A rule is only relevant in the purpose toward which it aims to serve. The point of the "no gambling" rule in the MLB is to prevent fixing/throwing games. Betting on yourself to win compromises nothing at all, because you are supposed to try to win. If anything, Rose should be praised for trying to win that hard. He put it all on the field. He gave that game everything he ever had. Every inning, every at-bat. Rose was a warrior.

Not being allowed to bet on yourself to win is a stupid rule.

If you bet on your team to win one game but do not bet on your team to win a different game, you have an incentive, if not a plan, to try harder to win your bet. As manager, he had sole discretion how to utilize his assets to accomplish his goals.

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

You just don't get it.

Bookies care about one thing. MONEY. You want to bet on something.. no problem to them..

You're talking about trying to win games though. This is how all good managers manage games. If you're down 9-0, you don't put your closer on the mound that night. Pete Rose tried to win every game he bet on. It does not logically follow that he tried to lose the games which he did not bet on. There is no evidence whatsoever that he threw games. None.

I think you are intentionally trying to be obtuse. Nobody is suggesting Rose threw games. Clearly you don't understand the simple fact that if he bets on his team to win one game, but not another, he has greater incentive to win the game he's betting on.

No, YOU don't get it. Not one person in here has provided one valid reason for why betting on oneself or one's team to win a game/match might compromise the integrity of that game/match in any way. And no, saying, "but what about the next game that he didn't bet on?" is not an answer.

I've been a professional gambler for half of my life. Both sports betting and poker. I'm actually in Vegas right now, typing from my hotel room. I know how this industry works quite well. There is ZERO chance that any bookie is going to knowingly accept a wager on a team to lose from the coach or manager of that team.

If you want to claim that he had some other secret channel through which he bet against the Reds, or had someone bet for him, then that is a separate claim. But there is zero evidence of that claim, and it would be on you to prove that it happened.

So what? LOL. He has more incentive to win if he bets on his team to win? No shit Sherlock. What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with that. Put it all on the line. Put everything on the line. Who cares? He's trying to win. The MLB is not trying to prevent teams from trying to win games.

You're saying nothing. Literally nothing.

Any everybody else is aware of the incredibly obvious - that Rose broke rule #1 which was well-defined and known to him. Whether he should be excused and forgiven for it after so long is a reasonable debate, but your love of gambling is irrelevant.

Yes, we all know that the rule was well-defined and that he broke the (stupid) rule.

All of us have pulled up to an intersection that has a sign which reads, "No turn on red" when wanting to make a right turn at a red light. When there is traffic, most of us likely obey the sign. But if it's the middle of the night with no other cars in sight, only an idiot sits there and waits for the light to turn green so he can make his right turn.

Pete Rose was sitting at a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic, wanting to make a right turn.

As an attorney, there are lots of rules and laws on the books that I don't agree with. But, I don't get to decide whether a given law/rule is stupid or not, nor do I get to decide when its okay to violate it. If I violate a law/rule that I think is stupid and get caught, the penalty is the same as if I had violated a "good" law. That's just the way it is.

This seems pretty simple to me. Rose knew what the rule was. He chose to violate it. He got caught and got the prescribed penalty for that violation. He viewed himself as above the rules and, as a result, he screwed himself. That's the way it works, regardless of what his apologists might wish. End of story.

This was the #1 rule in baseball. He did not violate a clubhouse rule against not cleaning up after lunch. He didn't come to a rolling stop in the Reds parking lot. He didn't make a right on red in training camp. Pete Rose broke the #1 rule in all of baseball. The rule in every clubhouse, with prior lifetime bans given for it, and the stakes very well known. It was literally the biggest no no in baseball.

I would be more sympathetic to MLBs dudgeon about such lowbrow behavior if they weren't currently being sponsored by two sportsbooks, Fanduel and MGM Resorts.

That said, my only rigid opinion on the matter is that Rose should be kept out of the Hall solely because of what he did to Ray Fosse in the 1970 All Star Game.

Good analogy. However, if a policeman is hidden in the dark of night and sees you make the turn, he will give you a ticket. You can bet on it. Rose got caught breaking a clear MLB rule. Whether you like the rule or not is irrelevant. If it said you cannot bet against your team, he would not have broken it. However, it did not say that. It said you could not gamble and that he did. The banishment is warranted. He was one of the best to ever play the game. He gave his heart and soul to the game. But, he could not control his gambling addiction and deserves the punishment he received.

