Pete Rose bet on baseball as player

[LittleBoyBlue]

If he admits to everything but that, how can anyone believe him at this point?

Didn't the ledger show he only had bets fir he reds to win?



Owners have screwed players since day one. Leading to black sox.

Is there any coincidence that the owners colluded $$$ in 85, 86 and 87?

Rose was wrong. 100%
But he and players were getting screwed.

Action meet reaction.

 

[Rogah]

I disagree. People knew. Believed he did.

Stop engaging in revisionist history. There was a wide sentiment (until this week) that Pete Rose bet on games he managed, but never ones he played in. That is why this week's revelation was so noteworthy.

I never changed the topic. If you want courtesy then give it back. Making comments about 2nd grade teachings. Etc.

I didn't ask for you to give me courtesy and I don't care whether you do or don't. All I have asked is for you to show courtesy to the people in this thread who want to talk about Pete Rose and not have it hijacked into something else.

Seriously. Let it go. This thread is about Pete Rose.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Stop engaging in revisionist history. There was a wide sentiment (until this week) that Pete Rose bet on games he managed, but never ones he played in. That is why this week's revelation was so noteworthy.



Seriously. Let it go. This thread is about Pete Rose.

There is nothing to let go.

I say forgive him. You don't.

You may leave thread at any time.

 

[Rogah]

There is nothing to let go.

I say forgive him. You don't.

You may leave thread at any time.

In that case, how about you continue discussing Pete Rose and not try to hijack the thread?

 

[Rogah]

Didn't the ledger show he only had bets fir he reds to win?

The most recently revealed ledger had a 5 month sample of Pete Rose gambling, including gambling on his own team as a player, with no instances of him betting against his own team. I hope you're not suggesting that that ledger represents the sum total of Rose's gambling activities.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Didn't the ledger show he only had bets fir he reds to win?



Owners have screwed players since day one. Leading to black sox.

Is there any coincidence that the owners colluded $$$ in 85, 86 and 87?

Rose was wrong. 100%
But he and players were getting screwed.

Action meet reaction.

If I were the commish, id be scared to death that I would let him in, then evidence from another bookie or notebook shows he bet against the reds

But to be 100% honest, while he was a manager, every game he didn't bet on the Reds, he in essence bet against them. You cant say he wouldn't be more likely to use a certain pitcher on a game he bet on, or save their availability for a game he wanted to bet on.

 

[Rogah]

If I were the commish, id be scared to death that I would let him in, then evidence from another bookie or notebook shows he bet against the reds

Good point. There really is an ongoing pattern with this guy that every couple of years, we get another revelation that he has been denying.

But to be 100% honest, while he was a manager, every game he didn't bet on the Reds, he in essence bet against them. You cant say he wouldn't be more likely to use a certain pitcher on a game he bet on, or save their availability for a game he wanted to bet on.

Exactly. It always amuses me how people like to point out he didn't bet against his own teams as if (1) that's a given fact, which it isn't and (2) as if it makes any difference.

The nights he bet on his team he would blow out his pitcher's arm to get a win. The nights he didn't bet on his team, he was essentially betting against them.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Didn't the ledger show he only had bets fir he reds to win?



Owners have screwed players since day one. Leading to black sox.

Is there any coincidence that the owners colluded $$$ in 85, 86 and 87?

Rose was wrong. 100%
But he and players were getting screwed.

Action meet reaction.

Sounds like Mara, Rooney and Krafty would look like saints compared to the baseball owners . . . . maybe Jerry an angel?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

If I were the commish, id be scared to death that I would let him in, then evidence from another bookie or notebook shows he bet against the reds

But to be 100% honest, while he was a manager, every game he didn't bet on the Reds, he in essence bet against them. You cant say he wouldn't be more likely to use a certain pitcher on a game he bet on, or save their availability for a game he wanted to bet on.

Yes. You are right.

Either forgive for everything from A to Z or don't.


It's don't..... Until they do.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Good point. There really is an ongoing pattern with this guy that every couple of years, we get another revelation that he has been denying.
Exactly. It always amuses me how people like to point out he didn't bet against his own teams as if (1) that's a given fact, which it isn't and (2) as if it makes any difference.

The nights he bet on his team he would blow out his pitcher's arm to get a win. The nights he didn't bet on his team, he was essentially betting against them.

Or he just couldn't bet EVERY game?

 

[BringBackThatOleTimeBoys]

Owners have screwed players since day one. Leading to black sox.

Comiskey ran a sweatshop with the White Sox > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal

Said this before, you can dig up something on just about anyone in sports or in general.

On threads on various players violating the rules, it's not that subtle that positions will be made based on if a member likes or dislikes that player. A more objective criteria is how serious was the violation? MLB has made gambling to baseball like a vet to animal abuse or a clergyman to molestation - inexcusable. No if's ands or buts about this. Rose knew what he was doing and suffered the consequences.

In isolation, I think Nixon was a great foreign policy President, and we all know it was clouded by Watergate. Sorry about the political reference, but like Rose, it's greatness negated by grave moral failings.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Yes. You are right.

Either forgive for everything from A to Z or don't.


It's don't..... Until they do.

And I don't see how people can when he hasn't been honest at all. Had he come clean in 1990 or so, I think assuming he never bet against his own team, it would be a bit much to keep this going. Had he come clean in 1996 during the Jim Grey interview, some 10 years before he wanted to drum up interest for his book, I would at least be in favor of him getting in posthumously. But now, he doesn't deserve it.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Had he come clean in 1990

Everything would be different today. Which means 25 years later he would likely be in the hof.