Rose admits betting on baseball

Munson

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 28, 2002
750
0
0
Sparta, TN
My dad was born in Cincy and I grew up a Reds fan in the Big Machine era. I think it's the only team whose lineup I remember even today. I was a Pete Rose fan and was disappointed in the events that led to his banishment from baseball. I am even more disappointed to definitively learn that he lied about it time and time again for the past 14 years. And now there is talk of him being reinstated and inducted into Cooperstown. This is just plain wrong, in my opinion, even though in the big picture of life, what does it really matter? So, he gambled on baseball and lied for 14 years and his reward for doing that is getting what he has always wanted. The very last thing Bud Selig and MLB need to show to current and former players is leniency--there is way too much of that right now.

M
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
Baseball has been watching him long and hard. And so far, the baseball people we've spoken with are convinced that at least all his current betting is legal. The question is: Is that enough.

Rose writes in his book: "Nobody said I had to become a monk! And yes, I continued to visit the racetrack, but I went only three or four times a month -- not every day like I used to do. And I always stayed within my means."


Would he be better off dodging the track 31 days a month instead of 27? Of course. But he's made some effort. Whether it's good enough is Bud Selig's call.


Does he understand the evils of gambling?
In his book, according to the Sports Illustrated excerpt, Rose reveals that he saw a psychiatrist after he was banned from baseball. He says the psychiatrist eventually was able to convince him that he had "a problem."

"I had gambled past the point of being able to control it," he writes. "I had slid right past inappropriate gambling and right into gambling with my career -- a bet I lost."


So if the Hit King is finally admitting to the "problem," that's a good thing. What's not a good thing is that, while he obviously understands how all that gambling harmed him, we get no sense that he understands how it harms his sport.

He speaks of how he never bet against his own team, and how he never placed a bet from the clubhouse, and how he never used "inside" information, and how he would never, ever fix a game -- no matter how much money he could have made.

But we're still waiting for some recognition that he now understands that a manager who gambles -- even on his own team to win -- is just as dangerous to his sport as a manager who bets on his team to lose.

Remember, if a manager has a couple of thousand bucks riding on any given game, his perspective on everything changes.

Is he really caring about what's best for his team, over the long haul, that night? Does it matter that if he's already used his closer three nights in a row and probably ought to give him a break? Can he really afford to give his cleanup man the night off the day after he's tweaked a hamstring?

Heck, no. All he sees are the dollar signs at stake in that game. Which raises a million questions about everything that goes on.

But there are no signs, in either the book or Gibson excerpts available so far, that Pete Rose understands that side of his gambling "problem." And that's a major red flag.
.................................................................................


He made 441 bets in a 90 day period. thats five wagers a day. and on his own team from the dugout where he was a manager.

Rose is incorrigible.

Never let him in Hall is what I would say.

He continues to bet games within his means. Yeh thats what all us gamblers say.

In response to admitting he bet on baseball, he times a book release to make money... come on. Must need the money to bet within his means four or five times a month.

Pete you just don't get it.


KOD
 
Last edited:

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
Sports Ill poll of Total Votes: 23,535

1) Did you believe Rose when he previously denied betting on baseball?

91.7% No

8.3% Yes
..............................................
2) Did you believe Rose when he previously denied betting on Cincinnati Reds games?

73.0% No

27.0% Yes
.....................................
3) Do you believe he's telling the whole truth now?

58.6% No

41.4% Yes
...................................................
4) Does it bother you that Rose lied to the public for 14 years?

66.3% Yes

33.7% No
....................................................................

5) Should he be allowed into the Hall of Fame?

59.9% Yes, as soon as possible

28.5% No, because he bet on baseball and his own team

11.0% Yes, after his death

0.6% No, because he didn't earn it on the field

............................................................................
6) Should he be allowed to manage a major league team?

65.0% No

20.9% Yes, after a probationary period

14.1% Yes, immediately

..................................................
7) Will you buy his new book?

