Considering that the bulk of Ruth’s career happened after the Black Sox, it’s pretty unlikely that he would’ve bet on baseball.
You don’t. You just don’t want players who threatened the integrity of the game in the Hall.
Actually, part of that still smacks of hypocrisy to me–that Shoeless Joe Jackson is not in the Hall. It has never been proven that Jackson was part of the plot; indeed, he hit over .400 for the series and committed no errors, strange behavior from somebody who was allegedly trying to throw games.
An interesting counterpoint to Rose’s story is the very similar story of Hansie Cronje, the late South African cricket captain who was banned for life for match-fixing in 2000. Cronje admitted his guilt and was immediately barred by the International Cricket Council (ICC) from all cricket. While nobody ever disputed the ICC’s decision, more than one South African commentator wondered why similar justice hadn’t been meted out to Dennis Lillee and Rodney Marsh, two Australian cricketers who had admitted betting against their own team against England in 1981 (Australia lost that game, against odds of 500-1). What saved Lillee and Marsh seemed to be that Australian authorities treated their wager as a one-off joke bet.
Rose can’t point to that, as he’s accused of gambling over a period of years, but he could point to, say, Michael Jordan (a professional athlete with a long history of gambling on just about everything), and ask why he hadn’t been more carefully scrutinized. It’s true Jordan never got caught betting on basketball, but it’s also true that the NBA probably didn’t try to look too hard to find out.
Rose and Cronje strike me as similar characters: hard-nosed, successful but largely unloveable competitors who shared a weakness for easy cash. Lillee and Jordan, on the other hand, were the lionized superstars who had the fame and needed a gamble or two to keep their interest ticking. I’m not saying Rose and Cronje got in trouble for their personalities. But that probably didn’t help.
First things first, Duke:
Duke, you are simply misinformed. Let me be absolutely crystal clear here:
Joe Jackson himself said he was a part of the plot. He said he was a part of the plot, he said he accepted $5000 from Lefty Williams as payment for his part in the plot, he gave details about how he joined the plot and who he dealt with, and he said that he helped to throw Game 2, at least. And he said it UNDER OATH!
If you don’t believe me, look it up. And he hit .375, not “over .400.” Now, if JOE JACKSON HIMSELF admitting his guilt, under oath, that he was a part of the plot, isn’t good enough for you, what would be?
Now, Susanann:
So far as I am aware, nobody has ever truly made an honest effort to determine if Brad Pitt is an axe murderer. Does that constitute evidence he’s an axe murderer?
Once again, I am going to ask; do you have eny EVIDENCE Ruth bet on baseball? If you don’t, then what the heck are you talking about? We have EVIDENCE Rose bet on baseball; we have evidence, and a confession, that Joe Jackson conspired to throw the World Series. We haven’t any evidence at all that Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Cal Ripken Jr., Devon White, Brooks Robinson, Buddy Biancalana or Manny Mota bet on baseball. So why are you talking about Babe Ruth?
So why don’t you get started and let us know when you find the evidence?
The rule against gambling has absolutely NOTHING to do with “Strict moral standards” Neither I nor anyone else is saying people should be banned from baseball because gambling is immoral. I don’t think morality has anything to do with this (I like gambling, actually.) There’s nothing wrong with ME gambling on pro sports, because it’s not a conflict of interest. I am not a profesisonal athlete. Rose is banned for gambling because gambling is against the rules - Rule 21. And that rule exists because gambling is a conflict of interest and can destroy the institution of professional baseball.
I have explained this already, in this thread and in others. Those things are not the subject of a lifetime ban because those thing to not have the potential to destroy Major League Baseball. You’re throwing non sequiturs around.
There is a golden rule in baseball: Don’t bet on the games. If you do, you will be banned. For life.
Rose knew this rule and broke it, apparently. Some say he is even going to admit to it.
It doesn’t matter what the rule is. For all I care the golden rule could be that you shouldn’t tuck a napkin into your collar. If you break the rule, you pay the price. Rose needs to pay the price: Lifetime ban.
Is the rule screwed up in terms of other “bad” things players can do? shrug… that is another debate. Rose broke the rule. He should be banned for life.
The real question is why people think that just because Rose has more hits than any other player he should be in the Hall. Why give him an exception? Because he was good? If that is the case, how good do you need to be before the rules no longer apply to you?
Susann, your Babe Ruth thing makes no sense. Pete Rose isn’t suspected of gambling. He did it, and he admitted it- he’s just never done so in public before. His acceptance of the lifetime ban from the sport was essentially a plea bargain. There is no doubt that he bet on baseball, as opposed to Babe Ruth, about whom there is no reason to think he ever bet on baseball.
It has nothing to do with morality. Ty Cobb might’ve been the biggest jackass in the history of professional sports, but he was a great baseball player, so he’s in. It’s not about morality, it’s about the integrity of the game as a whole. Maybe that sounds silly, but if there’s reason to think the managers are losing games on purpose, the sport becomes a complete joke. Similarly, the fact that Ruth liked to bet on the ponies has nothing to do with baseball.
Who said he bet on his team to win? I’m pretty sure he bet against them at times. Does that strike you as a slight conflict of interest? And I’m not aware of anyone who’s admitted using steroids getting into the Hall.
My 2 cents? Pete Rose is an asshole who thinks the rules don’t apply to him. Bud Selig (no prize pig himself) will be a real loser if he proves that Pete is right.
Well, shouldnt someone??? start investigating Michael Jordan?
Well, shouldnt someone??? start investigating Michael Jordan? to find out if he ever did bet on a basketball game, in order to prevent him from ever getting into the Basketball Hall of Fame, from him ever being involved in the management or ownership of any basketball team, or whatever?
Why not have the NBA or the basketball hall of fame(if there is one) require a lie detector test before admitting anyone, either as a player, manager, owner, hall of famer, or whatever?
Hey, if you want to get into the basketball hall of fame, the baseball hall of fame, or be involved in the business end of the sport, then take the lie detector test voluntarily, else, keep them out.
If we did find out that Michael Jordan, or Babe Ruth, or Ty Cobb, or Gordie Howe, did ever make a wager on their sport, there would be no reason for any of their names, equipment, etc. to be in the hall of fame.
I think!!??? you’re over-punctuating, Susann!!!
Michael is subject to so much public scrutiny that I find it absolutely impossible to believe that he’s bet on basketball and we’ve never heard about it.
Because lie detector tests are unreliable and close to useless.
That’s just dumb. Even if lie detector tests were conclusive and foolproof, there’s still such a thing as presumption of innocence. It’s silly to treat people like they’re guilty when you haven’t even got a reason to suspect this is the case.
Um. Sorry, but Pete Rose bet on his team to WIN. He did not bribe umps, or line judges, and he played most of the players on his roster that were not in the injured reserve. Last time I checked, the object of the game is TO WIN. And, he didn’t place the bets; his brother did.
Also, yes, Ty Cobb absolutely was a jackass. And, hitting a fan, while in uniform, is, IMO a WAY bigger slap in the face to the “sanctity” (hm…sanctity…sanctimonious…hm) of the game, then betting that your team will win.
And, if we’re talking lifetime bans; can someone explain why that was waived for the waste of human chemicals formerly known as Daryl Strawberry, but not Pete Rose? A lifetime ban is a lifetime ban. Either it is applicable, or it isn’t. Strawberry is still on the Yankee payroll, last I checked.
Pete Rose broke the rules of MLB baseball. Do not gamble. That’s their rules, and there are excellent reasons the rules are in place. Mr. Rose should not be able to coach or work in the MLB, but the man deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
I don’t think that gambling is a “sin” or anything else. The only thing that Rose could have done that would have been damning was if he betted for a team that he coached to lose, and by how many runs, becuase he has control of that situation (basically). If he bets his team to win, I don’t see the problem with that at all. If he bets money on other ballclubs and other games his club is not involved with, who cares?
As long as he never bet on his own team to lose or threw a game, in my mind he never did anything wrong. Making gambling illegal is like making prostitution or marijuana illegal, consenting people will do them anyway, no matter what.
If you bet on your team to win a particular game, you can easily make changes that help you that day but penalize you on future dates. Betting on your own team to win means you have more interest in winning that day than in the long term interests of your team.
As such, betting on your own team to win is still a bad thing.
I’d never really considered that, Telemark. Great point.
I’ve said it before, He should be in for his on the field performance as a player, the gambling happened after he retired from playing and as such, should have no bearing on his HOF eligibility.
I find the whole thing absurd to the nth degree since the powers that be in baseball are corrupt to a degree that makes Rose look like he’s been washed in the blood of the lamb. Selig talking about contracting the Twins, a well supported franchise, which would “just happen” to leave his Brewers as the only team for the entire north central part of the country? Please. The joke here isn’t letting Rose in, it’s baseball itself. The entire rotten structure is going to implode upon itself withing 50 years and I say good riddance to bad rubbish. Baseball sucks.
And you also need to look at how he performed in the games they threw, not his overall performance. Didn’t he make a bunch of errors in the thrown games?
And the strange thing is that admitting he broke one of the most important rule in baseball after lying about it for years & years while badmouthing Dowd (who was right) might be what gets him reinstated. And I don’t trust the sportswriters to be smart enough to do the right thing. Admitting this should end all arguments for letting him in the Hall.
You only say that because you’ve got Angelos as an owner.
If MLB can survive Calvin Griffith, Peter O’Malley and the other yahoos who’ve attempted to ruin the game over the last 100 years it can survive Bud Selig as well.
There’s also another level to this. If it were merely the case that Pete Rose said to a buddy, “Hey, betcha a case of beer we win by at least two runs tonight,” we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It’s not the offhand bets between a player and a buddy or between players that Rule 21 is designed to protect against. It’s betting with professional bookies, who frequently have some less than savory associates. Said associates frequently also make use of a variety of more or less persuasive techniques to get other people to do what they want.
