As an owner of a racehorse, I have often bet on my horse to win (WIN only). In a game that sponsors and promotes betting, I have been known to share winning tickets with the jockey's and trainers. It didn't effect the performance of the horse, only that the jockey would give it that extra effort and thought about what the jockey was hired to do...WIN. So, Pete Rose has a gambling problem, isn't that really his problem, being a gambler. Is the operative word---betting,..or that Pete Rose bet in a game that doesn't promote gambling?
Do you agree with the following article by Jim Armstrong...?
Rose All But Slams Hall Door Shut
Betting on Reds Every Night Another Slap to Baseball
By JIM ARMSTRONG
AOL
Sports Commentary
Just when you hoped Pete Rose had disappeared for good, he pops up on a national radio program and attempts yet another stab at the truth behind his gambling addiction.
Eighteen years ago, when he accepted a lifetime ban from the game, Rose contradicted hundreds of pages of evidence compiled by the commissioner's office and denied he ever bet on baseball.
Then, in 2004, when he was hawking his autobiography, he admitted he bet on games involving the Reds , a team he happened to be managing at the time.
Now Rose claims he bet on the Reds every night. No really, I'm not making this up. Rose told ESPN radio's Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann that, in a sport that plays 162 games, he bet on the Reds to win every night.
So it's official then. Rose is even dumber than we thought. And trust me, nobody I know had him penciled in for a Harvard fellowship any time soon.
Why did he bet on the Reds every night?
"I bet on my team to win every night because I love my team," Rose told Patrick and Olbermann. "I believe in my team. I did everything in my power every night to win that game."
He bet on his team every night because he loved his team, believed in his team. Whew! For a while there, I thought it might be because he was a gambling degenerate.
Now that we know why Rose bet on the Reds every night -- he loved his players, especially the ones who helped him cover the spread -- the issue becomes this: Why would he tell a couple of talk-show hosts about it?
If Pete Rose bet to win, what's all the fuss about? Wouldn't betting enhance the efforts of a team to win?
First off, what has Pete Rose done to make us believe his claims? He lied about his betting for years. After hearing writers keep saying "if he just admits it, he'll get in" for years, he eventually comes clean. He then proceeds to piss the baseball community off by trying to cash in on it and, much worse, hold a book signing in the high roller room at Foxwoods casino. Now, after Olbermann (during an off-air break) tells Rose that he felt that it becomes a de facto game fixing situation when you bet some nights and not others, Rose goes on air after the break and says "I did it every night because I believed in all my guys." Why was he not trumpeting this during his admission book tour? Moreover, after the decades of mishandling and lies, why should I believe him?
As for the betting situation, let me take a slightly different view on this:
There are racists, alcoholics, drug abusers, adulterers, liars, thieves, and cheaters in the hall of fame. There are people that would intentionally try to injure African American players when they played against them, there are people caught with banned substances on the mound. Plenty of far less than perfect characters there. The thing is, baseball is pretty forgiving in the long term, and these people's transgressions fade into the memory of the public.
There is one thing you can't do. One thing. Just ONE thing that will stick with you. YOU CAN NOT BET ON GAMES. Everyone knows it. There was precedent for this, and the precedent was a lifetime ban. Pete Rose still called his bookie and bet on his team. In the eyes of baseball, it's the cardinal sin. There's ONE thing he couldn't do, and he went on and did it anyway. I don't know if it's arrogance or stupidity, but the fact is he broke the one rule that he knew would get him tossed, he got caught, and got the penalty he knew he'd get.
I disagree with the idea of Armstrong's article; if this were indeed true, it is a mitigating factor as it takes Olbermann's idea of de facto game fixing out of the equation. But still:
1) Why should we believe him now?
2) Baseball is not going to care. He broke the one (emphasis: there's just one!) rule and he lied about it for far too long.
Reply:Just another good guy being made example of !!!!!!
Reply:There's a big difference because pari-mutuel wagering is pretty much on the level, and you probably weren't making a $50,000 wager on the phone to a bookie on credit to someone who has advanced you credit cause you're Pete Rose.
Horses are really different because your wagering is sanctioned and legitimate. You probably aren't carrying a huge marker against you that somebody could leverage you into altering the shape of a future race.
The problem with these guys is it is all illegal wagering, and how long before it comes to light that some famous player/coach/manager bought his way out of hundreds of thousands of gambling debt by tanking a game so the bookies could even make a bigger score?
Any why would you believe a word that Pete Rose says?
Reply:It doesn't matter in the eyes of the ballplayers and the league. You can't bet on baseball period. Theres a rule thats posted in every dougout stating not to bet on baseball.
See link for a bit more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox
Ever since the Black Sox, betting on baseball has been a big no no. Since it has the opprotunity to "throw" a game.