85.1% No

14.9% Yes

...........................................................
8) What do you think about the fact that Rose still gambles on sports today (legal gambling)?

67.5% If it's legal, it's fine.

32.5% It demonstrates that he's not really changed his ways.
..............................................................

9) Are you a Reds fan?

85.2% No

14.8% Yes
...............................................
10) Are you a Pete Rose fan?

54.1% No

45.9% Yes
 

GENO

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 5, 2002
5,114
17
0
71
Plain City OH
I guess I am way out in left field with the statements I am about to make.

I for one did a ton of online research and have for about 6 years really felt that Pete Rose bet on MLB.

But all the research I have been able to do states that he NEVER bet against the Reds.

His job as a manager was to do everything possible to get a win that day, that season for the Cincinnati Reds.

Is him betting on MLB the end of the world? NOPE especially if he never bet AGAINST the Reds.

Should he have bet on MLB? Nope probably not as a player or manager.

Should he have lied about it? Nope the good book says Thou shalt not lie. But who hasn't lied? The Creator knows our sins and we alone are responsible for them. We alone must atone for them.

It is not the end of the world that Pete Rose bet on MLB, hell I bet on MLB.

In fact that may be the only thing Pete Rose & I have in common, except for a love of the game and Pete loved the game like few in modern time have loved it.

Scott , did you ever watch him play? He should be in the hall of fame regardless of the wrongs he has done, based on his acheivements on the field as a player. My opinion and I am sticking to it you are entitled to yours.

This is not bashing simply voicing my opinion & thank you for reading.
:cool:
 

spartan

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 7, 2001
5,098
37
0
Long Island
I wonder what morons said he didn't deserve to be in the hall because he didn't earn it on the field. He belongs in the hall and i would vote him in right away. Any of you think that hitting a ball is easy go play and see. I played most sports and hitting a fastball, curveball, slider or change-up isn't easy. He shouldn't of lied though he could of been in the hall much sooner. He will always get my vote:yup
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
here is an article on rose that i thought people might find interesting. btw, i think rose should be eligible for the hall of fame, but not be allowed to manage in the majors(too tempting to make a bet). i also think shoeless joe jackson should be in the hall of fame.


Monday, January 5, 2004


By Jim Caple
ESPN.com

Tomorrow's Hall of Fame announcement is reserved for the great players who did not bet on baseball and then lie about it for 14 years. Today, however, we must once again discuss the subject that, like tuberculosis, will not go away. Pete Rose.

After steadfastly maintaining his innocence for 14 years, the Hustler finally admits that he bet on baseball. What a revelation! That lifetime ban he voluntarily agreed to in 1989? Turns out it was justified all along! And to think, it only took the publication of Rose's book with an advanced print run of 500,000 copies to get him to spill the beans.

Jim Gray had it all wrong. Instead of asking Rose whether he would ever apologize for betting on baseball, maybe he just should have offered him a souvenir helmet filled with money.

Not that the Hustler would have necessarily apologized even then. Based on the excerpts from his upcoming ABC interview, contrition is not a priority for Rose. He expressed regret that he lied to officials for 14 years and that his admission took this long because "I never had the opportunity to tell anyone (who) was going to help me.''

In other words, apologies are reserved for fans who buy his book and then pay him an additional $50 at an autograph signing (flat items only). Sincerity not included.

I always thought that an admission would help Rose's cause but given the circumstances, I'm not so sure. The public backed him before this but he could be in for a severe backlash. Those who believed in him will feel betrayed and upset that he lied for 14 years. Those that always knew he bet on baseball but still thought he deserved a second chance are going to be upset that his admission does not contain an adequate apology and was tied to promoting his book.

Fans are infinitely capable of forgiveness but it helps when the person actually asks to be forgiven.