There were claims a few years ago about Rose having a relationship with a minor. He claims she was 16 and she says she was younger. From what I remember, this came out just before the Phillies were going to add him to their Wall of Fame and they ended up canceling that when the story was reported.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports....172143720.html

As a professional gambler, if you knew Rose bet on the Reds to win 4 games in a row then didn't bet on the 5th game, would that make you more likely to bet against the Reds in that 5th game since it seems like Rose doesn't have a good feeling about the game?

+1

I think the concept of betting for your team becomes a problem due to a few key facts:

1) It’s a long season. A good manager is making moves with the full season in mind, rather than just that game. Because the goal is to win more games in total, not just the ones that you bet on.

2) Moves a manager makes in one game impact the next game. And moves made in previous games impact today’s game. World Series game 7 is the exception, of course, because there’s no tomorrow, and you throw everything you’ve got in an attempt to win. Plus winning game 7 is worth other potential risks that a player might run, like getting injured, or aggravating an existing injury by playing whilst less than 100%.

3) We’re assuming he only bet on some games, and not on all of them. If he bet on all of them, or even almost all of them, then point #1 above is likely no longer relevant.

Since we’re having fun here, let’s dig into an example. Let’s say that Petey bets on the game 5 days from now. Maybe the manager has today’s starter skip his start to rest him up a little more. Or maybe gives him an early hook to avoid running up his pitch count and keep him fresh.

Then in the 2-3 games before the game in question, the manager selectively uses his relievers, deploying them in a fashion to make sure that the best relievers are fresh for the important game, rather than deploying them to win the most games overall.

For added effect, maybe the manager strategically rests some position players to keep them fresh for the important game, and lets the scrubs play more in the other games. You could probably go on here, maybe choosing to keep the other team from seeing some plays like a hit and run or a straight steal or even a bunt against the shift as a means of making it a more effective sneak attack when the important game comes along. Maybe the manager will choose to use a pinch hitter in an odd spot, just to get the hitter an extra look at a reliever that he might face in a critical spot in that future game.

Naturally, if you let your mind wander for long enough, it’s not hard to imagine a long list of moves that a manager could make to improve the odds of winning one game at the expense of other games. Even in relatively mild situations, it’s easy to imagine that 1-2 games around the game in question could be impacted. And in really extreme cases, it could multiply quickly, particularly if a manager ends up pushing a player and he gets hurt, thereby reducing the team’s chances while that player is out.

So particularly for a manager, unless they’re betting on every game, there’s the real possibility that managing like it’s WS game 7 for the games you bet on will adversely impact other games for your team.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer article:

"The biggest reason for the uproar over Rose’s return to the field in Philadelphia had less to do with his ban for gambling and more to do with the accusations of statutory rape that surfaced as part of testimony in federal court in 2017. That testimony only surfaced because Rose had filed a defamation suit against Dowd in 2015 following an interview on WCHE-AM (1520) in West Chester in which Dowd said a former associate of Rose told him that Rose had sex with underage girls “ages 12 to 14.”

“Michael Bertolini, you know, told us that he not only ran bets but he ran young girls for him down at spring training, ages 12 to 14,” Dowd said. “Isn’t that lovely? So that’s statutory rape every time you do that.”

Rose denied the allegations, adding that Dowd’s remarks were “entirely false in every respect.”

But as part of the defamation suit that followed against Dowd, new testimony suggested that Rose had a years-long relationship with an underage girl in Cincinnati during the 1970s after first meeting in 1973.

“Sometime after that, Pete Rose and I began meeting at a house in Cincinnati,” the woman said in a statement first obtained by ESPN. “It was at that house where, before my 16th birthday, Pete Rose began a sexual relationship with me. This sexual relationship lasted for several years. Pete Rose also met me in locations outside of Ohio where we had sex.”

Rose admitted in court filings that he had sex with the woman in question but believed that she was 16 at the time their relationship began “sometime in 1975,” when Rose was 34 years old and married with two children.

Because of the statute of limitations, Rose could not be charged with a crime."

He’s admitted to the telationship.he claims she was a year older or some bs.

I couldn't possibly know this. Nor could anyone else placing bets. The only people who would know are whoever his bookie was, or anyone he may have told to bet against them. But his bookie isn't placing bets, he's taking them. Bookmakers don't want to gamble. They want the same amount of money bet on both sides so they can take the "juice" in the middle. But even just knowing that Pete didn't place a bet is not in itself enough information for it to be profitable to act upon. The fact that Pete bet on the Reds to win every game just tells me that he's competitive and a degenerate gambler. It doesn't tell me he's a sharp bettor whose opinion is worth caring about. It also doesn't inform me of why he's not betting a particular game. Is it because he's broke? Running bad? Needs to move funds from account A to account B? Is it because he walked under a ladder that morning and believes in superstitions, as most gamblers do, so he laid off the bet that day? Or is it something actually meaningful like his starting pitcher experiencing shoulder pain? I would have no way of knowing unless he informed me.