I think that "Fat butt" (if you ever met Pete you know what I mean) has paid his price and should be let into the Hall of Fame. Just as long as he can keep his mouth shut for the next 5 years.
Reply:Consorting with gamblers and making an honest bet are two different things. Let Rose in the Hall now.
Reply:First met me say this - Rose needs to be in the Hall of Fame. I don't care if under his bust it says that he was temporarily exiled from betting on baseball. Put it in big letters if you must. But he has to enter the Hall.
Also let me note that I enjoy betting on sports. Always have, always will. I think it's a blast; it makes good games great and it makes boring games legitimately more interesting and watchable.
Those points made, Rose was absolutely in the wrong here, and the main reason is because it's travelling down a slippery slope. First, how many times is he going to change his story? He's lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. But if Rose could have easily bet on his team to win every night, couldn't he just as easily have bet on his team to lose? What a quick-fix scheme that is. Suddenly, with two games left in the season and nothing to play for, Rose ups the line by starting his ace, then inexplicably pulls him in the third inning and replaces him with some scrub from the bullpen, leaves him in two innings too long and seals the bet. How harmless if there's nothing to play for, right? Wrong. Just once can turn into more than once, and suddenly the appeal of "easy money" seems too good to be true. I don't want to insinuate that he did or didn't - I have no factual evidence to back up that claim - but even the thought should make any baseball fan shiver. What's your manager doing? What's your centerfielder doing? Sports gambling is a great pastime when done properly and responsibly, but you know as well as I do that there are plenty of bad seeds looking to ruin the experience, and based on what we know about Rose's lying and deception, what makes us think he was a standup citizen in regards to his gambling? For that reason, nobody in pro or college sports is allowed to gamble. Period. And it should be that way.
Now, in horse racing or dog racing, it's different. Horse racing is set up specifically to be a wagering event. Horse racing is set up in such a way that you can bet on one horse to win or a trio to win, place and show. It would be impossible to prevent owners from betting on their horses or on other horses. But you also can't profit from your horse losing; you can't bet on your horse to finish last, so there's significantly less chance of rigging the event. I see no problem with a horse owner betting on his horse to win, but I see a tremendous difference between a horse owner and a baseball manager.
Reply:Hypothetical situation:
Let's say Pete Rose was down 400,000 for the week and then he bets 500,000 on the reds one night. A rookie pitchers is pitching well but is visibly tired. Rose comes out to talk to him on the mound and asks how he is feeling and he says his arm hurts. Rose says,"We need you man, this game is real important tough it out"
A scenario like this where he counts an individual game over the welfare of the pitcher is horrible. If there was no money on the game, he would probably have removed the pitcher ... but because he bet on the game he risked this pitcher's career
Scenarios like the one above is why it is so wrong. It is also stated explicitly in the rulebook that any gambling at all on baseball will bar you from the game for life. It is posted in every clubhouse and every dugout as well.
That being said, all this happened when he was a manager. I still feel he should be inducted into the hall of fame as a player ... what he did as a manager should be irrelevant
So if i had a say, he get eligibility for the hall, but is still banned from baseball for life
Reply:First of all, I think:
1. Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame.
2. Pete Rose should be looked up to as the perfect example of how to play the game of baseball, especially in a lazy society like ours - he always played all out, all the time, and didn't know any other way to play.
3. Pete Rose did not gamble on the Reds because he was evil or had bad intentions. He had a serious gambling problem that he was unable to control.
4. Now that it looks like Pete Rose has finally admitted everything, I think it is time for him to be forgiven and let back into baseball. While he is not above the game, he is Pete Rose, and that has to count a lot.
The problem with betting on your own team is that baseball is a 162 game season. While you are always trying to win every game, some decisions are based on the long term gain or loss. For example, do you rest a player with a nagging injury or allow him to play every day? Do we bring up this player from the minors because we need his help, or is it better to let him get more minor league experience first? Do we put back this reliever in the game today after he blew a save yesterday, because we want him to get his confidence back?
Additionally, the W-L record for the entire season is not the only factor to go by. If your team is out of contention you might rest good players more and cost yourself wins, for the purpose of keeping them healthy so they are better able to contribute next season.
So the best decision for today's game may not be the best decision for winning the most games for the entire season, or the best decision for your team in future years. Even if he bets on his team every game, he might bet more on the days he is more sure his team will win. And you want to make sure that the manager is taking everything into account, today's game, the season, the next few seasons, and also the careers of his players.
I'm not suggesting that Pete Rose made different decisions because he was betting, but this might have been the case even if he was doing it subconciously and it was not intentional. So this is why what he did was so wrong, even though I believe him 100% and know that he only bet on his own team, always tried to win, and always had the best of intentions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment