Are PEDs worse than betting on baseball?

[Dapper Dan]

Sorry, it's a video. There's no article to post. I don't agree with this Jeff Passan guy at all. He seems to really not like Pete Rose. I dunno, I'm biased anyway.
http://sports.yahoo.com/video/peds-worse-betting-baseball-193534645.html



In the above link, they show a small clip from the Dan Patrick show where he speaks with Pete Rose.
Here's all of Pete Rose on the Dan Patrick show:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2TxcsV0eN4

[Dzone]

Betting is worse than PEDs.

[Ravage!!!]

Betting on baseball, as a player and as a manager..... is absolutely worse. It completely can take away from the integrity of the GAME...meaning...the fans could start to believe that all games are fixed. Thus making it more like the lame WWF than a professional sport. It's why the world series involving the Sox (that are now referred to as the black sox) was such a paramount moment in professional sports, and something we actually learn abou in american history class.

Anyone believing that Pete Rose didn't bet on his OWN games, and didn't play/manage to try and manipulate those outcomes....are those that STILL believe Lance Armstrong never juiced.

[Thnikkaman]

Pete Rose used a corked bat.

[Dapper Dan]

Betting and throwing a game can be two different things. When you juice, there is no option to use that enhanced power or not. If you throw a game, that's a terrible thing, whether you bet or not. I think intentionally losing is very bad, and ruins the integrity of the sport. Using banned PEDs to get better than others is just as bad as intentionally losing, in my opinion. They're both terrible for the game. If all PEDs are legal and everyone has the same chance, it's a different story.

You can prove someone used PEDs if they have a drug test. Was it proven that Pete Rose intentionally lost games to gain money? If so, then I can see the problem. If all we can do is speculate that he could have possibly intentionally lost games because he bet on them, then that's not enough evidence for anything. Also, is there a difference between Pete Rose the player and Pete Rose the manager? If Pete Rose the player intentionally held back so that he could win bets, then imagine how many hits he would have gotten, wow.

[CoachChaz]

If you bet on your team to lose...and you make decisions in the game to facilitate that loss, then gambling is very bad. However...there has NEVER been any hard evidence that proves anything other than Rose bet on the Reds to win...EVERY NIGHT. So, it was always in his best interest to help his team win. Now I'm not condoning anything Rose did AFTER he retired from playing, but I find it hard to overly criticize him for having enough faith in his team to gamble his own money on them.

PED's...personally, I dont care. Just legalize the damn things and let anyone who wants to use them, do so. It levels the playing field and helps get salaries back under control and creates more entertainment for the fans. American sports fans are all about scoring. We dont like soccer or hockey as much because the scores are always low and the perception is that "not much is happening in the game." But football and basketball ammends rules to create higher scores and their popularity increases. Seriously...did anyone really enjoy watching the Giants win 2 of the last 3 World Series riding on the arms of their pitching staff? Let the players juice.

[BroncoWave]

Betting on baseball, as a player and as a manager..... is absolutely worse. It completely can take away from the integrity of the GAME...meaning...the fans could start to believe that all games are fixed. Thus making it more like the lame WWF than a professional sport. It's why the world series involving the Sox (that are now referred to as the black sox) was such a paramount moment in professional sports, and something we actually learn abou in american history class.

Anyone believing that Pete Rose didn't bet on his OWN games, and didn't play/manage to try and manipulate those outcomes....are those that STILL believe Lance Armstrong never juiced.

But he bet on the Reds to win, so I doubt that changed how he managed. He was still trying his best for them to win. Now as Coach said, it would have been WAY worse if he bet against the Reds, but I've never seen anything leading me to believe that he did so.

[Thnikkaman]

Pete Rose cheated!

[BroncoWave]

PED's...personally, I dont care. Just legalize the damn things and let anyone who wants to use them, do so. It levels the playing field and helps get salaries back under control and creates more entertainment for the fans. American sports fans are all about scoring. We dont like soccer or hockey as much because the scores are always low and the perception is that "not much is happening in the game." But football and basketball ammends rules to create higher scores and their popularity increases. Seriously...did anyone really enjoy watching the Giants win 2 of the last 3 World Series riding on the arms of their pitching staff? Let the players juice.

