quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The integrity of the game is lost.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/01/bloodsport-excerpt-alex-rodriguez-new-york-yankees-steroids

---

Again , steroids are certainly a black eye, but there's no one out there questioning if a player or team is really trying to win -- the use of steroids only supports the fact that they are trying to win more.

---

PEDs give a person an advantage. It is cheating. For MLB to sanction and selectively decide who gets to cheat and who doesn't determines the outcome of games. Let's just use random letters for teams... if say Team NY gets 12 players an exemption for PEDs and nobody knows it but the team\players and their friends... And a player on another team doesn't get an exemption... the league has artificially skewed the team's ability to win.

Would it be fair to move the fences in 20' for some players when they hit and out 10' for certain other players? Everyone should be constrained to the same field of play.

You shouldn't allow some players to cheat because they want to win, while restraining others who want to win equally.

---

Can you at least see the difference between cheating to perform well (and at least by extension cheating to win games) and cheating that possibly indicates you did not always play to win? (That Rose selectively bet on games brings up the possibility that he may have held back in games in ways he otherwise would not have because he did not bet on that game in order to have a fresher team for games he bet on. In other words, Rose may have done things that hurt his team's ability to win games.)

If you think all of them should be barred from the Hall of Fame, that's fine. I won't argue that and I don't necessarily disagree.

But the Pete Rose v Steroid User issue isn't the case you're describing of restraining others for trying to win moreso than restraining others also equally trying to win.

If we're arbitrarily and capriciously granting PED exemptions to some and not others, than yes, we're skewing the game and the above applies, but you're responding to posts about Pete Rose, and Pete Rose isn't banned because he took PEDs.

p.s. Your understanding of the adderall-Chris Young situation is still questionable.

quote:

---

(That Rose selectively bet on games brings up the possibility that he may have held back in games in ways he otherwise would not have because he did not bet on that game in order to have a fresher team for games he bet on. In other words, Rose may have done things that hurt his team's ability to win games.)

---

I think this subtle and important point isn't obvious to many non-gamblers.

I have no problem with gambling being considered baseball's mortal sin for which there is no penance even after guys like Rose are long gone. I want the Hall to be the pinnacle destination for the game's most revered players. Gamblers and PED users both would be wise to understand this as to represent the sport with honor and integrity.

Sadly, Pete Rose's legacy will be "see, not even our own hit leader can gamble on our game." Fine by me.

Hopefully his example will serve as an effective deterrent.

quote:

---

Can you at least see the difference between cheating to perform well (and at least by extension cheating to win games) and cheating that possibly indicates you did not always play to win? (That Rose selectively bet on games brings up the possibility that he may have held back in games in ways he otherwise would not have because he did not bet on that game in order to have a fresher team for games he bet on. In other words, Rose may have done things that hurt his team's ability to win games.)

---

The problem with the above statement is... I've yet heard or seen anything raised as more than just a hypothetical. Your example falls on it's face because mhayden, et al, have affirmed that holding back in games is expected and considered an issue if they don't. You can't have it both ways. You can't pose a hypothetical that he might have done something and therefore should be banned, and turn around and say if he DIDN'T do it, that he did something wrong and therefore should be banned.

Did he bet on baseball? Apparently yes. Did he bet on his team to win? Apparently.

Did he do anything questionable? Not that I've heard. Did he bet against his team? Not that I've heard.

I think Bud Selig is guilty of Rule 21 by allowing a player to use steroids during the season, without disclosing it. We don't know how many other players he allowed and we don't know how many teams had advantages.

I used to love fantasy baseball and was first introduced to it in 1993. Does it not bother any of you that today... in 2015, we're about to start another season of MLB and there are some players who are allowed an exemption to break the rules and use known PEDs, yet we'll not know who they are or what they are being allowed to take? Was Pujols on the exemption list? Are the exemptions affecting Pennant and WS winners?

I have a hard time accepting the 2003 NYYs victories, knowing at least 1 of the 5 guys known to use PEDs that season was approved by MLB for taking them.

quote:

---

If you think all of them should be barred from the Hall of Fame, that's fine. I won't argue that and I don't necessarily disagree.

But the Pete Rose v Steroid User issue isn't the case you're describing of restraining others for trying to win moreso than restraining others also equally trying to win.

---

I'm not talking about HoF. Most of you seem fixated on the idea that it is about only wanting to win. If you are doing it to win, it is ok, even if it is cheating. I'm more concerned about fairness, the integrity of the game and equal treatment of players. Every team the 2003 Yankees faced were at a disadvantage. That disadvantage was sanctioned by MLB. If you bet on MLB... and you bet against the NYY... you were gamed.


How do you know this isn't taking place:

quote:

---

If we're arbitrarily and capriciously granting PED exemptions to some and not others, than yes, we're skewing the game and the above applies, but you're responding to posts about Pete Rose, and Pete Rose isn't banned because he took PEDs.

---

The conversation includes why Pete Rose was banned. It is because of "the integrity of the game." The integrity of the game is lost when the League Commissioner allows A-Rod to continue to take steroids and then win the MVP. The integrity is lost when the League allows some an exemption for PEDs, and not others... and there is no transparency as to who applies and what qualifies them for the exemption.

quote:

---

p.s. Your understanding of the adderall-Chris Young situation is still questionable.

---

How so? The effects of adderall have been well documented on here. I thought I had linked to anything anyone would question regarding Chris Davis. He had an exemption for Adderall in 2013, he forgot to get the exemption for 2014, he tested positive late in the season. The speculation is, some have speculated that he started taking it late in the season, in order to help his team win some games, and got caught.

quote:

---

The problem with the above statement is... I've yet heard or seen anything raised as more than just a hypothetical. Your example falls on it's face because mhayden, et al, have affirmed that holding back in games is expected and considered an issue if they don't. You can't have it both ways. You can't pose a hypothetical that he might have done something and therefore should be banned, and turn around and say if he DIDN'T do it, that he did something wrong and therefore should be banned.

---

You're purposely being obtuse.

There's a difference between holding back a pitcher for another game because it benefits your season as a whole than holding back a pitcher for another game because it benefits your POCKETBOOK.

People are going out to ballparks and tuning into games in hopes that their team will be successful on the field, not in hopes that the manager can make some money.

Surely you understand this.

Let's just poke at some numbers. You know me, I'm never short on words or numbers.

Player\Coach
1984: 19-22
1985: 89-72 (2nd)
1986: 86-76 (2nd)

Coach
1987: 84-78 (2nd)
1988: 75-57 (2nd)
1989: 59-66 (5th)

Rose was suspended 30 games for bumping an umpire and Tommy Helms filled in 1988.

In February 1989, first allegations were raised on gambling.
On August 24, 1989, he was suspended indefinitely.

So, if I were to guess... something happened in 1989. If it were just betting on his team or on other teams, I think we'd be hard pressed to find he wasn't committed to winning.

What could be a very real possibility is... because of his gambling, he was in debt and was found throwing games, in order to cover losses. At which point, MLB might have used the fact he gambled on baseball as an easier path to suspension. If, for example a player sent a message to MLB that something wasn't right.

By that time, I was an AL guy. We had moved from an NL town to Arlington and thus my daily awareness to the NL was limited. Not to mention I had found interest in college and "all that."

To me, pitching would be the obvious place to look.

Hitting is much harder, but this is intereating:
Larkin (SS): 151 GP '88 v 97 in '89
O'Neill (RF): 145 v 117
Daniels (LF) 140 v 44
Sabo (3B): 137 v 82
Davis (CF): 135 v 131
Diaz (C): 92 v 43

Six of 8 regular players all saw decreases in Games. Combine for 800 IP in '88 vs 514 in '89.
An average of 133 G in '88.
An average of 86 G in '89.

Doing a little digging, it appears he was believed to have bet 52 times on the Reds to win.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/03/this-day-in-history-sports-illustrated-publishes-an-article-alleging-pete-rose-bet-on-major-league-baseball-games/

quote:

---

However, it is known that he bet on at least 52 Reds games between 1986 and 1987, though there was never any evidence that he bet against the Reds, which I personally think would be the key point.

---

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-25/sports/sp-983_1_pete-rose

quote:

---

June 22--Dowd reveals during hearing that evidence shows Rose bet on major league baseball games, including Red games, during 1985, 1986 and 1987. The New York Times reports the FBI has determined Rose's handwriting is on betting slips seized from Peters.

---

quote:

---

You're purposely being obtuse.

---

I'm obtuse again.

quote:

---

There's a difference between holding back a pitcher for another game because it benefits your season as a whole than holding back a pitcher for another game because it benefits your POCKETBOOK.

---

Oh... back to your hypothetical... according to what I read up on... the 3 seasons in question he won 89, 86 and 84 Games. I guess if you think about it... him betting on his time probably drove him to get the W with more determination than other managers.

quote:

---

People are going out to ballparks and tuning into games in hopes that their team will be successful on the field, not in hopes that the manager can make some money.

Surely you understand this.

---

I think more importantly, this:

quote:

---

People are going out to ballparks and tuning into games in hopes that their team will have an equal chance to be successful on the field, not in hopes that the manager can make some money. MLB has predetermined winners and losers by allowing some players to avoid PED restrictions.

---

I think Rose ought to be re-instated for no other reason than the people who are holding judgment are guilty of far worse.

Equal chance on the field?

Maybe you've missed it, but there hasn't been a salary cap in baseball in forever.

And even in sports with salary caps, there are teams on the field with a major talent disadvantage.

Again, big difference between a talent/production disparity (via PEDs or otherwise) and a team flat out trying not to win a game.

They don't go to the game to see an equal chance on the field, they go to the game because they know the two teams on the field are trying to win.

quote:

---

The problem with the above statement is... I've yet heard or seen anything raised as more than just a hypothetical. Your example falls on it's face because mhayden, et al, have affirmed that holding back in games is expected and considered an issue if they don't. You can't have it both ways. You can't pose a hypothetical that he might have done something and therefore should be banned, and turn around and say if he DIDN'T do it, that he did something wrong and therefore should be banned.

---

If you base punishments on the extent of the hypothetical damage you believe could have been done, then there isn't anything wrong with that statement. And if you punish everyone on the hypothetical damage that they could have done with their particular actions, there isn't anything inconsistent about it.

If you're going to go bonkers over PED exemptions and the hypothetical damage done by PED users (we can't and won't ever prove how many home runs Barry Bonds would have hit without PEDs), you shouldn't get up in arms over people pointing out hypothetical damage that Pete Rose may have done.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about HoF. Most of you seem fixated on the idea that it is about only wanting to win. If you are doing it to win, it is ok, even if it is cheating. I'm more concerned about fairness, the integrity of the game and equal treatment of players. Every team the 2003 Yankees faced were at a disadvantage. That disadvantage was sanctioned by MLB. If you bet on MLB... and you bet against the NYY... you were gamed.

---

You just quoted me saying I'm not going to argue or even disagree if you wanted to ban PED users; you just quoted me as saying I'm not going to argue or even disagree if you wanted to punish people who cheated purely in an effort to perform better on the field, i.e. in an effort to win.

So no, don't turn around and tell me I'm fixated on the idea that cheating is OK if it is for winning. That's not what I said.

Their disclosure, or rather failure of disclosure regarding PED exemptions is a different issue. I'm talking about punishment of players/coaches/others who do things against the rules* to affect on-field results...and whether it is disclosed to me or not, the extent of XXXX player taking XXXX drug is the same. Chris Davis doesn't get more of a benefit and doesn't change the outcome of a game more than someone else because I know about Davis' adderall use and not the other guy's adderall use.

If you want to question the "integrity" of the game because the league office doesn't disclose exemptions, whatever...but they're not cheating and I'm talking about cheating.

*There's a legal term called "mens rea"- a "guilty/intending mind"- and I very much view those with more culpable minds more harshly than I do those without (just as our legal system does). I don't think the league office is cheating, nor do I think they're trying to swindle or screw over any of the fans. Pete Rose, on the other hand, knew he was breaking the rules.

quote:

---

How so? The effects of adderall have been well documented on here. I thought I had linked to anything anyone would question regarding Chris Davis. He had an exemption for Adderall in 2013, he forgot to get the exemption for 2014, he tested positive late in the season. The speculation is, some have speculated that he started taking it late in the season, in order to help his team win some games, and got caught.

---

I have to give you some credit- your new theory for Chris Davis is a more plausible theory of how his adderall use changed the outcome of games than some of your previous.

I stopped reading about half way down the first page of this thread. Rose bet on the Reds to win every game of the season, and he bet the same amount of money on every game. I'm not defending him, but I've read the Dowd report. The situation where, because of Rose's gambling, one game might be more important than another didn't happen.

I still think that (on the field) Rose was kind of the epitome of baseball. That is, he wasn't fast or strong or big, but he still managed to get well over 4k hits. Baseball is still the one professional sport with a place for the average guy and that's why I want to see Rose in the HOF.

That having been said, he should never again be allowed to be in a position to affect the outcome of any game.

quote:

---

I stopped reading about half way down the first page of this thread. Rose bet on the Reds to win every game of the season, and he bet the same amount of money on every game. I'm not defending him, but I've read the Dowd report. The situation where, because of Rose's gambling, one game might be more important than another didn't happen.

---

You obviously haven't read the Dowd report very closely, as it certainly does not say he bet on every Reds game for them to win.

Add to that, Dowd has even said after the fact that there some inconclusive evidence that Rose bet against the Reds -- he just did not have the time to solidify it due to time constraints of the report submisison.

Add to that I imagine if Rose was betting against the Reds, he was doing so at an out different than his usual ones (that knew it was him making the bets).


If you've listened to anything Pete Rose has said and think there's no way that guy would bet against his team, then I've got some ocean front property... Guy is a liar through and through.

But ignoring all of that... Do you know how easy it is to place a bet these day? A million times easier than it was back in the 80's.

You know how many players have been caught by MLB for betting on baseball?

None.

Seems like the rule has been an excellent deterrent.

The Dowd Report didn't say Rose bet on every game.

I don't feel all that bad for Rose.

First, Pete Rose raised hell in the middle of the Dowd investigation and ensuing hearings, eventually taking Commissioner Giamatti to court, throwing every cause of action out there that his lawyers could without getting laughed out of court.

Second, Rose agreed to his lifetime ban because he decided a lifetime ban was preferential to MLB releasing all of its evidence against Rose.

Three, Rose was being investigated and eventually pleaded guilty to tax fraud the same time he was getting busted for gambling on baseball- and then he got caught again a decade later for tax fraud. I know tax evasion shouldn't keep a guy out of the Hall of Fame, but it shows me that a) you can't believe the guy and b) he doesn't learn from his mistakes.

He's never been a cooperative fellow, he's never been an honest fellow, he doesn't learn from his mistakes, and he's been slow to repent (to the tune of nearly 20 years).

Sorry, Pete. You can't be an uncooperative ass and receive my sympathy.

p.s. It won't upset me if he's allowed in the Hall of Fame. Forgiveness, even when undeserved, is a beautiful thing. I just don't feel pity for his banishment.

Daboman: solid fail

Yep, as Dowd has stated, they found indication he bet against the Reds but didn't have enough proof to put it in the report at the time. They got to a couple of bookies who provided enough evidence to make his gambling a slam dunk case, but they know he was working with a number of others, including some big-time some east coast organizations. So we still don't know the whole picture.

We all know he's not the only one to alter the integrity of the game. Hundreds of others, both before and after Rose have in some way or another accomplished that. That's not the point in the argument.

The sticking point here is that none of the others agreed to a lifetime ban. Rose, in exchange for the investigation to cease and the allegations not be pursued any further, agreed to the terms of the lifetime ban.

You can't turn back around decades later and say 'Alright I want back in'. It doesn't work like that.

Lifetime ban = Lifetime ban

He had a very slim chance to begin with, but now he has a 0% chance of getting reinstated.

He's the most typical liar - only confesses to what he knows you have him dead-to-rights on. So now his confession will magically change from "only bet as a manager in 1987 and 1988" to "oh yeah, I guess I did as a player too, sorry about that".

yep^^^

Here is the deal... Pete Rose never bet against the Reds. Clearly there is no proof that he bet against his team.





























SO WHAT!

I've been very dismissive towards any proof that Rose did anything wrong, even if he bet for the Reds. The reality here is, his involvement may not have benefited him in a bet, it most certainly puts him in a situation where others could make money based on the decisions he made as a player.

If he bets on a Reds game, sure he'll play to win. If he doesn't bet on his team... that game is in question. Why did he not bet on those games? If he were $400K down to a bookie... as a player... you are in a position to affect the outcome, with advanced warning.

If legit (as they seem to be based on Dowd, et al), Pete is now exposed and will write another book... never to see the HoF.

quote:

---

Here is the deal... Pete Rose never bet against the Reds. Clearly there is no proof that he bet against his team.

SO WHAT!

I've been very dismissive towards any proof that Rose did anything wrong, even if he bet for the Reds. The reality here is, his involvement may not have benefited him in a bet, it most certainly puts him in a situation where others could make money based on the decisions he made as a player.

If he bets on a Reds game, sure he'll play to win. If he doesn't bet on his team... that game is in question. Why did he not bet on those games? If he were $400K down to a bookie... as a player... you are in a position to affect the outcome, with advanced warning.

If legit (as they seem to be based on Dowd, et al), Pete is now exposed and will write another book... never to see the HoF.

---

Betting against, for, it doesn't matter. He won't live to see the HOF now

quote:

---

Betting against, for, it doesn't matter. He won't live to see the HOF now

---

Agreed, if you thought I indicated otherwise.

If Dowd had more time and Rose hadn't cut his deal, I'm quite confident that it would have been proven that he either bet against the Reds and/or otherwise benefited (like having some debt forgiven) in some games where he wasn't betting on the Reds. I think he was fairly brash about betting on the Reds, but a conman like Rose would know to be smarter about his methods when it came to betting against them or otherwise benefiting from a Reds loss vs. the spread. Degenerate gamblers do what they have to do to get out of a hole.

generally speaking I figured Rose probably did bet on the Reds. But the new proof doesn't change my mind. 30 years is enough

Rose lied. Shocking.

Surely we can believe him when this conman tells us he only bet on the Reds.

Chris Davis forgot to renew his exemption for adderrol? I thought adderrol was supposed to help you concentrate

quote:

---

I stopped reading about half way down the first page of this thread. Rose bet on the Reds to win every game of the season, and he bet the same amount of money on every game. I'm not defending him, but I've read the Dowd report. The situation where, because of Rose's gambling, one game might be more important than another didn't happen.

I still think that (on the field) Rose was kind of the epitome of baseball. That is, he wasn't fast or strong or big, but he still managed to get well over 4k hits. Baseball is still the one professional sport with a place for the average guy and that's why I want to see Rose in the HOF.

That having been said, he should never again be allowed to be in a position to affect the outcome of any game.

---

This is all myth. Pete Rose was a great athlete that is why he was an all-star at so many positions. To act like he was average is comical. That is like people believe Dat Nguyen was not a highly recruited linebacker. He picked us over Michigan and that was when Michigan was really good.

quote:

---

Bonds and all the steroid users are a black eye for the game.

But they should not be mentioned in the same conversation as a guy like Pete Rose.

Pete brought into question the integrity of the game. If you're not sure if one of the teams on the field is actually trying to win (or actually pursuing a loss), then the game becomes no better than "professional" wrestling.

---

Or half of the NBA when there is a loaded draft class coming up.

Pete Rose to Remain Barred by Baseball, Sources Say

Good. Lifetime bans are for a life time.

quote:

---

In a detailed report on Monday that accompanied his decision to uphold the ban, Mr. Manfred said Mr. Rose informed him at the September meeting that he continues to bet on baseball, which he can legally do in Las Vegas, where he lives. That disclosure clearly concerned Mr. Manfred, as did what he described as Mr. Rose's inability, at the meeting, to admit that he not only bet on games as a manager but also as a player. "In short,'' Mr. Manfred concluded in the report, "Mr. Rose has not presented credible evidence of a reconfigured life either by an honest acceptance by him of his wrongdoing ... or by a rigorous, self-aware and sustained program of avoidance by him of all the circumstances that led to his permanent ineligibility in 1989."

---

This is all so dumb since Pete himself agreed to the ban in exchange for the MLB not making a formal conclusion on the gambling allegations.

People seem to forget that this wasn't MLB handing down a punishment. It was a negotiated and agreed upon settlement between MLB and Pete Rose.

quote:

---

This is all so dumb since Pete himself agreed to the ban in exchange for the MLB not making a formal conclusion on the gambling allegations.

People seem to forget that this wasn't MLB handing down a punishment. It was a negotiated and agreed upon settlement between MLB and Pete Rose.

---

And he's a liar who came clean just to make a quick buck

It's comical how far the bleeding heart libs at ESPN are pushing Pete Rose.