Thread: Are PEDs worse than betting on baseball?

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-w...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:

Betting is worse than PEDs.

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.

Pete Rose used a corked bat.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Pete Rose cheated!

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

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…."

Originally Posted by BaileyTheBest

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.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by BaileyTheBest

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.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

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?

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

What's the media perception?

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.