Now, imagine a fictional ballplayer. Let’s call him Paul Pansy. Paul’s a great player, but he enjoys gambling. Enjoys it a lot. He starts placing bets with a bookie. At first, he only gambles on other sports, then only on other teams, and finally on his own team, but only to win. He wins some of these bets, but over time he loses quite a few more than he wins. He starts making even bigger bets to try to cover his losses and gets even deeper. Even on his princely salary, he’s not able to cover his losses, and his debt to the bookie gets bigger and bigger. And so one day he gets a visit from some of the bookie’s associates, who suggest that he can pay off some of his debt by arranging for things to go a certain way in an upcoming game – or meet with an unfortunate and painful accident (or have potentially damaging information made public – pick your method of extortion).
Even if Paul has never dreamed of betting against his own team, he’s now in a situation where his actions regarding the game are being dictated by gamblers. And that loss of integrity in the game on the field (think what you may about the integrity of the players, owners, etc. off it) is the one thing that has scared the powers that be in baseball to death since the Black Sox scandal broke in 1919.
On another aspect of this topic, I’ll point out what often gets overlooked in when this topic comes up – there’s nothing that says MLB has to reinstate Pete Rose (or Joe Jackson, or anyone else) before they can be eligible for the Hall of Fame, except for the Hall’s own rules. The Baseball Hall of Fame is still an independent private entity, owned and operated by a foundation, and could sweep Pete in next week if it wanted by a simple change in its rules for eligibility. Granted, there’s no evidence that the Hall would ever do so, but it could, and there wouldn’t be a thing that Bud Selig or anyone else in baseball could do about it.
He didn’t make any errors in the Series. It has been claimed that an unusual number of triples were hit to left field (Jackson’s side of the outfield) which is unusual - triples are rarely hit to left, since that’s the shorter throw to third - and so maybe Jackson was loafing.
I don’t find that to be a terribly interesting bit of evidence. First of all, Comiskey Park back then was super deep in the corners - about 365 feet - so it seems reasonable to me that more triples would be hit in that situation than you’d expect today.
See, the thing is, it just does not matter. BECAUSE Jackson conspired to throw the Series, we can’t trust his performance. Maybe he did bat poorly on purpose in the games they were supposed to lose, and maybe he loafed on a few fly balls. Or maybe he didn’t. and just agreed in words to get a big payday. You can’t trust him, because what we DO know for certain is that he agreed to throw the Series and was paid for it. He was guilty the moment he went into a game as a conspirator. It wouldn’t matter if he’d hit .600 with eight home runs.
Pete’s admitted to betting on baseball games, and has stated that he never bet against his own team. He’s silent on the subject of whether he bet on his own team, but if he hadn’t, I’m sure he would have said he hadn’t. The Fifth Amendment applies to court proceedings, but it doesn’t invalidate the rule of common sense. Plus there’s Dowd’s evidence, which is that much stronger for Pete’s having verified the main point: Rose was doing business with bookies over baseball games. So I can’t believe Rose wasn’t betting on the Reds while he managed them.
Telemark has explained why a manager betting on his own team violates the integrity of the game: if you’ve bet a bundle on today’s game, you’re in a position to try to win this one in a way that hurts your team over the long haul. (rackensack has raised an important point about betting with bookies, too.)
If I had a vote, it would be No on reinstatement, and No on the HoF. Thanks for your confession, Pete; it came 14 years too late. Now take a hike.
The game has other integrity issues (e.g. the steroids business), but if we don’t deal with Issue A because we haven’t yet dealt with Issue B, we’ll never dispense with any of them.
Milwaukee brewers!
I want to move the Expo’s to Tennessee and call them the Moonshiners. Tennessee Moonshiners. Would MLB let me do it?
I agree that gambling on professional sports by players, managers or people who are actively able to influence the outcomes of games and scores completely undermines the integrity of the game. Gambling on your own team to win is still damaging because you can emphasise different objectives and produced outcomes which are outside of the interest of the team as a whole. A classic example of this in baseball is playing a pitcher on short rest and risking unnecessary injury because you may have bet on your team to win a particular game which might otherwise be of small or no importance to the team at large.
If it is accepted that gambling by insiders undermines the credibility and integrity of the game, then the punishment must be extremely stern. The MLB has a long established principle of banning players for life for this sin. I agree that there is a strong case for this level of severity because even one case of gambling by insiders can completely undermine the credibility of the game. The 1919 World Series scandal could have destroyed the game forever. If this is argument is accepted, then Rose clearly does not belong in baseball.
What I find puzzling is that Paul Hornung, former star back for the Green Bay Packers, also admitted to gambling on his sport and his sentence of a one-year suspension is, relative to Rose’s treatment, very lenient. Hornung is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He is still a revered, if tarnished, figure in the game. I don’t see why there should be a disparity between the treatment of these two offenders. Why is there such an outcry against Rose but hardly a peep against Hornung?
You answer your own question.
Hornung admitted that he had gambled, he didn’t lie his ass off for nearly 15 years. he came clean and admitted what he had done, apologized and accepted his punishement with a fair degree of grace and character, which are two things Pete Rose has very little of.
By the way, Alex Karras was also suspened with Horning for gambling and Karras still has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about it.
Also, there isn’t a rule in every NFL locker room against gambling on games, while there is one in every MLB clubhouse. This rule was poster well before Rose started playing so it’s not like he could claim he had no knowledge of it.