That's like saying a player who only juiced in the offseason is OK. It's the principle of the matter. Once you start allowing exceptions like that you'll have the beer leaguers in the bullpen placing bets on the justification that they don't usually play. Then it'll be the bench guys, starters on their off days, guys on the DL, etc. It's just a can of worms you don't want to open.No one has successfully explained to me how betting on the team you are playing for to WIN damages the integrity of the game. I can see betting a line, betting to lose, betting over/under or one of several dozen other permutations. Pete Rose bet on his team to win.
How does that affect the outcome of the game or integrity of a game? Really. This is a real question. How does a player betting on his own team to win affect the integrity of the game?
See ya
Tony
No one has successfully explained to me how betting on the team you are playing for to WIN damages the integrity of the game. I can see betting a line, betting to lose, betting over/under or one of several dozen other permutations. Pete Rose bet on his team to win.
How does that affect the outcome of the game or integrity of a game? Really. This is a real question. How does a player betting on his own team to win affect the integrity of the game?
See ya
Tony
That's like saying a player who only juiced in the offseason is OK. It's the principle of the matter. Once you start allowing exceptions like that you'll have the beer leaguers in the bullpen placing bets on the justification that they don't usually play. Then it'll be the bench guys, starters on their off days, guys on the DL, etc. It's just a can of worms you don't want to open.
:up That's the very question I've been asking for years.
I mean, he was supposed to WANT the Reds to win, right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning what he did, but like you said he didn't bet on his team to lose.
There's a pretty big distinction there.
No there isn't. The integrity of the game is in question. Do you really believe he never bet against his own team?
That's because so many players were on the juice. If all the 'roiders had decided to gamble instead, the game would be damaged beyond repair IMO.
That's like saying a player who only juiced in the offseason is OK. It's the principle of the matter. Once you start allowing exceptions like that you'll have the beer leaguers in the bullpen placing bets on the justification that they don't usually play. Then it'll be the bench guys, starters on their off days, guys on the DL, etc. It's just a can of worms you don't want to open.
The games where Rose didn't place a bet would be just like betting against them. Say he bet on the Reds when their ace was pitching and did nothing the other games. Insiders would know what he was doing and they would bet the farm against the Reds on those games.:up That's the very question I've been asking for years.
I mean, he was supposed to WANT the Reds to win, right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning what he did, but like you said he didn't bet on his team to lose.
There's a pretty big distinction there.
I TOTALLY agree. IF just as many players gambled as those who used steroids would have been involved....baseball would have gone the way of USFL....HISTORY. The game would have been infested with gamblers, bookies and low lives that would make the steroids situation pale in comparison.....it would be Don King-esque.
How does that affect the outcome of the game or integrity of a game? Really. This is a real question. How does a player betting on his own team to win affect the integrity of the game?
See ya
Tony
If they all bet FOR their teams to win, how would that destroy the game?
I won't need one. The Pete Rose fan club may be deep but it is not wide. The day that you get 75% of the baseball writers to vote in Rose is the day that Barry Bonds gets in too. It won't happen.Let him back in the game, and vote him him into the HOF!
Hope you have a coat for that cold day in hell anders.
That's a bold statement considering that Rose spent nearly 20 years denying that he even bet ON the Reds. There's nothing that Rose would not stoop to. His only regret is that he didn't play during the steroids era.I also believe Pete did not bet against the Reds.
I won't need one. The Pete Rose fan club may be deep but it is not wide. The day that you get 75% of the baseball writers to vote in Rose is the day that Barry Bonds gets in too. It won't happen.
That's a bold statement considering that Rose spent nearly 20 years denying that he even bet ON the Reds. There's nothing that Rose would not stoop to. His only regret is that he didn't play during the steroids era.
Because, you might play players, or make substitutions, in that particular game that you might not make otherwise.No one has successfully explained to me how betting on the team you are playing for to WIN damages the integrity of the game. y
Because, you might play players, or make substitutions, in that particular game that you might not make otherwise.
You might bring in a hot pitcher that is normally scheduled for the next game.
Or sandbag the prior games to increase the odds in the game your betting on in order to increase the winnings.
Pete Rose loved Pete Rose. He was an a$$hole's a$$hole.Speaking of BOLD statements full of BS!! That's a big one..........
Do you know the guy, personally? I don't, but I do know that Pete loved and lived baseball.