Which brings us back to the question of whether or not he actually bet against his team. Or had someone else do that for him. There is no evidence that this occurred.

No opinion on Rose, but Bonds and Clemens no way. I'm a former steroid user for 8+ years and actually monitored my results for strength, endurance, and recovery, testing the change in my abilities playing baseball, soccer, running, and weightlifting. The difference of being on-cycle and off was phenomenal and if I was a professional athlete, I could never expect someone to vote me into any Hall of Fame with good conscience knowingly having used steroids. All of this testing and experimentation was done outside of the US as I have resided overseas for 25+ years and only nowadays make trips back for baseball season.

For baseball, strength and the ability to connect hitting a baseball was vastly improved, in soccer my strength was incredible, shots on goal harder and the ability to kick the ball up field farther, for running my endurance was through the roof and for weightlifting, my strength and especially my recovery was absolutely incredible. In most exercises my strength more than doubled and in most cases was 3 times or more then when off cycle. Also, I could weight lift 6 days a week on-cycle and only 2-3 off-cycle without being incredibly sore.

As I dont think many on this board have first hand experience with this, there is an incredible difference when on a cycle. I tried most steroids and each cycle was slightly different in length. My favorite was always Test E with Deca (felt like a million bucks everyday) and the most difficult was when I went on a Tren A cycle. Had to stop that one early.

I have been off cycle now for about 3.5 years and have completed wellness checks every year. Nothing is out of the ordinary such as BP, cholesterol, heart rate, etc etc. When I was on cycle my diet was top notch as I paid someone to cook my meals 5 days a week.

Of all the countries I have been too (which is over 130 at this moment), I find the subject of steroids to be the most taboo in the US. However, for older men, they can be a miracle for people who are thinking of TRT, etc. My cycles were never at the dosages that professional bodybuilders take, at those levels there can and are serious side effects, but taking them for performance enhancement at lower dosages they are miracle drugs.

Having done cycles myself, if I was even able to vote for the MLB HOF, in good faith I could never vote for known users.

There seems to be some confusion about how sports betting works in this thread, or at least with respect to baseball. Perhaps some "inside baseball" here would be helpful (see what I did there? Lol)

You can only place bets after the betting lines are posted. In baseball, sports books / bookies do not post opening lines for games until the day before that game is to be played. So, if it were Monday, Pete couldn't place a bet on say Friday's game and then make roster decisions today that would affect that game. Betting lines for tomorrow's games are not posted until today's games have ended. This is so that the market cannot take advantage of injuries that might happen in real time.

Also, the betting lines are dependent on who the starting pitchers are for any given game. If a pitcher gets scratched, all bets are off and the bettors are refunded. The line is heavily dependent upon who those SP are. So Pete could not take advantage of that by changing out his SP. The lines are also affected by who is available from the bullpen. If Joe Blow just pitched in relief for the last 3 nights, that can have an effect on the betting line. So, while it is true that any roster moves Pete might make today could have an effect on their likelihood of winning tomorrow, it ultimately does not matter, because those same roster moves will also have an effect on tomorrow's betting lines once they eventually get posted (after today's games are over).

So, Pete's roster moves today, also move the betting lines for tomorrow, which won't be posted until after Pete already makes those moves. He cannot gain an advantage, either today or tomorrow, by trying to win today. The only way he could gain an advantage is by betting *against* his team and making real-time decisions to try to throw those games. But again, there is no evidence of him ever having done that. And no bookie on the planet is going to accept that bet from him.

If the statutory rape allegations are true, and it sounds like they are, then I say put his ass behind bars. Again, f* the "rules" (statute of limitations is BS). But I don't know if that has anything to do with whether or not he deserves to be in the baseball HOF.

Well said Ryan, and agreed that many from the Steroid era had an advantage. With that said, have a different room at the Hall. It’s history now just like past wars, the Great Depression, and COVID. Baseball made it through everything and it’s a timeline of our favorite pastime sport called baseball.

On a side note I bet you might get a couple of PMs on here since some of us collectors are over 50 ;)

Thanks for sharing a bit more about how the gambling world works.

Does this mean that it’s a theoretical impossibility for Petey to change his management approach to benefit the games he bets on in a fashion that might negatively impact other games?

I guess there would be no useful information obtained if a boxer who regularly bet on his matches abstained from doing so?

If the Reds were -170 and Rose bet smaller than his normal wager? Or not at all? Or bet larger at +130? Or not at all?

My Uncle taught me a trick at the thoroughbreds: He would watch the jockey or trainer bet. If specific jockeys didn't bet on his 2/1 or 5/2 favorite mount, my uncle would discount the pick. If he still liked the horse, he might throw it in to an exacta wheel, but never to win.
His choice didn't win all the time, but he said the other horse NEVER did.
He made a lot of money at the track.

Ryan,

Thanks for sharing your story. I think everyone can agree that steroids made a difference and gave those players an edge for sure.

This is nonsense. Jockeys and trainers are prohibited from betting on their horses. Your uncle did not do this. And even if they were allowed to, how would he know what their bets were?

Perhaps ironically though, in the wake of this conversation, is that a horse's owner is allowed to bet on their own horse, but only to win. They are not allowed to bet on their horse to lose, for obvious reasons.

No, of course not. He could do something stupid like putting tomorrow's SP on the mound in the bottom of the 8th in a tie game. That would increase his chances of winning today at the expense of tomorrow's game. But it'd also be a really stupid thing to do, and it wouldn't matter for tomorrow's game anyhow, because him doing that would change the betting line for the next day. No advantage can be obtained for tomorrow's game.

But I think what you're intending to ask, and if not, I'll propose the question as many have alluded to this above, is whether Pete changing his management approach to win today might create an opportunity for betting on tomorrow's game to be exploited by his actions today. And the answer to that is 'no', he cannot. Whatever actions he takes today will get baked in to tomorrow's betting lines. The only way he could cheat is by throwing a game and betting against his team.

But even in the example above, where Pete throws tomorrow's SP in the 8th to win a game, it would only gain him an advantage a few times at most. Because the betting lines would be set under the assumption that he wouldn't do something as stupid as this, but once he shows that he very well might do that in future games, the market betting lines will adjust. He could not gain an advantage even in this situation over the course of a season.

(This is off the top of my head) In 1998, Barry Bonds became the first player with 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Bonds' appearance hadn't yet changed. He got little recognition as the media obsessed about the exploits of McGwire and Sosa. Finally, a reporter wrote of seeing tubes of the clear in McGwire's locker. The resulting hullabaloo led by Tony LaRusa focused on the ethics of the reporter and whether or not he should be banned from the locker room for violating McGwire's privacy. The business of baseball marched on. Bonds was all but shamed into using. Most people would follow his path. Take away his HR record if you have to, but put him in the hall.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

No gambler bets on himself to win every bet they make. Therefore, Rose had to have bet on himself to lose games too. There is no way around that truth.

Don't know about horse racing
 

I don't know the horse racing rules, but to my memory (which admittedly is several years back now) a trainer, kennel owner, or dog owner could bet for his own greyhound, or against it by betting for another greyhound in the same race, in dog racing. The dogs are weighed and examined by a vet before the races to be sure they haven't been tanked with water, etc. and there are drug tests done after each race on the top 2-4 finishers to be sure the dogs are clean. Violations lead to fines to the kennel and trainers and loss of purses ($). Not to mention risking their state licenses and jobs. But I don't remember any kind of betting rules constraining the dog handlers in any way. BTW Rose frequented the dog tracks too, especially Tampa/St. Pete.

This idea that Rose only bet on himself to win games is absurd. First of all, as pointed out, it's always going to be hard to influence a game you want to win. If you could just do things to magically win the game, then you'd win every game.

Let's be realistic. It's much easier to lose on purpose and no gambler is going to bet on his team to win every time they place a bet on them. The whole purpose to betting is to win money. You're not laying down a losing bet because you're too proud to win it.

As I step aside from this expensive so-called "hobby", and with all the gambling today, I say, get the F over Pete Rose and put him in. The man has more hits than anyone, even the beloved Ty Cobb. If you're going to truly call it an HOF, and if it is going to have any relevance in society today, then put him in and get over it. About a dozen others also.

+1 👍🏻⚾️

Ryan, thank you for your detailed testimony and frank comments on steroid use. I must say Ryan's post should be NET54 's 2023 Post of the Year.

With this thread, there's been a lot of members in favor of allowing the major successful cheaters to actually be enshrined in the BBHOF. For shame. Yes, they may have had hall of fame careers going when they began using steroids, but so had Joe Jackson when he was caught up in the fixing of the 1919 World Series.