John Rocker really put it best recently with this quote:

"At the end of the day when people are paying their $80, $120 whatever it may be, to buy their ticket and come watch that game, it’s almost like the circus is in town. They are paid to be entertained. They wanna see some clown throw a fastball 101 mph and some other guy hit it 500 feet. That’s entertainment. You’re paying to be entertained…."

[Ravage!!!]

But he bet on the Reds to win, so I doubt that changed how he managed. He was still trying his best for them to win. Now as Coach said, it would have been WAY worse if he bet against the Reds, but I've never seen anything leading me to believe that he did so.

Like I said, if you want to believe that he only bet on the Reds to win....great. Armstrong never juiced and would SUE anyone that said he did. He was more adamant about his "innocence" than Pete Rose. I might have believed Rose ONLY bet on the Reds to win at one time, but I'm FAR FAR FAR from taking the words of anyone at this point in time.

I'm betting the commissioner knows more than he says, and KNOWS that Pete Rose bet against his team. Proof is in the eye, and managers betting on their own games are worse for Baseball than PEDs are. That is why Pete Rose and the Black Sox...are banned for life. It's why you won't see them in the HoF, and its why they are looked down upon so harshly.

Their actions ruin the perception that baseball is REAL. Take that away, and your fans go with it. Baseball is then dead. PEDs keep the sport real. Records can be discussed and fought over as far as their "legitimacy" for years and years and years....but it doesn't take away from the "realness" of the game.

[CoachChaz]

Like I said, if you want to believe that he only bet on the Reds to win....great. Armstrong never juiced and would SUE anyone that said he did. He was more adamant about his "innocence" than Pete Rose. I might have believed Rose ONLY bet on the Reds to win at one time, but I'm FAR FAR FAR from taking the words of anyone at this point in time.

I'm betting the commissioner knows more than he says, and KNOWS that Pete Rose bet against his team. Proof is in the eye, and managers betting on their own games are worse for Baseball than PEDs are. That is why Pete Rose and the Black Sox...are banned for life. It's why you won't see them in the HoF, and its why they are looked down upon so harshly.

Their actions ruin the perception that baseball is REAL. Take that away, and your fans go with it. Baseball is then dead. PEDs keep the sport real. Records can be discussed and fought over as far as their "legitimacy" for years and years and years....but it doesn't take away from the "realness" of the game.

Well...that's media perception. But no one...in 20 years...has been able to provide proof that incriminates Rose for betting against the Reds.

At the end of the day, I dont even really care. Pete was amazing on the field and is an ******* off of it. Should he be in the HoF for what he accomplished as a player? Hell yes. Outside of that, I could care less

[BroncoWave]

Like I said, if you want to believe that he only bet on the Reds to win....great. Armstrong never juiced and would SUE anyone that said he did. He was more adamant about his "innocence" than Pete Rose. I might have believed Rose ONLY bet on the Reds to win at one time, but I'm FAR FAR FAR from taking the words of anyone at this point in time.

I'm betting the commissioner knows more than he says, and KNOWS that Pete Rose bet against his team. Proof is in the eye, and managers betting on their own games are worse for Baseball than PEDs are. That is why Pete Rose and the Black Sox...are banned for life. It's why you won't see them in the HoF, and its why they are looked down upon so harshly.

Their actions ruin the perception that baseball is REAL. Take that away, and your fans go with it. Baseball is then dead. PEDs keep the sport real. Records can be discussed and fought over as far as their "legitimacy" for years and years and years....but it doesn't take away from the "realness" of the game.

You sound like the NBA conspiracy theorists right now that you love to bash. There is literally zero evidence that he ever bet against the Reds. You LOVE to accuse me of inventing theories to support my opinions, and this is exactly what you are doing now.

[Ravage!!!]

You sound like the NBA conspiracy theorists right now that you love to bash. There is literally zero evidence that he ever bet against the Reds. You LOVE to accuse me of inventing theories to support my opinions, and this is exactly what you are doing now.

