- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If Pete Rose Only Bet On His Own Team
Posted on 6/25/15 at 2:33 am
Posted on 6/25/15 at 2:33 am
As opposed to betting on the opposing team, then why is that even considered an issue?
The prohibition against gambling is such a serious offense because everything about professional sports is reliant underlying condition of the contest being competitive. If the contest isn't actually competitive it becomes a complete farce that nobody would/should pay to see.*
So why would anyone care if Pete Rose bet on his own team? Serious question. Is a "slippery slope" argument all that's gonna be offered up here?
Fixing matches is a problem in tennis -- especially at lower level events (futures and challengers) -- that has been dealt with very harshly by authorities and rightfully so. People are paying to watch a competitive tennis match. It *has* to be competitive. But I've never heard of a player getting in trouble for betting on his own matches and, in fact, there is a tradition of this to a certain extent as Bobby Riggs bet on himself to win the Wimbledon singles, doubles, and mixed doubles titles his first year in the event, and then he went out and won all three. This story was widely known, yes? And nobody cared.
Why should it be a probelm for a player to bet on his own team?
*Wrestling is popular because it's entertaining as written. So please, nobody make an argument that competition isn't crucial because it doesn't exist in pro wrestling.
The prohibition against gambling is such a serious offense because everything about professional sports is reliant underlying condition of the contest being competitive. If the contest isn't actually competitive it becomes a complete farce that nobody would/should pay to see.*
So why would anyone care if Pete Rose bet on his own team? Serious question. Is a "slippery slope" argument all that's gonna be offered up here?
Fixing matches is a problem in tennis -- especially at lower level events (futures and challengers) -- that has been dealt with very harshly by authorities and rightfully so. People are paying to watch a competitive tennis match. It *has* to be competitive. But I've never heard of a player getting in trouble for betting on his own matches and, in fact, there is a tradition of this to a certain extent as Bobby Riggs bet on himself to win the Wimbledon singles, doubles, and mixed doubles titles his first year in the event, and then he went out and won all three. This story was widely known, yes? And nobody cared.
Why should it be a probelm for a player to bet on his own team?
*Wrestling is popular because it's entertaining as written. So please, nobody make an argument that competition isn't crucial because it doesn't exist in pro wrestling.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 2:35 am
17
Posted on 6/25/15 at 2:41 am to SystemsGo
quote:
Why should it be a probelm for a player to bet on his own team?
Because when he doesn't bet he is telling other gamblers to bet against his team.
Plus, at this point can you really believe he didn't bet against his team?
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:24 am to SystemsGo
Give him the HoF.
Period.
Period.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:55 am to SystemsGo
Fork, done.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 6:39 am to SystemsGo
The Legend of Pete Rose far surpasses the actual player Pete Rose. Let's be honest, Pete was a very good but not great player.
Sure he is the career hits leader but he did it over 23 seasons. He played power positions (1st,3b,OF) with avg to below avg power and few SBs. he was an avg defender.
Just saying he achievements are more on the quantity side then the quality but baseball seems to reward quantity over quality. He should NOT even be in the same room with the all timers like Ruth, Mays, Gehrig, Gibson, Koufax, Bench, Gordon, etc
Sure he is the career hits leader but he did it over 23 seasons. He played power positions (1st,3b,OF) with avg to below avg power and few SBs. he was an avg defender.
Just saying he achievements are more on the quantity side then the quality but baseball seems to reward quantity over quality. He should NOT even be in the same room with the all timers like Ruth, Mays, Gehrig, Gibson, Koufax, Bench, Gordon, etc
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 6:44 am
Posted on 6/25/15 at 7:16 am to SystemsGo
quote:
So why would anyone care if Pete Rose bet on his own team? Serious question. Is a "slippery slope" argument all that's gonna be offered up here?
I wouldn't personally consider it a "slippery slope." He bet on baseball, and lied about it for 20 years. He finally fessed up to betting, but lied about only doing it while managing for another 10 years. He's created a clearly defined appearance of impropriety. Sure, he could be given the benefit of the doubt that he never bet against the Reds or did anything to try to influence the outcomes of games(outside of the norm). But he doesn't deserve that benefit.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 7:32 am to SystemsGo
No one should believe a word he says. He's been proven as a compulsive liar and as someone with only his personal gains in mind.