Clearly, money is a motivation for Rose in this, just as it always is for the Hustler. So is his eligibility for the Hall of Fame. According to Cooperstown's rules, players who meet the eligibility requirements can be voted into the Hall of Fame during a timeframe that begins five years after their last game and ends 20 years after their last game. The Hustler's last game was 1986, which means he has just two more years he could appear on the writers ballot.

And because some writers would be justifiably tempted to not vote for him the first year as a protest for his years of deceit, that leaves Rose a very narrow window of eligibility before getting thrown before the Veteran's Committee. I don't know whether those veterans would welcome him or spit on him, but based on Bob Feller's usual opinions of the modern ballplayer, I wouldn't want to chance it myself.

While the Hall's eligibility rules are not the U.S. Constitution and while they have changed over the years, there's no guarantee they would be changed for the Hustler, either. So Rose must get the process rolling and get himself off the banned list as quickly as possible. This "admission'' is step one.

But while the Hustler should be eligible for the Hall of Fame (as long as the plaque mentions his gambling), the ban should continue for his active participation in baseball. It's one thing for a museum to honor Rose for his playing career but a compulsive liar and gambler with more career debts than hits should never be allowed back in baseball in a capacity that could influence the outcome of a game or a season.

It took nearly 15 years for the Hustler to admit what we already knew. And in the meantime, we realized that while he was a Hall of Fame-caliber player, there isn't much else worth admiring.
 
Last edited:

Munson

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 28, 2002
750
0
0
Sparta, TN
Thanks for posting the articles in this thread...

The more I think about it, I really would like him to get into the Hall....but under one condition--posthumously. He just does not deserve the satisfaction.

M
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
GENO said:
In fact that may be the only thing Pete Rose & I have in common, except for a love of the game and Pete loved the game like few in modern time have loved it.

Scott , did you ever watch him play? He should be in the hall of fame regardless of the wrongs he has done, based on his acheivements on the field as a player. My opinion and I am sticking to it you are entitled to yours.

....................................................................

GENO

I did see him play and I have no doubt he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

The Cincinatti Reds used to beat the Atlanta Braves every game when they had the Big Red Machine. I used to get pretty upset
at Petes hot dogging and arrogance on the field.

But who else can you name that has bet on baseball as a major league manager. Just about no one. He did it so much and so flagrant he was caught. Then he denies it for years when we all knew he was lieing.

He better get in with the Sportswriters. The old timers will never
vote him in.


KOD
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
My love of Baseball and the way he played it says yes. But no big intro for him just put him in. Then I step back and say. No he did the worst thing that BB said you can do. He new the rules. As a player is one thing. As a manager is even a higher level. Im glad I dont have a vote. I might need 14 more years to decide.
 

lostinamerica

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 10, 2001
7,332
184
63
Between Green Bay and Iowa City
THE SITUATION IS ALL THAT'S REALLY SORRY
- Thomas Boswell - (Washington Post)(1/6/03)


Before you forgive Pete Rose for stealing the china, you should always count the silverware

And before baseball lets Rose into the Hall of Fame, much less back into a big league dugout, he should do more, much more, than ask us to take his word that he is a changed man. Especially when his confession, after 14 years of lies, arrives between hard covers with the promise of piles of money for Rose. And, most tellingly, when Rose cannot bring himself -- even now, even once -- to say an honest, heart-felt, "I'm sorry."

Rose has finally told the truth. But he still has not seen the truth -- that his sins go far beyond gambling on baseball games and that his contrition must go far deeper than any TV quote or book excerpt available so far. At the most elemental level, Rose owes the profoundest of apologies to the sport itself, which he injured badly.

And he needs to get down on his knees, if not literally, then figuratively, to those like John Dowd, who got the facts right in their investigation, yet have endured more than a decade of lying accusations from Rose in every media venue he could grab.

Before fans grant their forgiveness, or Commissioner Bud Selig decides whether Rose should be reinstated to the sport, perhaps we should listen to a story told by former commissioner Fay Vincent.