Just as Canada's "Big Ben" Johnson was stripped of his Olympic Gold Medal for testing positive to steroids after winning the 1988 Olympic Mens 100 meter dash finals, and was sent home in disgrace, the baseball players who greatly enhanced their numbers on the playing field should be disgraced every time a Baseball Hall of Fame election ballot comes up.

For what it's worth, the cheaters were not stripped of their exorbitant salaries they were paid during those years, but you better believe they should be stripped of any chance to be enshrined. --- Brian Powell

I sometimes wonder if people have mirrors in their homes. And if they do, do they see themselves true to who they really are? Or are they so self righteous, they fail to see and admit the negatives and flaws in themselves, while they negatively judge others.

-1

What does “all the gambling today” mean though? Players across different sports and officials too are being suspended for gambling. It’s still something you can’t do as a professional athlete.

Eventually, even if after everyone in this forum currently is dead - I think all will get in.

Bonds and Clemens are clearly less than innocent the way things stand today, but eventually with the lens of history, I think that people will view the game at the time as a whole and the fact of other highly suspected cheaters already being in as reason to give them the nudge over 75%. As others have pointed out, Selig is in - and it's kind of ironically humorous to me that he apparently literally doesn't understand why people think he is also culpable in the whole mess that is steroid era. Whatever. Note it on their plaques, and let them in. I have no issues whatsoever if this doesn't actually occur until long after I'm dead.

Rose? I mean clearly at the time, he broke the cardinal rule. He stepped on the third rail. Whether you believe the penalty for gambling in baseball is just or totally ridiculous, there was an understanding rooted in history and what came out of the Black Sox that gambling in the game is automatically simply the worst thing you can do if you are employed by baseball in any way, shape, or form. It was posted in every clubhouse. Today however, I think the lines are more than a bit blurry, especially now with Manfred's MLB and even individual teams getting cozy with sports books, and other online outfits that outright offer the opportunity to gamble. Pete personally has paid the price now I believe, nearly 35 years on - yes. But he's his own worst enemy. When you look at all the opportunities that man has had, all the ways over the decades to come clean and play nice with baseball - and he simply hasn't done it. Pete's gonna Pete at all costs, and in that regard - he has no one to blame but himself for his continual banishment.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

You're disconnected from the psychology of a true competitor. And that of a gambling addict. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, his betting record was seized by the FBI. His bookie kept notebooks with records of all of his bets. Every single Reds bet that was found was of him betting on the Reds to win. He also bet on other games and sports that he was not involved in, but every single bet he ever made on the Reds, for which we have records, was for them to win. There's even a stretch in there where he bet on something like 50 straights Reds games. All to win.

What makes it nonsense? He was a compulsive gambler. If he wanted to bet on any given day then he was going to bet. He's played the game his entire life. When did he ever win every game?

Where does this information come from? I didn't know there was a complete record.

I can say with complete certainty, that jockeys and owners [in Maryland] are permitted to bet on their own horses. It is done very commonly and openly. It is a serious violation to bet on opposing horses. Not sure about trainers.

Sorry to derail this further . . .

This is probably the first time I’ve someone called not a gambling addict in a derogatory way lol.

If one needs to be in tune with gambling addicts to get the justification of the action, perhaps that’s a clue that the action might not be a good one. I definitely don’t turn to drug addicts for advice on whether using drugs is good.

No on Rose. He gambled. Every clubhouse has a sign concerning no gambling. Anyone who reads any history knows about the Black Sox scandal. Rose accepted the lifetime ban.

The others? Sure. Just make sure they go into the new wing of the hall named The Scoundrels, with plaques describing their behavior. Also, add the other enshrined scoundrels like the racist Anson, the enabler Selig, and any others. This may end up the largest wing of the hall lol.

According to the MGM Grand (and numerous other sources), one of if not the largest sports books in the world, you are wrong.

https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ca...bet-on-racing/

Someone mentioned his name already, but Schilling is interesting because he does not fall in Rose's category or the PED category, he falls in the foot-in-the-mouth/big mouth/politics category...kept out on account of the morality clause because of what came out of his mouth, but just like with the PEDers, you have gents in the Hall who were flat out unabashedly racist, among other unsavory characteristics, some openly against integration of the game...

I do think that Schilling will get in before Bonds and Clemens, certainly before rose. He may have been doled out the purgatory stint for optics, but I do think that he will be in within the next decade off the veterans committee.

How many minds were changed by Ryan's post?