan's post?
I found Ryan's post very impressive. I'm wondering: How many changes from positive Clemens and Bonds votes to the negative occurred? While not an absolute purist, I don't want the Baseball Hall of Fame to degenerate into a caricature of its former self.
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:05 AM. |