It's completely reasonable to think he may have gotten into a big hole with bookies at times and they offered to wipe his slate clean if he threw a game.
It's completely reasonable to think he may have gotten into a big hole with bookies at times and they offered to wipe his slate clean if he threw a game.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 7:36 am to SystemsGo
Because you get into debt with the mob, you will do whatever the tell you to do, including better against your own team.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 7:43 am to SystemsGo
Chris Russo (Mad Dog guy, with his own XM channel) had the Dowd report guy on the other day and went on the attack over this, basically saying what you're saying here. He kept asking "do you have any evidence anywhere Pete bet against his own team?" Dowd deflected and eventually hung up because Russo was a little too much of a spaz. But Russo's point was that Pete may have been a dirtbag, yeah he's a liar, but his competitive nature would never let him tank or take plays off. Like he said, for all the people who probably hate Pete, never once has a player come out of the woodwork to say Pete said certain things or acted a certain way to get somebody else to take it easy so Rose could win his bet. I understand the slippery slope arguments and that baseball is about 162 games, not 1, but I would probably still let him in if there is no evidence of tanking.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 7:44 am
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:11 am to SystemsGo
Honest question - would people be so quick to defend, say, Craig Biggio, if he were the one in question?
Why does Pete Rose warrant such a defense if what we're talking about has (allegedly) little to do with on-field production?
I can actually understand the PED defense of "well everyone was doing it" because it's come out that a shocking number of players from that era were using, but betting on games in which you're playing and/or managing is much worse.
Why does Pete Rose warrant such a defense if what we're talking about has (allegedly) little to do with on-field production?
I can actually understand the PED defense of "well everyone was doing it" because it's come out that a shocking number of players from that era were using, but betting on games in which you're playing and/or managing is much worse.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 8:13 am
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:17 am to SystemsGo
Betting on your own team while you're the manager has to be the biggest offense possible when it comes to current players/managers gambling on games. No fricking way that should be condoned. Under any circumstances
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:17 am to SystemsGo
Wonder if anyone has ever went back and looked at the lines for the Reds on the time period and games he is accused of betting, and then see how he would have fared? Would be really interesting at the worst and could provide some clarity on the whole thing
Posted on 6/25/15 at 9:03 am to SystemsGo
quote:
Why should it be a probelm for a player to bet on his own team?
If you're in deep and owe the mob a lot of money, you can then cause your team to lose and tell them to bet against you, all without placing a bet yourself.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 9:16 am to SystemsGo
He's a proven liar, so I take everything he says with a grain of salt.
Second of all, even betting on your own team has ramifications. Let's say Joe Torre bet on the Yanks at -3.5 runs. If the Yanks were up by 4, you're damn right he'd roll Rivera out there whereas if he didn't bet he probably wouldn't waste Rivera on a game that's already won.
Second of all, even betting on your own team has ramifications. Let's say Joe Torre bet on the Yanks at -3.5 runs. If the Yanks were up by 4, you're damn right he'd roll Rivera out there whereas if he didn't bet he probably wouldn't waste Rivera on a game that's already won.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:14 am to SystemsGo
You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. It's hard to tell exactly what schemes a person could be trying to do once a participant starts operating in thathe world. Who knows the extent of what Rose was doing and what was just what he got caught with. Because it is potentially so detrimental to the integrity of the game, it is best to just outlaw it completely.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 12:12 pm to SystemsGo
This is a very surprising thread coming from you, a seasoned gambler.
You should know the ramifications.
You should know the ramifications.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:49 pm to SystemsGo
Still no.
Makes a difference anyway, especially when he was managing. Use up the bullpen today or pay an injured player to ace that bet.
Makes a difference anyway, especially when he was managing. Use up the bullpen today or pay an injured player to ace that bet.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:58 pm to SystemsGo
screw pete rose. If he would have been contrite from the beginning and admitted to things I imagine stuff would be a lot different for him, he would not be in the hall but he may have been able to be more a part of the game. The denials for decades and along with those denials came some vitriolic stuff towards MLB.
Betting on the game is a major sin in MLB. He will never get into the HOF and thats ok with me.
Betting on the game is a major sin in MLB. He will never get into the HOF and thats ok with me.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News