I'm not inventing stories or any theories whatsoever. You seriously have a comprehension problem and needs to go to some college courses to help you with this.

THe REASON Pete Rose is banned from the HoF is the EXACT reason I just illustrated in my post. THAT is the reason. THat is the reasoning behind the thinking, and THAT is what the commission is basing his decisions from.

[Ravage!!!]

Well...that's media perception. But no one...in 20 years...has been able to provide proof that incriminates Rose for betting against the Reds.

At the end of the day, I dont even really care. Pete was amazing on the field and is an ******* off of it. Should he be in the HoF for what he accomplished as a player? Hell yes. Outside of that, I could care less

What's the media perception? :confused:

[CoachChaz]

What's the media perception? :confused:

The media reports things in a vague manner to lead the public to understand that Rose bet on Reds games. Typically, they dont state he only bet ON the Reds...just that he bet on the games. It's vague and can lead people to believe he voted against them at times, too.

[Ravage!!!]

The media reports things in a vague manner to lead the public to understand that Rose bet on Reds games. Typically, they dont state he only bet ON the Reds...just that he bet on the games. It's vague and can lead people to believe he voted against them at times, too.

That's because I don't think anyone (ok, I know that's an exaggeration) really BELIEVEs he didn't bet against his own team. Now before you tell me "there is no proof".. I TOTALLY get that. I also know there wasn't proof against Armstrong, and he was the MOST TESTED athlete in the world. Until there was proof. Now obviously there are people that are going to say that "if there is no proof, then you can't hold it against him." Well, not in the eyes of Baseball that is looking out for the image of their MEGA-huge business.

Rose had a gambling problem...a SERIOUS gambling problem. Hard to believe that he wouldn't try to get himself out of problems by taking that chance by making a pitching change, or whatever, to help his odds. Now again, if there is even the SLIGHTEST chance that he did do this (proof or no proof)...there is no way baseball can allow him in. The Branding of MLB is just toooooo important. Obviously baseball is making a statement, and a very strong statement, with Rose. One that they feel can not waiver.

I personally believe, that its foolish to think that Pete ONLY bet FOR the Reds. I mean, that sounds great because we like Pete Rose the player. It just sounds so.. so..."Patriotic" of him. But I just don't believe that to be the case. I believed Armstrong... hell... I believed Braun. Considering how many lies the commissioner of baseball has seen/heard/witnessed over the years... not to mention the things he knows about that are going on behind the scenes? I don't blame him for a second in not believing this "I only bet FOR the Reds" stuff. Hell, the commish may already know the truth on that. Doesn't mean he has the "hard proof" with Roses signature, but I'm betting he knows more about it than we do. I bet he knows more than he has said.

[OrangeHoof]

the fans could start to believe that all games are fixed.

You mean like the NBA?

[Dapper Dan]

Pete Rose was a gambling addict. He probably still is. But he was just as much addicted to the game of baseball. I'm always going to give someone the benefit of the doubt unless there's proof otherwise. That's how things usually go. Innocent until proven guilty. I think it's pretty sad for someone to always see the worst in people and to always judge on the side of pessimism. And if the commissioner knows more, why hasn't he said it? What's the point of keeping some big secret? I don't really see any benefit. If he has something to shut up Pete Rose once and for all, why wouldn't he? Pete Rose was banned from baseball around the time I was born. It didn't take long at all for the Armstrong, Braun, etc evidence to come out. So it doesn't seem very likely that there is any evidence left out there that Pete Rose bet against his own team.

[Ravage!!!]

Pete Rose was a gambling addict. He probably still is. But he was just as much addicted to the game of baseball. I'm always going to give someone the benefit of the doubt unless there's proof otherwise. That's how things usually go. Innocent until proven guilty. I think it's pretty sad for someone to always see the worst in people and to always judge on the side of pessimism. And if the commissioner knows more, why hasn't he said it? What's the point of keeping some big secret? I don't really see any benefit. If he has something to shut up Pete Rose once and for all, why wouldn't he?