When Rose was a player, he went to Japan, signed a bat endorsement contract, collected $100,000 in cash and put it in a suitcase so he could sneak it through customs without paying U.S. taxes. Rose was caught, but the story never got out and no charges were filed. A few years later, Rose's bat contract expired. He went back to Japan, got another $100,000 in cash, put it in a suitcase (maybe the same one) and tried to get it through customs. Again.

"Bzzzzz," said Vincent yesterday, imitating the sound of a buzzer going off. "They caught Rose again. Now the feds were really livid -- a two-time loser. They wanted to indict him. But he had a good lawyer who got him off. Nobody found out. Nothing happened to Rose. Those are facts. You can quote me.

"So, when you look at Rose today, you have to realize we're at fault, too. We teach great athletes their whole lives that they are above the law. We create the monster, then we have to go out and deal with it."

Only a man who has lived by his own version of the law, or no laws at all, could make as hollow an attempt at confession and restitution as Rose has. One book excerpt, to appear in Sports Illustrated this week, should be enough to make any person of conscience -- which has never included Rose -- see red. Once you send something like this to the printer, you have to live with it. No rewrites next week, Pete. If a ghost wrote it, it's still yours.

"I'm sure that I'm supposed to act all sorry or sad or guilty now that I've accepted that I've done something wrong. But you see, I'm just not built that way," wrote Rose. "So let's leave it like this: I'm sorry it happened and I'm sorry for all the people, fans and family it hurt. Let's move on."

No, let's stay right here.

Let's do a little exegesis of the text as the old-time hellfire preachers used to say. Rose says he's "not built" to "act all sorry or sad or guilty." Well, if he can't even act that way, with his whole future hanging in the balance, we can be sure he's incapable of actually feeling that way. Our prisons are full of people who aren't "built" to feel remorse or guilt or sorrow at the damage they have done. This attitude is a pathology, Pete, not a bragging point.

Even more chilling is Rose's using the word "it" twice, instead of "I." The truly contrite person would instinctively say, "I'm sorry I did it and that I hurt people." Instead, Rose says that "it" did the damage. And what is "it"? Well, "it" is the investigation, the exposure of his gambling, the scandal. In other words, like any unrepentant scoundrel, he's mostly sorry that he got caught. He still hasn't come to terms with the deed itself.

The more Rose talks, the more he exposes rather than redeems himself. "During the times I gambled as a manager, I never took an unfair advantage. I never bet more or less based on injuries or inside information. I never allowed my wagers to influence my baseball decisions," writes Rose. "So in my mind I wasn't corrupt."

That's like a bank robber asking for parole because he didn't scare the tellers.

Baseball has only one cardinal rule. You can't gamble on the game. In any form. Ever. It's posted in every clubhouse. Everybody, down to the densest rookie, understands it. If you take drugs or become an alcoholic, that's entirely different. It's a personal problem. You deserve and get rehab. But if you gamble on the game -- let alone, good Lord, bet on the team you are managing -- you have stabbed a dagger into the heart of the game's competitive credibility. Yet Rose, in this damning attempt at rationalization, shows how the mind of an egotist and amoralist works. Rose set up a completely different code -- in his own mind -- so that he could get around the rules that apply to everybody else in baseball.

This isn't how you get reinstated. This is how, without knowing it, you make the case against reinstatement. Mercy should always be the order of the day. But, in this case, balanced against enormous skepticism.

This week, America will talk about Rose, now baseball's all-time leader in both hits and lies. But we ought to be talking about Vincent, Dowd and A. Bartlett Giamatti -- men who paid a high price to dig out a hard truth then stick by their guns. But the sinner gets the headline, doesn't he? The Prodigal Son gets the feast. What a lousy parable.

