PETE ROSE DID BET ON THE REDS!

[thecaptain15]

Matter of fact, I'll go you one better. Ask Knoblauch what he would do.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[MSBNYY]

There's not even an allegation that Rose bet against the Reds, let alone circumstantial evidence.

And actually, you can indeed convict on circumstantial evidence. It's a question of how compelling that circumstantial evidence is. In the case of Bonds, it's very compelling.

But again, Bonds and Rose are completely different situations and completely different types of "criminals."

When you say I want Bonds out, I'm assuming you mean the HOF. But the reasoning behind why I want Bonds out and not Rose is because in Bonds' case, his cheating flat out led to artificially high individual stats.

Numbers are the biggest factor on HOF worthiness. You get 3000 hits, you're in. You get 500 HRs, you're in (pre-steroid era). You win 300 games you're in.

Barry Bonds' numbers are directly affected by his steroids. He is likely going to become the number 1 HR hitter of all time and it's complete malarky. He didn't earn it. He cheated. They might as well give him the chance to put his bat down, have the pitcher hand him the ball, and let him throw the ball where he wants to when he's up. If his arm isn't good enough to let him throw the ball out of the park, he can move up to second base. The HR he would get there is just about as meaningful as his steroid HRs.

But Rose is different. Betting on baseball does not enhance your stats, even if he bet on the game from 1963. Those 4256 hits are legit. His records are legit.

He is not in the HOF because he played 2 years too long. Sure, he ends up with 3900 something hits if he retires in 1984, but he would have been elected in his first year of eligibility, before the ban, and not kicked out.

There was a time when Mantle and Mays were banned from baseball due to associating with casinos. They weren't kicked out of the HOF.

While I do think that Rose has "paid his debt to society" when comparing his crimes to all the druggies and others who have got their 7th chances, I have no problem with a lifetime ban from managing as I have said many times. It's just that he earned a spot in the HOF, and it's wrong that he's not there.

He was punished for what he did after his career was over. Bonds would be punished for having a fake career.

[IronHorse4]

But Rose is different. Betting on baseball does not enhance your stats, even if he bet on the game from 1963.
But it can enhance other people's stats. And it certainly taints the game. There should be no reward for that.

Mantle and Mays weren't betting on baseball. They were associated with Atlantic City casinos, which do not have sports books. They broke no rules, and they were rightfully reinstated, because they broke no rules.

Pete Rose, on the other hand, is guilty of actually breaking the rule for which the punishment is banishment. The fact that he continues to admit more and more is further proof that there is more out there.

And I don't know where you're getting this stuff about how he's not accused of betting against the Reds. That has been a major accusation from Day 1. Why do you think he's making a big deal about saying he never bet against the Reds to this very day? And how the hell do you believe someone like that?

He's a proven compulsive gambler, he's a proven liar, and yet you believe him when he says he never bet on the one outcome he has the most control over. Naivete or hypocrisy...I can't figure which suits you better.

[MSBNYY]

It is neither. I'm arguing Rose's innocence. He's guilty. I'm arguing whether punishment fits the crime, and it doesn't.

Rose has been out of baseball for almost 18 years now. He has been punished. My big gripe is that he belongs in the HOF, and what he did doesn't change that. Plus, in a world where far greater crimes against baseball get forgiven far more easily, it's a ridiculous punishment.

And there's no way Pete Rose enhanced anyone's stats. 4256 hits and no one played to win harder than Rose.

But even if you interpret everything in the light most damaging to Rose, he still was a HOFer.

[elliejay21]

IMO, the rule to ban compulsive gamblers is not fair, *if* you do not ban other people suffering from the disease of addiction.

There is a certain splitting of hairs, though. Addicts and cheaters both lie, and i is difficult to ascertian who has a disease and cannot control their behavior and who is deliberatly breaking the rules.

A true compulsive gambler is the same as a cocaine addict, chasing the high of the win. This is NOT a person who is looking for the fix. He is not trying to make a profit or even get out of debt... the money is like a drug, but it is also the stress of betting on an uncertain outcome that raises the adrenaline. The gambler needs the physiological response of sweating on the outcome, meaning he'd be more likely to put money on his team to win on a longshot. A loss is hard, but they always believe that the next bet will be the big score, so the worse the last loss, the more like the gambler is to make a riskier (more uncertian outcome with a bigger payout) bet.

The gambler who is NOT an addict, might fix games because he is a profiteer and a cheater. This is a totally different animal, and from everything I have read, not Pete Rose.

Not that anyone in MLB cares what I think, but I'd be inclined to reconsider the lifetime ban on Rose, if he were actively and successfully in recovery.

Has he admitted that he is powerless over gambling, that his life has become unmanageable?

Has he come to believe that a Power greater than himself could restore him to sanity?

Has he made a decision to turn his will and his life over to the care of God as he understands Him?

Has he made a searching and fearless moral inventory of himself?

Has he really admitted to God, to himself, and to another human being the exact nature of his wrongs? The beginning of this one seemed a little weak...

Is he entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character?

Has he humbly asked Him to remove his shortcomings? Can he BE humble?

Has he made a list of all persons he has harmed, and become willing to make amends to them all?

Has he made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others?

Has he continued to take personal inventory and when he was wrong promptly admitted it?

Has he sought through prayer and meditation to improve his conscious contact with God as he understands Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for him and the power to carry that out?

I'm thinking he has not had any sort of spiritual awakening, and I doubt highly that he has tried to carry this message to other compulsive gamblers.... but maybe I am being too judgemental. Wouldn't be the first time.

[9]

The answers to your 11 questions: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and no.

[nobeernofun]

Say it ant so Pete

He was always my favorite player growing up . I always said he was the best player I seen play live . Before seeing Jeter who I think is the best I have seen day in & day out .

Well , what are the odd's on Pete making the H.O.F. now

[ajfreakz]

check this article out from the world of the weird&wacky...this guy has totally lost it !!

news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070802/COL05/708020317/1090

[Chris]

You'd be pissed and bitter too if you had to wear that Dutch Masters harido all your life.

[thecaptain15]

He told them winning is everything and if you get second place you're just losers."

he was right on the money here..Gotta teach them young that second place just means first loser...... ;D

[Jason Giambi]

out of all the losers, you were the best.

[IronHorse4]

c'mon paulie roll the dice take a chance