Why would he? What would be the point of getting into a "he said she said" public argument? The commissioner doesn't need to throw stones, he doesn't need to "prove" what he knows. He doesn't need to trash talk any player that is as popular as Rose was, for that wouldnt' gain him anything, either. The commissioner, although not liked by many here, is probably the best commissioner in professional sports. He's smart, and knows that not only is there no need, but nothing to be gained. Like I said, it's very possible that the commissioner KNOWS what Pete did, but doesn't have the "hard proof" that the people think they need. After all, people NEED the hair and fibers in today's CSI world. But that doesn't mean the commish doesn't KNOW more.

Even if he doesn't....what he (we)DOES know is enough. Betting on the VERY games that you are managing? I don't care if its "betting for"...that's absolutely bannable by all reasonable accounts! How could the commish set the precedent that its "ok" because you bet "For" your team that you are managing?

[Thnikkaman]

http://deadspin.com/5555714/this-is-pete-roses-corked-bat

[Dapper Dan]

Oh. I thought you implied that the commish knew something. If he doesn't have any proof of anything, then what he thinks isn't very reliable.

[Poet]

I'm a Cincinnati boy, and as bad as I want Rose to be in the Hall of Fame, I'm conflicted.

[Thnikkaman]

I'm a Cincinnati boy, and as bad as I want Rose to be in the Hall of Fame, I'm conflicted.

Without his corked bat, he doesn't get his hits record.

[Poet]

Without his corked bat, he doesn't get his hits record.

Corked bats have been scientifically shown to do nothing for someone's swing. Again, I'm biased at this point.

[Thnikkaman]

Corked bats have been scientifically shown to do nothing for someone's swing. Again, I'm biased at this point.

There have been studies showing that they do nothing to add distance, but they do make the bat lighter.

[Poet]

There have been studies showing that they do nothing to add distance, but they do make the bat lighter.

And he was a slapball hitter. I understand the point.

[Ravage!!!]

Oh. I thought you implied that the commish knew something. If he doesn't have any proof of anything, then what he thinks isn't very reliable.

We already KNOW that Pete Rose bet on baseball. He bet on the teams he was playing on, and managing. We know he was betting on games he played in, and managed (while managing). THOSE things we know. I'm purely speculating that the commish DOES know something more that we don't. He may not know anything additional, however, the information we DO know is enough to keep Pete out of the HoF for the reasons I've expressed. I'm simply suggesting the reason that the commish may not be waivering on his stance is that he VERY WELL could know more. He could know more facts. But as I said in the other post, there are many reasons as to why we haven't heard.... what else the commish knows (if anything at all). There are many reasons as to why the commissioner doesn't feel the necessity to share everything he knows.

[CoachChaz]

Or maybe no one wants to be "that guy" that changed the ruling and reinstates him. We know Selig has thought about it a few times over the years, but every time that rumor comes up, the media gets involved and he forgets about it

[BroncoWave]

I'm not inventing stories or any theories whatsoever. You seriously have a comprehension problem and needs to go to some college courses to help you with this.

THe REASON Pete Rose is banned from the HoF is the EXACT reason I just illustrated in my post. THAT is the reason. THat is the reasoning behind the thinking, and THAT is what the commission is basing his decisions from.

You should do the same. My only point of contention with what you said is that you are certain he bet against the Reds. Everything else you said is true. But to say he bet on the Reds is an opinion with no basis in known fact.

[Ravage!!!]

But to say he bet on the Reds is an opinion with no basis in known fact.

That is the definition of an opinion, but I ABSOLUTELY have a basis for having that opinion.

[Poet]

That is the definition of an opinion, but I ABSOLUTELY have a basis for having that opinion.

I was under the impression that he admitted to betting on his team in all capacity.

Time to go watch some Johnny Bench highlights.

[CoachChaz]

You should do the same. My only point of contention with what you said is that you are certain he bet against the Reds. Everything else you said is true. But to say he bet on the Reds is an opinion with no basis in known fact.

Actually...saying he bet ON the Reds is a fact. Saying he bet AGAINST the Reds is the opinion. He admitted to betting on them and there is a paper trail that shows it...but there has never been ANY evidence he bet against them. In 24 years, no one could prove otherwise.