- 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
re: How do you ban Pete Rose for life and do nothing to Stros?
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:17 pm to Hailstate15
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:17 pm to Hailstate15
Didn’t Pete Rose finally admit to betting iirc ?
I do think Rose should be in the Hall of Fame though. Everyone knows he has the most hits in the MLB.
I do think Rose should be in the Hall of Fame though. Everyone knows he has the most hits in the MLB.
2
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:20 pm to Klingler7
He’s never fully admitted to it, although in a book he gave up a lot of it. Giamatti probably would’ve gotten him n the game again but he died. Then Selig and Vincent went by the hardline Giamatti set, which was correct The Dowd report details how illegal and in debt he was.
As long as he is banned he does not belong in, if that’s the standard they used for Jackson
IIRC he was suspended for life but could reapply for readmission after a year but it had to be directly to Giamatti and Rose then refused to with Vincent which gave Selig no choice either.
As long as he is banned he does not belong in, if that’s the standard they used for Jackson
IIRC he was suspended for life but could reapply for readmission after a year but it had to be directly to Giamatti and Rose then refused to with Vincent which gave Selig no choice either.
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 6:27 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:26 pm to sms151t
quote:
He’s never fully admitted to it.
Odd, the first two Google search hits for "Pete Rose Betting" are his Wikipedia that references his autobiography, where he said he bet on games, and an ESPN OTL story about an interview with Dan Patrick where he admits to betting on Reds games.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:29 pm to Cowboyfan89
Its not that he bet it’s the way also he hasn’t fully admitted to. The Dowd report details the shady folks.
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 6:30 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:38 pm to sms151t
quote:
Its not that he bet it’s the way also he hasn’t fully admitted to.
So him saying it in his autobiography and saying in an interview that he bet on them every night isn't him "fully admitting" that he bet?
Huh?
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:41 pm to Cowboyfan89
He hasn’t come out and admitted to doing it with the bookies and where he placed some. Go read the Dowd report He’s said he bet on games and his teams. But he hasn’t talked about who and why he made bets That’s what a full admission is
I don’t understand why you’re knighting for a guy who broke the one rule you can’t even bend. He knew what he did was against the rules and even more so against the law.
I don’t understand why you’re knighting for a guy who broke the one rule you can’t even bend. He knew what he did was against the rules and even more so against the law.
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 6:43 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:48 pm to sms151t
quote:
I don’t understand why you’re knighting for a guy who broke the one rule you can’t even bend. He knew what he did was against the rules and even more so against the law.
Knighting for him?!
LMAO!
I'm not knighting for him. Just trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about. And now I see it's trivial details to the larger issue. The fricker bet on games...who cares who he placed the bets with and why?
I mean, if he was placing bets with some Catholic school teachers, does that make it any less of a broken rule? Does the rule define who you can and cannot bet with, or that you can't bet on games?
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:49 pm to Cowboyfan89
The rule actually does. I posted it earlier. Read paragraph 3
And you are knighting by saying he made an admission which he hasnt
And you are knighting by saying he made an admission which he hasnt
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 6:51 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:50 pm to sms151t
quote:
The rule actually does. I posted it earlier. Read paragraph 3
Read Paragraph 2. He said he bet on the Reds. How does Paragraph 2 not apply?
quote:
And you are knighting by saying he made an admission which he hasnt
Do you even fricking Google, baw?
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:51 pm to Cowboyfan89
Because he made the bets illegally. He used an illegal bookmaker to place the bets. That’s what they want him to admit to along with his decisions on why he made specific bets
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:53 pm to Cowboyfan89
Apparently you don’t google. He’s never made a full admission. He’s made a partial
He has never come out and gave up everything
He has never come out and gave up everything
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 6:54 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:53 pm to sms151t
quote:
Because he made the bets illegally
IT DOESN'T frickING MATTER! Paragraph 2 says if you fricking bet on a game you have a "duty to perform it", you are permanently ineligible. Why the frick would it matter at this point if he says who and why, when he has clearly said he bet on the Reds. Go look it up.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:54 pm to sms151t
quote:
Apparently you don’t google.
Apparently, you can't read your own damn posts.
quote:
(2) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.
quote:
"I bet on my team every night"
That's from the OTL article.
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:54 pm to Cowboyfan89
Paragraph 3 states explicitly if it’s illegal the commissioner can make determination
Go read what I posted.
Go read what I posted.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:55 pm to sms151t
Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers, or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are accepted.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:55 pm to sms151t
That paragraph superseded 1 and 2
You are not very good at reading rules
You are not very good at reading rules
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 6:57 pm
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:57 pm to sms151t
quote:
That paragraph superseded 1 and 2
So a rule that makes you atleast 1 year ineligible superceded a rule that makes you permanently ineligible?
Damn you make no sense.
Posted on 1/13/20 at 6:58 pm to Cowboyfan89
Read the rule it is the Commissioner decision and he also said he could reapply in one year but he wouldn’t to Vincent or Selig. So this thing is on Rose
Posted on 1/13/20 at 7:02 pm to sms151t
Bruh, you need to read rule 2 alittle closer and then go read some more on the interwebs.
So are you saying they knew he illegally gambled, but that they didn't know he was betting on his own team while he was playing?
So are you saying they knew he illegally gambled, but that they didn't know he was betting on his own team while he was playing?
Posted on 1/13/20 at 7:04 pm to Cowboyfan89
They didn’t know and go read the Dowd. He only for a decade would admit to betting on non Reds games. Maybe go read the Dowd report.
They only knew he was betting on games when it first opened not on own team as a Manager or player
Issue is Giamatti died and he never said anything so they just can only go off the report and Rose’s lies. There was a reason he would never apply for reinstatement with Vincent Selig I get but Vincent he should have, but he probably would got caught in another lie.
They only knew he was betting on games when it first opened not on own team as a Manager or player
Issue is Giamatti died and he never said anything so they just can only go off the report and Rose’s lies. There was a reason he would never apply for reinstatement with Vincent Selig I get but Vincent he should have, but he probably would got caught in another lie.
This post was edited on 1/13/20 at 7:07 pm
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News