Thread: Are PEDs worse than betting on baseball?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

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.

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

You mean like the NBA?

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.

Originally Posted by dbfan2007

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?

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by King87

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.

Originally Posted by Thnikkaman

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.

Originally Posted by King87

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.

Originally Posted by Thnikkaman

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.

Originally Posted by dbfan2007

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.

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

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by BaileyTheBest

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.