Perhaps the valuable story this week isn't that Rose finally admitted what we all knew -- that in one season, he had a bet down on more than a third of all the games in the majors. The tale that matters, a parable in its own right, is that, for 14 years, in the face of sentimental public opinion, a legion of Pete apologists and attacks on the game's leaders, baseball did not buckle. The sport kept the scoundrel where he belonged -- out of the game.

Now we'll see if Selig, who gets high grades for his constancy for a decade, can stand one final test of character from Rose. With millions of fans chanting "forgive" will Selig demand that Rose show true contrition and, in Giamatti's words, "reconfigure his life," rather than merely reshape his image with a book tour?

Perhaps no one understands the task ahead of Selig like Vincent. "I'm very proud of Bud for the way he's acted" the last 10 years, said Vincent. "This is another test for him. Can he stand up to it?"

So far, Vincent doesn't see signs of a reconfigured Rose life. In fact, he says, there is "every evidence" that Rose is still a conspicuous gambler. "We were misguided [in 1989]. We thought he would be contrite. It just wasn't in him. I wish he were more contrite even now. John Dowd [who headed baseball's investigation] is owed a big apology," said Vincent, adding that Rose even hurt those who tried to defend him. Vincent cites one well-known baseball author who "wrote five pages about how there was 'not a shred of evidence' in the Dowd report" and another "who excoriated us for running roughshod over Pete's rights. Where are those people today?"

For Vincent, the story of Rose is always ultimately a story of money. "He's always been struggling [because of his gambling]. His decisions are usually acts to protect his financial situation. He wouldn't admit he'd gambled on baseball because he was afraid it would cut off his [baseball-related] income," said Vincent. "Now, he's writing this book for the money. Why don't some of the profits from this book -- an account of how he damaged baseball -- go back to baseball, say to some of the indigent Negro League players? What you are seeing now are economic calculations. It's all about him coming back financially.

"It would be scandalous to allow him back [in the game] if what we've seen so far is indicative of his [lack of] contrition. How could you trust him in any capacity? I can take a lot but that would be beyond the pale. Let's wait a couple of years and see how he behaves. . . . Baseball shouldn't roll over for this. But I'm afraid Selig will play to the gallery."

Let's reserve judgment, see the whole book, the interviews, the whole nine yards. But the bar for reinstatement -- something that has never been granted Shoeless Joe Jackson or any other player banned for life -- should be set very high. So far, Rose has done very little to help himself clear that hurdle.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 

He Hate Me

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 21, 2001
483
0
0
Seal Beach,Ca
MLB is all about steroids and spit tobbacco. The leauge brought in the fences so the clueless casual fan (which is 95% of all fans) could get his jollys off having runs scored. MLB cares only about making money, for some reason they want to act like the catholic church and have Pete Rose confess sins to humans without having his fingers crossed. I wish the America Past its time would go away like the XFL.
 

bullet

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
36
0
0
he should be in the hall for his playing days..he played the game as it should be played!!....you got players on enhancement drugs and everybody talks about how great they are!!...and most of them will be first balloters.....hell !! baseball has give worse thugs than him another chance!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Mjolnir

Registered User
Forum Member
May 15, 2003
3,747
11
0
S. CAL.
Pete

Pete

i say no. keep him out. if he had the balls that he supposedly had he would have admitted it 14 years ago. sure he was a stud on the field, but then to lie to all the people that idolized him all those years. i'm sure there are alot of scumbags in the hall of fame but maybe we should start doing things different in basesball. test for drug's like every other league and start salary caps. i think it would be tough at first but i bet that baseball would start getting more respect and then benefit financially. it isn't fair for all of the class act's in the hall of fame to have their bust's next to a habitual liar.
done preaching.
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,497
260
83
Victory Lane
A thought just occurred to me about this Pete Rose situation.

If he is a Hall of Fame player his monetary ability increases
double what it is now.

He makes his money signing flat objects only. His signature will be worth more.

Its becoming clear why he wants the Hall so bad.

Its always been about the money with Pete.


KOD
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top